1. home and garden
2. gardening and landscaping
3. yard and patio

CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION
HEARING DATE: November 17, 2011
1:00
a)
Address: 1420 Alpine Ave NW
File No: P-BZA-2011-0036
Applicant/Owner: John Masucci (More Value Auto Sales)
Type of Variance: Use
Requesting: To demolish the house at 1420 Alpine Ave NW and use the lot for the
display of used vehicles for sale, an expansion of the business located at 1412 Alpine
NW.
Requirements: Low Density Residential. Used car sales are permitted in the MON/C
and MCN/C as a Special Land Use
Zone: TN/LDR
Lot size:
Inspection: Ron Smith
Frontage: 49.7 ft - Depth: 174 ft - Area: 8,647 sq ft
Ordinance: Article 5
Ordinance: Article 9
Section 5.5.05.B Uses permitted in TN/LDR
Section 5.9.35
Vehicles Sales Regulations
Previous Appeals and Disposition: 1420 - old misc for residential
1412 - Use variance for used auto sales
Motion:
T:\Planning Department\__BZA PROJECTS\_2011 BZA General Documents\ALPINE NW 1420 PBZA-2011-0036\PH INFO\Staff Page.docx
Variance Application
Application
Variance
A. PROPERTY INFORMATION
This single family unit is located in an area of modest to poor quality housing stock. It has a
Property Address __________________________________________________________________________
poor rental history due to multiple factors: It is located on a busy thoroughfare with average
The property was purchased by the
The essential
Parcel Number ________________________________
Zone
District
_____________
daily traffic of 17,169 cars per day (north of Leonard) and 15,926
cars
per day
(north of
owner in April of 2010 in its current
character of the
Richmond).
The
property
setback
is
10'
feet
from
the
sidewalk
causing
increased
noise
This
One
✔
Lot Size Frontage:
_____The
ft Depth:
_____setback
ft Area: _______
Acres/Sq Ft
… Rectangleneighborhood
…
Irregular
8,649
condition.
traffic count,
levels
singland poor sightoflines. Re-investment as a rental unit is financially infeasible due to the
noise levels and poor access was not
will remain
lowe value of the property
the (31,900 SEV), small size, and condition of the building and other
created by the applicant or its
consistent as
structures.
famil
them
predecessors. The tenant pool for this
this area of
y
es of
type
of
property
is
very
limited
which
Alpine has a
B. APPLICANT
INFORMATION
renta
the
has led to a poor rental history. A
mix of
Mast
1. Applicant homel was
three houses to the north on this
commercial,
built
er
side
the street has
burned the
as aSpecial Land Use:
Identify the person
or of
organization
requesting
industrial,
in
Plan
result
of
a
drug
deal
gone
sour.
It
is
institutional and
366-5474
Name ______________________________________________
Cell Phone
__________________
John Masucci 1890
is to
undergoing demolition.
residential
. It Auto Sales supp
Organization _________________________________________
Business Phone __________________
More Value
356-2402
uses. The
Mailing Address ______________________________________
Fax
__________________
356-2412
1412was
Alpine Avenue ort
applicant
origin
Vital
[email protected]
intends to
City _________________________
State ___
E-Mail ___________________________
Grand Rapids
MI Zip ________
49504
ally
Busi
expand an
const
ness
existing
2. Applicant Interest
ructe
Distri
business
The applicant must have
in the subject property:
d asa legal interestcts.
operating
in this
✔ Purchaser by Option or Purchase
Property Owner 687
Agreement
This
neighborhood
squa
Purchaser by Land
Contract
Lessee/Tenant
varia
for over 20
re
nce
years - 10
feet □ Check here
willif Applicant is also Property Owner
3. Property Owner
years under the
allow the subject property:
Identify the person or with
organization that owns
current
base
this
ownership.
Name ______________________________________________
Cell
Phone
__________________
Paul Masucciment
local
Currently there
Organization _________________________________________
Business Phone __________________
and
existi
is no visual
216
Mailing Address ______________________________________
Fax
__________________
2781
Blue Water Laneng
separation
squa
busin___
City _________________________
State
E-Mail ___________________________
Guy Bazzani
Grandville
MI Zip ________
49418
between the
re
ess
commercial and
feet
to
4. Agent
residential
was
expa
uses. Applicant
Identify any person representing the property owner or applicant in this matter:
adde
nd
intends to
Name ______________________________________________
Cell
Phone
__________________
Guy Bazzani
d at
and
install privacy
thrive
Organization _________________________________________
Business Phone __________________
Bazzania Assocaites
774-2002
x12 along
fencing
later
in
a
Mailing Address ______________________________________
Fax
__________________
959 Wealthy Street SE
774-0606
the north
date.
zone
City _________________________
State ___
E-Mail ___________________________
[email protected] border with the
MI Zip ________
49506
Grand Rapids The
distri
multi-family
buildi
ct
residential use
ngs
that
and install
need
inclu
cut-off lighting
exten
des
fixtures in order
sive
com
to mitigate any
reno
merci
adverse effects
vatio
al,
on the
n
indus
neighboring
trial Application & Review Standards
Development Center inclu
Variance
Planning
Department
property.
and
1120 Monroe Ave NW ding
Page 2 of 6
grcity.us/planning
Landscaping
roofi
instit
July 2009
will be616.456.3159
installed.
ng,
ution
carp
al
et,
uses
Variance Application
Application
Variance
C. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Current Use of Property.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
This property is currently vacant, located on Alpine Avenue NW between Leonard and Richmond.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
2. History of Property.
Describe how the property has been used in the past. Provide dates of operation, previously approved and
denied Variances, and other pertinent information.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
The property was purchased by the Owner in April, 2010. This single family home was used as a rental for the
_________________________________________________________________________________________
five years prior to the purchase by the applicant. The property is currently vacant.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Proposed Use of Property.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
The property will be used as an expansion area for an existing, locally-owned automotive sales lot adjacent to
_________________________________________________________________________________________
the south property line.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Explain Why a Variance is Needed.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
The current land is zoned Traditional Neighborhood - Low Density Residential (LDR). This property is adjacent
_________________________________________________________________________________________
to a locally-owned auto dealership which is in need of expansion.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Zoning Ordinance Requirement(s) for which you are requesting a Variance.
List the Section Numbers and the specific requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Section 5.5.05 B - Auto Dealership is not permitted in this district although this property is adjacent to an
_________________________________________________________________________________________
existing auto dealership in business for over 20 years.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
6. Type of Variance(s) Requested.
If you do not know what type(s) of Variance to apply for, please consult with Planning Staff (616-456-3159) before
completing this application.
… Dimensional
✔ Use
…
… Sign
7. Required Attachments
✔ Review Standards
…
Complete responses to the applicable Review Standards – Dimensional, Use, or Sign.
✔ Site Plans, Building Elevations and Floor Plans
…
Enclose site plans, building elevations and floor plans that show the current and proposed uses.
Development Center
1120 Monroe Ave NW
July 2009
Variance Application & Review Standards
Page 3 of 6
Planning Department
grcity.us/planning
616.456.3159
Review Standards
USE Variance
The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) will review the application package and determine if the proposed
Use Variance meets the required standards for approval. In the space below, and on additional paper if
necessary, explain how the proposed project meets each of the following standards.
Standard #1. Unnecessary Hardship.
Explain how the condition, location, or situation of the specific property or intended use of the property
that creates an unnecessary hardship is unique to the property and the Zone District.
_________________________________________________________________________________
This single family unit is located in an area of modest to poor quality housing stock. It has a poor rental history
_________________________________________________________________________________
due to multiple factors: It is located on a busy thoroughfare with average daily traffic of 17,169 cars per day
(north of Leonard) and 15,926 cars per day (north of Richmond). The property setback is 10' feet from the
_________________________________________________________________________________
sidewalk causing increased noise levels and poor sight lines. Re-investment as a rental unit is financially
_________________________________________________________________________________
infeasible due to the low value of the property (31,900 SEV), small size, and condition of the building and other
_________________________________________________________________________________
structures.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Standard #2. Not Self Created.
Explain how the need for the Use Variance was not created by the applicant or the applicant’s
predecessors in title.
_________________________________________________________________________________
The property was purchased by the owner in April of 2010 in its current condition. The traffic count, setback
_________________________________________________________________________________
noise levels and poor access was not created by the applicant or its predecessors. The tenant pool for this
_________________________________________________________________________________
type of property is very limited which has led to a poor rental history. A home three houses to the north on this
side of the street has burned as a result of a drug deal gone sour. It is undergoing demolition.
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
Standard #3. No Substantial Detriment.
Describe how the Use Variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, nor be a
detriment to adjacent properties.
_________________________________________________________________________________
The essential character of the neighborhood will remain consistent as this area of Alpine has a mix of
_________________________________________________________________________________
commercial, industrial, institutional and residential uses. The applicant intends to expand an existing business
operating in this neighborhood for over 20 years - 10 years under the current ownership.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Currently there is no visual separation between the commercial and residential uses. Applicant intends to
_________________________________________________________________________________
install privacy fencing along the north border with the multi-family residential use and install cut-off lighting
_________________________________________________________________________________
fixtures in order to mitigate any adverse effects on the neighboring property. Landscaping will be installed.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Development Center
1120 Monroe Ave NW
July 2009
Use Variance Review Standards
Page 1 of 2
Planning Department
grcity.us/planning
616.456.3159
Review Standards
USE Variance
Standard #4. Cannot Be Reasonably Used.
Explain how the land, building or structure cannot be reasonably used for the permitted uses in the
Zone District.
_________________________________________________________________________________
This single family rental was built in 1890. It was originally constructed as 687 square feet with basement and
_________________________________________________________________________________
216 square feet was added at a later date. The buildings need extensive renovation including roofing, carpet,
paint, kitchen, heating, electrical and plumbing upgrades. These basic repairs will exceed $37,500 - not
_________________________________________________________________________________
including foundation repair, basement waterproofing, asbestos removal, and driveway installation. With a SEV
_________________________________________________________________________________
of $31,900, and a poor rental history, the renovation of this small residential unit is infeasible.
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
Standard #5. Master Plan/Zoning Ordinance.
Describe how the Use Variance shall be consistent with, and not materially impair, the purpose and
intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District.
_________________________________________________________________________________
One of the themes of the Master Plan is to support Vital Business Districts. This variance will allow this local
_________________________________________________________________________________
existing business to expand and thrive in a zone district that includes commercial, industrial and institutional
uses intermixed with residential uses of varying densities. The majority of the frontage on the east side of
_________________________________________________________________________________
Alpine Ave. between Myrtle and Webster is in commercial use with additional commercial businesses on the
_________________________________________________________________________________
west side of Alpine. The rear property line borders an institutional use. Privacy fencing, landscaping and cutoff
_________________________________________________________________________________
lighting will be used to mitigate disturbance between the proposed auto lot and the residential use to the north.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Development Center
1120 Monroe Ave NW
July 2009
Use Variance Review Standards
Page 2 of 2
Planning Department
grcity.us/planning
616.456.3159
Moore, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Harold Hamilton <[email protected]>
Friday, October 07, 2011 12:34 PM
[email protected]
1420 Alpine NW
Guy,
I am in full support of the use variance at 1420 Alpine Ave NW to become a small car sales business.
It’s refreshing to see that a business has shown interest in that location that I hope will be the starting
of revitalization of the area that has mostly run down rental properties.
This is a good fit due to Alpine being a 4 lane street that could support that type of business and
future business that comes to the Westside area.
Sincerely Yours,
Harold Hamilton
1127 Van ess NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
1
October 20, 2011
Board of Zoning Appeals
1120 Monroe Ave NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
RE: 1412 Alpine Ave. N.W.
Dear Board Members,
The West Leonard Business Association has been recently approached and made aware of a
project for the expansion of More Value Auto Sales located at 1412 Alpine N.W. owned by John
Masucci.
We believe More Value Auto Sales and Mr. Masucci are a very valuable part of our Business
District. His desired expansion would bring a positive impact to our area.
At this time, West Leonard Business Association supports the proposed Re-Zoning for More
Value Auto Sales. Please take this into consideration when making your decision.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
West Leonard Business Association
President – Johnny Brann Jr.
Vice President – Sean Ellis
Treasurer – Mark Alcock
Secretary – Jane Grischke
401 West Leonard  Grand Rapids MI  Phone: 616.308.0699  [email protected]
CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION
HEARING DATE: November 17, 2011
1:15
b)
Address: 440 Logan St SE
File No: P-BZA-2011-0037
Applicant/Owner: Ann Finkler / Paul DeVos / Mark Zimmer
(Leonard at Logan House B & B)
Type of Variance: Use
Requesting: To allow the existing five (5) guest bed and breakfast home to have eight
(8) guest suites and banquet hall uses, which would allow for unlimited indoor events
and 15 outdoor events for up to 150 persons for weddings, and special events, fund
raisers, dinner parties, and holiday parties that are open to the public and other similar
events that are not related to the operation of the B & B or its guests on a site with
insufficient parking for ancillary events. The request includes approval for outdoor
grilling, music, disc jockeys, alcoholic beverages, entertainment and a spa open to the
public.
Zone: TN/LDR
Inspection: Ron Smith
Requirements: Bed and Breakfast operations are permitted in residential zone districts
with up to five guest rooms and allows for no more than four (4) outside special events
within a twelve (12) month period providing adequate parking is provided and a
temporary use permit is obtained for assembly activities with no outdoor cooking
permitted. Parking requirements include two (2) spaces for the single family use, .75
parking per guest room and ancillary uses calculated separately.
Note: Eight (8) parking spaces are required for one (1) single family residence and eight
(8) guest rooms. All parking for ancillary uses would be off site. Banquet hall type uses
are permitted with Planning Commission Approval (SLU) in mixed use commercial
districts. The applicant has indicated during “open house” events the occupancy could
be more than 120.
Lot size:
Frontage: 131 ft - Depth: 97 ft - Area: 12,707 sq ft
Ordinance: Article 5
Ordinance: Article 5
Ordinance: Article 5
Motion:
Section 5.5.05.B
Section 5.9.07
Section 5.10.04.E
Letter of Opposition to the Variance Request Filed by the Owners of 440 Logan SE
To the Board of Zoning Appeals
1120 Monroe NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Please accept this letter as our statement of opposition to the Use Variance request submitted by
Ann Finkler, one of the property owners of 440 Logan SE.
In October 2008, the owners were granted a Special Land Use to operate a Bed & Breakfast with five
guest rooms, with four outside special events per twelve-month period. According the the City
Zoning Ordinance, a B&B is classified as a home occupation. The operation of the B&B must be
subordinate to the use of the residential property: a private-home B&B is a place where some
business is done; it is not a place of business where people live. In August 2011, the City issued the
owners a Notice of Violation for failing to operate their B&B within the regulations imposed by the
Zoning Ordinance and the SLU.
The variance requests eight guest suites and banquet hall uses, which would allow for unlimited
indoor events and 15 outdoor events for up to 150 persons for weddings and special events,
fundraisers, dinner parties and holiday parties that are open to the public and other similar events
that are not related to the operation of the B&B or its guests, on a site with insufficient parking for
such events. The request includes approval for outdoor grilling, music, disc jockeys, alcoholic
beverages, entertainment and a spa open to the public.
The proposed use-a commercial banquet facility-extends far beyond what is appropriate for a
home occupation in an area zoned "traditional neighborhood, low-density residential."
We respectfully ask that the Board of Zoning Appeals denies this variance based on the following:
1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to this
property that do not apply generally to other properties in the Zone District. There are
numerous single- and two-family residences of a similar size immediately nearby; some of
those homes have been successfully adapted for other uses much less intensive.
2. The immediate practical difficulty causing the need for the variance has been created by
the owners. The application states that the variance is needed because "it is necessary to
stay in business both from a financial point of view and a practical point of view. " There is
not a problem with the property itself; it is currently being used as a B&B. The difficulty
arises because the owners wish use it in a manner that will generate more revenue. The City
Ordinance at Article 13, Sec. 5.13.04(A)(2) reads, "It is not intended that Variances be
granted merely to remove inconveniences or financial burdens."
3. Granting the variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood and cause
substantial detriment to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. It will
bring unwanted traffic, noise and activity; it will create parking problems on streets where
parking is already at a premium.
4. The property can be reasonably used for permitted uses in the Zone District: if not as a
single-family home, then a single-family home used as a B&B with five guest suites, or it
could be converted to apartments or condominiums.
Letter of Opposition to the Variance Request Filed by the Owners of 440 Logan SE
5. The proposed use is inconsistent with, and will materially impair the purpose and intent
of the Zoning Ordinance and the Master Plan of Heritage Hill. The Master Plan of Heritage
Hill (2005) enumerates policy statements based on resident input. It emphasizes the need to
maintain firm zoning boundaries to prevent spot zoning, and to reflect current and desired
use. It encourages commercial and institutional development within defined areas, and the
use of existing structures for the purposes for which they are built: commercial for
commercial, and residential for residential. The expressed desires of Heritage Hill's residents
are unmistakeable, and to approve this variance request would be spot zoning, and a clear
deviation from the neighborhood's Master Plan.
Please find signatures on the attached pages.
•
Letter of Opposition to the Variance Request Filed by the Owners of 440 Logan SE
Signature Page 1
S49
Date_ _------';J----'----EJJ_,_~___I__-1.-E>-I-\
_
@ Name:_-,--,,-<~-'4--'-I--,,--,-vl
-~~L"--V-'-----------'-=..-'1.
Signature:__~=--..J~~~----"-=~~q....=.:..:....-.-
_
_---=-s----Lr~2'--------'t11.'----L...:(/....:....Y-'--'l1S"'----'tfv-L.:......;C""'---.::::S"--'t:.~--
Address:
Date_ _-.:.-:./~:.-'-=-v=-.~(,.=---+-d_7-.eJ-=----=----.:..I.l-(
_
Signature:----..::~~~~~~===-----
;LI~11,IL1 S
Address:
11/(,
Date
If I
L- I & A ~~',ll----'--"loY""----'-_ _­
@Name:
Signature:------U::.bt~.c::::....VLl~==:::::::.._
_
:fit? f.p ~,.......OL.Jr-'----L-V"--'-·I..,;,b.L-------
Address:
Date
\ \)
r
vI11 \
@ Name:-----tlKk
M\\\~y
Signature:
/\wt /\\vlc
_
Address:
VJt;{p tt"""rx:l--Y-'------'-"lS'---
_
Date
\\
,11.0 /Ul------
_
•
Letter of Opposition to the Variance Request Filed by the Owners of 440 Logan SE
Signature Page 2
~~~ tJ· Q~Wya.,
~;. pi-c
@)Name:
SIgnature:
5 t1 M"",-of.l-J'fL--"t~=---6E-=.=,---
Address:
Date
CID
~ (), ~
\
_
l/b!11
6f)~~~_{- + - < ' - ­
Signature:-----'(;@=-_~__"_____~
_
Address: 51 f
Yl D'frt~':> ScName:
Date~ - (@ - \ \
(
®
S_'_G_~_(_ _
'-=et:::'_·:fh_'=-e_fl_'Y\_e--_B_t)_s_'
Name:
Signature:----'C_~----­
Address:
.s E-
l....:..l_--=b_-_\..:....c'
Date
Name:
50 , YiJorVI S
_
~£Li9~~
Signature:~--­
Address:
~4"~ ~c
Date-----'~:..-0_'-~_-_#_y
Name: _ _~
_
6_Z;)___=s:...::...S"clu...="_Lr
_
Signature:_-=~===___==~::....--....:~
_
Address: _ _5"'_6_'_M_D_Y'_/'...:..:.J5
_
Date_ _/_I_~_C_-_IJ:....__
_
•
Letter of Opposition to the Variance Request Filed by the Owners of 440 Logan SE
Signature Page 3
@
Lv1k- ~ o.s:sck./
Name:
~ ~
Signature:
Address:
~ / .A/lorn~
Date~,----I--,--\
_
Add ress: -=-L+-:-'~----L------+--L-~~_'_"'__=___'______''5:=.....:.._/_
Date
@
N--=--------:>.!lc.:-~ _ _----l..-I,L--
_=_r.:_F~
_
1J,,-,,-,
Name:----::....~~o......I.L.L.=--~:L.-.!=~::::..l....-<<:+__..."L_'=--'£
Signature:
Address:
Date
!£2<:L::,P?,c-dcs/};{lr+,e
/1-- C--;if
.
@ Name: ~L4 LlA,~S
signature:flLVYL.J--k--"
Address:
Date
~ . ~
4 S=S= tv1 cD rr/ -5
oS E""
6 AIO\r ..2 0 , I
o
Name:_~_r_H'_I_L_L,_,p_ _~_< ,_Q--,-fJ_D_ft._VL-_~_14_f¥_
_'
Signature:_sa...L.-..:Q=-=----.ct1l'----·=-.~-=-----
_
Address: _tj_5_--~~"--I-/L1_'_t!.....:...CUl------=(.L..5--.iL.,f~£="
_
I_i_(
_
Date
II--+I--=((:....L'
•
Letter of Opposition to the Variance Request Filed by the Owners of 440 Logan SE
Signature Page 4
~
Name:_C!=-+----'-+_~~_+_~_+___t'___+_l~'""'""'-_t'_+--
Date
/1- 2-- II
GI en 7?e
@Name:
~ ~
Signature:
, (0
d
1.1CJ ~
Address:
•
Date
if:. q.- J/
Name:~tt~
Signature:~:
=:_;
Address:
Date
(fi!b Name:
$S~ \,Y\OS""\'I'::l
\ \. ­
r-\\
QhJ\\D ~
L-lw () 5
SignatureV
Address:
Date
@J
e
~~
\A fer
B [~
R..o-6i:>
e-y
-===?<§? Y..
GJlry-c
A:vr-:-
~ Jd"f)
II I
77
Nameg~ ~e.
Signature~ ~
Address:~ ~ Y ~ sf;
DateP
l
I/Itf/I/
•
Letter of Opposition to the Variance Request Filed by the Owners of 440 Logan SE
Signature Page 5
Oate_----:~--'-_+_..L.,L_--------
Signatur·~:-::::::==~~;3====9~~:::="'-_ _
Oate._~/:..,.//L-..L.9-1-/'--h:....c..I
I
Name:
_
7
~'\:-\:...~ c t\ QbIT
Signature:
N ~LC~~7\
Address:
\
~S
\..t.A.-t (}..,\j£-t\-c.
,L-
wc:,
Oate-U-J-9-1--,-\
Name:~
Signatu::
Address:
1
Date_ _
~
_
~ ~~~
;¥i ~
/
~I
___
-
c;:
-;;-
/.,L-,I-----'~'T-(-.-;./;..:-'(-------
Letter of Opposition to the Variance Request Filed by the Owners of 440 Logan SE
5. The proposed use is inconsistent with, and will materially impair the purpose and intent
of the Zoning Ordinance and the Master Plan of Heritage Hill. The Master Plan of Heritage
Hill (2005) enumerates policy statements based on resident input. It emphasizes the need to
maintain firm zoning boundaries to prevent spot zoning, and to reflect current and desired
use. It encourages commercial and institutional development within defined areas, and the
use of existing structures for the purposes for which they are built: commercial for
commercial, and residential for residential. The expressed desires of Heritage Hill's residents
are unmistakeable, and to approve this variance request would be spot zoning, and a clear
deviation from the neighborhood's Master Plan.
Add ress-----'--=---==---''-----'-'L.LL.JI'-L.::=----..<........><~----'=>_''______':......1o..i'-rt'-=..:2..=--Date \1/Cfr'JI!!::."2P=..o.l.L-1
Name
Slgnature
Address
Date
_
J2~
_i2~
1{- S- ~1
/"r'lQ t-P4 s
11/0)-=1 7-0 {{
j
'5 iZ
<
Letter of Opposition to the Variance Request Filed by the Owners of 440 Logan SE
5, The proposed use is inconsistent with, and will materially impair the purpose and intent
of the Zoning Ordinance and the Master Plan of Heritage Hill. The Master Plan of Heritage
Hill (2005) enumerates policy statements based on resident input. It emphasizes the need to
maintain firm zoning boundaries to prevent spot zoning, and to reflect current and desired
use. It encourages commercial and institutional development within defined areas, and the
use of existing structures for the purposes for which they are built: commercial for
commercial, and residential for residential. The expressed desires of Heritage Hill's residents
are unmistakeable, and to approve this variance request would be spot zoning, and a clear
deviation from the neighborhood's Master Plan.
@ ;i:::ture~U~:OAJ
Address_:-3_«-,--J1;f.---:-'O-,-~_tl_S_A-_l,I;_Ei"-----,-S=-e_ _
- ..2:S y,e 1~~J::e"'J r
Date_ _----<....://'-------I?'------'.-I-L...'f
_
Name
_
Signature
_
Address,
_
Date
_
•
Letter of Opposition to the Variance Request Filed by the Owners of 440 Logan SE
To the Board of Zoning Appeals
1120 Monroe NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Please accept this letter as our statement of opposition to the Use Variance request submitted by
Ann Finkler, one of the property owners of 440 Logan SE.
In October 2008, the owners were granted a Spedal Land Use to operate a Bed & Breakfast with five
guest rooms, with four outside special events per twelve-month period. According the the City
Zoning Ordinance, a B&B is classified as a home occupation. The operation of the B&B must be
subordinate to the use of the residential property: a private-home B&B is a place where some
business is done; it is not a place of business where people live. In August 2011, the City issued the
owners a Notice of Violation for failing to operate their B&B within the regulations imposed by the
Zoning Ordinance and the SLU.
The variance requests eight guest suites and banquet hall uses, which would allow for unlimited
indoor events and 15 outdoor events for up to 150 persons for weddings and special events,
fundraisers, dinner parties and holiday parties that are open to the public and other similar events
that are not related to the operation of the B&B or its guests, on a site with insufficient parking for
such events. The request includes approval for outdoor grilling, music, disc jockeys, alcoholic
beverages, entertainment and a spa open to the public.
The proposed use-a commercial banquet facility-extends far beyond what is appropriate for a
home occupation in an area zoned "traditional neighborhood, low-density residential."
We respectfully ask that the Board of Zoning Appeals denies this variance based on the following:
1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to this
property that do not apply generally to other properties in the Zone District. There are
numerous single- and two-family residences of a similar size immediately nearby; some of
those homes have been successfully adapted for other uses much less "intensive.
2. The immediate practical difficulty causing the need for the variance has been created by
the owners. The application states that the variance is needed because "it is necessary to
stay in business both from a financial point of view and a practical point of view. " There is
not a problem with the property itself; it is currently being used as a B&B. The difficulty
arises because the owners wish use it in a manner that will generate more revenue. The City
Ordinance at Article 13, Sec. 5.13.04(A)(2) reads, "It is not intended that Variances be
granted merely to remove inconveniences or financial burdens. "
3. Granting the variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood and cause
substantial detriment to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. It will
bring unwanted traffic, noise and activity; it will create parking problems on streets where
parking is already at a premium.
4. The property can be reasonably used for permitted uses in the Zone District: if not as a
single-family home, then a single-family home used as a B&B with five guest suites, or it
could be converted to apartments or condominiums.
•
November 9, 2011
Dear Zoning Board,
Thank you for giving your time to listen to my concerns regarding the zoning request from the Leonard
at Logan Bed and Breakfast.
I am a long term resident of Heritage Hill and have owned the property at 552-554 Morris for close to
20 years. I love my neighborhood and chose it for its quiet location and family setting. I have built a
close relationship with many of my neighbors over the years. I respect them for their diligence in
protecting and caring for their homes, and admire and respect them for their acceptance of individuals
and diversity.
My property is one of several on the block that includes income housing or multi-generational families.
Because of this, noise and parking is always a concern. Out of respect for my neighbors I always point
out to rental applicants that this is a family neighborhood with small children. Partying is fine, but not
here, and noise needs to be kept at a minimum. The apartment I rent has four bedrooms, but because of
the density concerns for parking and traffic, I have always advertised it as a 3 bedroom, and when
renting to individuals, (rather than families) have limited the number of tenants to 3. While this results
in potential loss of income, it has been worth it in my efforts to preserve my neighborhood quality of
life. In spite of this and steps that other neighbors take, parking continues to be a problem here on the
south end of the 500 block of Morris.
I am very concerned about the request for changes and lifting of limits placed on the Leonard at Logan
Bed and Breakfast. Since they have moved in there has been an increase in parking difficulties, traffic,
noise during our normal “quiet” times, and density of people passing thru. I have had to wait to drive
thru the intersection to my home because of photo shoots of brides. I have had difficulty seeing to
make safe turns because of cars parked up to the corners from many directions during B & B events.
Delivery trucks often block the road forcing those driving thru to have to either back up down the road
or turn in neighbor’s driveways to find another path to where they were headed. On a tight street like
ours (especially during the winter) this is a real increase in driving hazards.
I understand that rules are in place to protect the interest of all. I follow rules I’m given as a landlord,
and understand that there are penalties if I don’t. Leonard at Logan has been given “rules” to follow
and they haven’t complied. They have disregarded the boundaries in place that protect the interests of
those who have invested in a quiet neighborhood zone/setting. They haven’t faced any penalties for
doing so. Now they are asking for permission to further impact those of us who have lived here under
the current zoning standards for years before they arrived. They didn’t follow the original guidelines—
how can we trust them with more?
I would respectfully ask that the new request be denied, and that in the interest of the rest of the
neighborhood, Leonard at Logan be made to comply with the original land use permit granted to them.
Again, thank you for your time.
Barbara Hekhuis
552-554 Morris
Board of Zoning Appeals
1120 Monroe NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
9 November 2011
This is to state our opposition to the proposed use variance for the property at 440 Logan SE.
We live at 445 Morris Ave., on the corner across from the Leonard at Logan Bed and Breakfast. For the past two
years, we have had our quality of life disrupted by the noise, traffic, and commotion stemming from the event
activities that are external to the running of the approved B&B. Those events have provided clear and continuing
evidence of the owners' flagrant violation of the terms of the Special Land Use that was granted in 2008. Now, they
come before the BZA to request permission to continue operating their commercial enterprise in our residential
neighborhood, and in fact, they seek to intensify the activities.
Based on our interpretation of the review criteria, the application fails on all five. In the interest of brevity, we
cite the following:
1.
The reasons given by the applicant as to why a variance is needed are purely financial in nature. That
the owners are experiencing financial difficulties does not and cannot justify the granting of a variance. The
Grand Rapids City Ordinance clearly states, "It is not intended that Variances be granted merely to
remove inconveniences or financial burdens."
2.
There is not a problem with the property itself (it has been functioning as a B&B for two years), but
rather this is a self-created financial hardship of the owners. At 6,008 sq. ft., (per City tax records) the
property is not so large that it cannot be reasonably adapted to another use. It could remain a single
family home, or a single family home with a five-room B&B; it could be made into apartments or condos.
There are many large homes in the immediate vicinity of 440 Logan that have been adapted for much less
intensive use.
The Board should be aware that in September 2008, six weeks before granting the Special Land Use for the B&B,
the Planning Commission denied a proposal for a worship center (an approved use in a residential area) at
538 Madison. That property is located only a few hundred feet from 440 Logan, with frontage in the mid-500
block of Morris Ave. Per testimony, it was to be a less intensive use (25-50 worshipers) than that proposed for 440
Logan (20-150 event attendees). Among the reasons cited by the Commission were increased activity and lack
of parking.
The owners’ wish to use a property in an unapproved manner, or as a means of generating greater profit, does not
constitute evidence of undue hardship that will support the granting of a use variance.
Our area is zoned “Traditional Neighborhood: Low Density Residential,” yet this proposal essentially cements the
owners’ intention to operate a Commercial Inn, which is incompatible with the current zoning. Their variance
request is inconsistent with both the Zoning Ordinance and the Heritage Hill Master Plan.
If granted, it will be at the expense of other residents in the area, as it guarantees continued noise, congestion and
intrusive activity for this once-quiet neighborhood. It will constitute spot zoning, and worse, it will set a
dangerous precedent for other property owners to exploit when zoning ordinances inconvenience their
personal agendas.
We respectfully ask that the Board deny this use variance request.
Pamela Lucas and Phil Ondersma
455 Morris Ave SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
MINUTES
GRAND RAPIDS PLANNING COMMISSION
September 11, 2008
1:00 P.M., RM. 201, DEVELOPMENT CENTER
Members Present: Chairperson James Doezema, Herb Ranta, Shaula Johnston, Nate
Koetje, Stephen Ruis, H. David Soet, Gabriel Works, Harold Hamilton and Student
Member Kandice Gates
Members Absent: Paul Potter
City Staff: Planning Director Suzanne Schulz, City Attorney Stan Bakita, Kay Moul,
Elizabeth Zeller, and Landon Bartley
______________________________________________________________________
BUSINESS MEETING
Approval of the Minutes of August 28, 2008 - Motion by Mr. Ranta, supported
by Mr. Hamilton, to approve the minutes of the 8/28/08 meeting with the
following correction: correcting the spelling of a citizen’s last name, from Con
to Kahn, who commented on the 1163 Giddings Avenue SE request. Motion
carried unanimously.
Fairmount Square Landscaping – Ms. Schulz referred to the letter submitted by
Mr. McGraw of Eastbrook Homes as well as landscape plans. She recalled that a
neighbor, Joe Wist, had been present at their last business meeting with concerns
regarding landscaping placement and viability. Mr. McGraw is not opposed to
installing landscaping on Mr. Wist’s property but feels that what is proposed on his
own property is sufficient, in addition to a 7’ concrete wall and a garage. When the
site was graded there were some mature trees that were saved to enhance the site.
Those are the same trees Mr. Wist would like removed to allow more sun in his yard
for the evergreens he would like planted on his property. Mr. Wist will also be
constructing a garage in his back yard. Ms. Schulz explained what is being
proposed and related that Mr. McGraw intends to irrigate the landscaping to ensure it
remains healthy. Mr. McGraw is concerned that if he goes onto Mr. Wist’s property
to do work that other issues may arise and therefore would really prefer not to be
involved in work on that property. Mr. Wist’s response was that Mr. McGraw
wouldn’t have to do the work on his property but that he could provide compensation
for the desired vegetation. Mr. McGraw’s argument is that he can provide the
landscaping at a much lower cost as compared to someone purchasing from Fruit
Basket or similar. There is also a question as to whether the developer can be
required to plant trees on a neighboring property.
Mr. Bakita recalled being asked whether there is any jurisdiction for requiring planting
on a neighboring property. Under very limited circumstances that may be the case:
where there is a need for the screening and there is insufficient room on the
developer’s property; where a developer offers to install the plantings voluntarily and
they can reach an agreement as to what is appropriate. The Planning Director would
sign off as to the screening provided being adequate. Mr. Bakita’s understanding is
that Mr. McGraw has sufficient room on his own property and the two parties haven’t
been able to reach an agreement. He also understands, from Mr. Parr, that the
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
September 11, 2008
Page 6 of 32
538 Madison Avenue SE – Special Land Use – Masjid Muhammad No. 61 Worship
Center (Noah Seifullah) requesting to use the existing structure at 538 Madison Avenue
SE (formerly the Heritage Child Development Center) as a worship center. Waivers are
requested for three (3) parking spaces. PLN08-114
Mr. Bartley described the request to use the site as a worship center relating that a
waiver for three parking spaces is also being requested. The site is approximately ¾ of
an acre in size with frontage on both Madison and Morris. There are seven parking
spaces on site with access only from Morris. There is a substantial grade change from
Madison to the structure. The Master Plan designates the area as Medium-Low Density
Residential. Mr. Bartley described the surrounding uses as residential. The property is
located within the Heritage Hill Historic District. The subject building is one story with a
footprint of 5,660 sq. ft. There are no renovations planned for the structure or the site.
Proposed hours of operation are noon to 10 p.m., 7 days a week with prayer service
taking place on Friday from 1 – 2:30 p.m. Approximately 25 persons are expected to
attend the prayer service with a maximum of 50 at any one time. Classes would be held
on Wednesday from 5 to 8 p.m. with an expected attendance of 10 – 12. There is also a
possibility of holding funerals or renting space for activities on an occasional basis with a
maximum attendance of approximately 50.
Mr. Bartley expanded on the parking. He again related that there are seven spaces on
site. Based on the ordinance, 13 spaces are required. Usable off-site parking spaces
that can be counted for this site are three (3). Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
waiver for three spaces.
Mr. Bartley indicated that staff has not received a proposal for signage. Since the packet
was mailed to the Commission staff has received 14 letters of opposition and no letters
of support. Parking and traffic safety seem to be the main concerns.
Mr. Bartley responded to Ms. Schulz regarding the Fire Dept. capacity for the building
relating that it could accommodate 50-100 people. He clarified for Mr. Ranta that if the
request is approved the site couldn’t be used for anything other than what is conveyed in
the application.
Ms. Schulz advised that if the Commission is inclined to approve they should be sure the
specifications of the application are included in the resolution with respect to what uses
are permitted. If the Commission desires to eliminate a particular use, such as the
space being rented, that too should be specified. The Commission can also consider
hours of operation and consider options for mitigating detrimental effects. If the
Commission feels there will be issues they should be addressed by conditions. The
Commission should also consider possible uses that are ancillary to a religious use such
as a pantry or daycare. Those are uses that would be permitted as ancillary uses unless
specifically prohibited in the resolution.
Dawanda Brandon was present on behalf of the applicant. She related that the
organization is very small; 25 – 50 people. Most that attend are families and arrive with
more than one person per vehicle. Therefore, there wouldn’t be 50 cars. The
organization previously had a site on Division that was lost to fire.
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
September 11, 2008
Page 7 of 32
Ms. Brandon responded to questions relating that at this point they haven’t considered
removing the playground and it will remain. With respect to planned activities, the
Muslims don’t have many. Most of those they do have are for the children or they come
to pray. People come in at different times of the day to pray. There would be two staff
persons present at all times. Weddings don’t occur very frequently and when they do
they are small and short. They don’t sing; it is a mosque and the practices are different
than Christianity.
Ms. Works explained that her questions are in an attempt to understand the times of
use. Her understanding is that most of the activity would be after 5 p.m., which is when
parking is at its minimum in the area.
Ms. Brandon explained that the evening attendance would primarily be on Friday.
During the week those that attend come during the day to pray. Most do attempt to
attend the meeting for prayer on Friday and she has never known it to go until 10 p.m.
Ms. Works asked about the proposed community use of the space.
Ms. Brandon explained her understanding of that portion of the use to be things such as
letting the space be used for telephone reminders during election times, organizing and
perhaps a meeting place for distributing flyers.
Ms. Works noted that this is a larger space then they had previously had. Most religious
organizations hope to grow their membership. She asked if that is the case with this
request as well.
Ms. Brandon replied hopefully. Many families have gone to other locations since their
building was destroyed by fire.
Ms. Brandon responded to Judge Soet relating that their former location was 2151 S.
Division. It is now the site of a laundromat. The proposed mosque is not directly
associated with the mosque on Burton. They are of the same religion and affiliated with
the Imam that runs the organization but this group is trying to get their own. Since they
haven’t had a location they have been attending that location or meeting in someone’s
home.
Mr. Doezema invited public comment.
Steve Yared, area resident and Heritage Hill Assoc. VP, read the letter of opposition
submitted by the Heritage Hill Assoc. He related that since the public notice was issued
the Assoc. has received 68 calls from neighbors expressing opposition. Mr. Yared
responded to questions after reading the letter. He related that they had parking
problems on parent evenings when the site was used as a school. Parking is congested
on a daily basis due to the one and two family residences in the neighborhood. With
regard to the competing bid for returning the site to residential use, that is what the
neighborhood favors. His understanding is that the building would remain as it is and
any alterations to the exterior would require HPC approval.
Dr. John Kolbourne explained that he owns two properties directly across the street. He
related that there were approximately 15-20 students attending the school and during
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
September 11, 2008
Page 8 of 32
their four years of residency the problems they experienced with parking took place
when parent teacher conferences occurred. Parking wasn’t a problem during daytime
hours as buses dropped the students off. Dr. Kolbourne expressed concern with respect
to parking and traffic safety in relation to the proposed use. One of the first questions
they get from prospective tenants is about parking. Many homes in the area have
shared drives and very limited off-street parking. There is no guarantee as to the
numbers to be in attendance and he questioned how enforcement would occur if the
hours extend beyond 10 p.m. or there were more than 50 present. Morris is a street with
young children as well as elderly residents and therefore traffic is a safety consideration.
Dr. Kolbourne explained that he understands the desire for this site to return to
residential use. His understanding is that the interested party would also be using some
of the space as a wood working shop.
Mike Chielens, immediately adjacent neighbor since 1984, feels the application includes
a vague description of the proposed use. Approval of the request could lead to a
number of scenarios and the use stays with the property. The site has been an
institution for some time and he feels it is time for the Planning Commission to
encourage the returned use to residential. There were a number of mistakes made in
this neighborhood in the ‘60’s and the neighborhood has worked to remedy those
mistakes one property at a time. He would like to see this site return to its original use.
He has no problem with a family living in the structure or the suggested design studio.
Parking and traffic are concerns. There is no buffer between this site and his. It has
been a quiet neighborhood and he would like to see it become even quieter. He doesn’t
believe there are any factors for granting the Special Land Use.
John Cooper, neighbor to the south, agreed with the points made by others. He pointed
out that the proposal describes the current practices and stated intentions but there is no
limit. Mr. Cooper related that he attended the GRPS meeting where Mr. Seifullah
described his plans and he indicated that he planned to make the facility available for all
sorts of community activities; it was completely wide open. The proposal includes no
limits and there could be traffic from noon to 10 p.m., 7 days a week. Mr. Cooper
recalled that the school was very limited in terms of generating heavy traffic; twice per
year, once in the fall and once in the spring for parent/teacher meetings.
Mike Klinzing, 535 Madison, read a portion of his letter of opposition that was previously
circulated to the Commission. The presentation offered to the neighbors suggested they
would offer human services. When the applicant was questioned about those services
only vague responses were offered and the applicant was of the belief that a Special
Land Use approval wasn’t necessary. Mr. Klinzing expressed his concern over this
matter as the application makes no mention of, or request for, providing human services.
Gert Calmese, block captain and resident at 534 Morris, related that when she first
moved in 45 years ago there was a beautiful two story home on this site that was lost to
fire. Ms. Calmese spoke of the relationship the neighborhood built and maintained with
the school. She would like this to remain a quiet neighborhood. Parking is currently a
problem with the narrow driveways. On the weekend there are 27 cars parked on the
street in the area between Logan and Pleasant.
Ms. Calmese responded to questions relating that they don’t have odd/even parking
restrictions during the winter months and snow removal is something she often requests
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
September 11, 2008
Page 9 of 32
when vehicles are away during the week or when she makes the effort to utilize her
phone tree and get neighbors to move the cars for that purpose. She concluded her
comments indicating she would like the neighborhood to remain as it is.
John Kershek, 553 Madison, related that he also attended the GRPS information
meeting. He asked the question about parking and the response he received was that if
there was a problem they would deal with it then. He feels that is unfair to the residents
as there is currently a parking problem. Other neighborhood residents use Madison for
parking during the odd/even parking enforcement season and there are only 32 spaces
available.
Ms. Bowman, 520 Madison, related that she is a resident landlord. She reviewed the
application and related documents and has yet to find a positive aspect that this would
bring to the neighborhood.
Ms. Ali, member of Master Muhammad’s organization, was also present on behalf of the
request. She explained that they currently have 8-10 active participants and therefore,
parking wouldn’t be a problem. Typically when they have a venue of more than 25 they
rent another location. They have used Hall Street Church, GRCC and the Grand Plaza
for such events.
Mr. Doezema asked how many this building would hold.
Ms. Ali replied that she doesn’t have those details. She explained that this is the month
that they normally come together and those gatherings take place during the day, not
during evening hours.
Mr. Doezema asked, if the building holds 50-100 as has been suggested, wouldn’t they
forego renting other space and utilize this site?
Ms. Ali replied likely not because they are aware of the parking concerns in the area and
that it wouldn’t be possible to park that many visitors. Ms. Ali responded further relating
that they have groups that size approximately 2 times per year.
Mr. Koetje MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission denies the Special Land Use request of Masjid Muhammad No. 61
(Noah Seifullah) to use the existing structure at 538 Madison Avenue SE as a
worship center, for the following reasons:
1. That the Special Land Use would be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to
existing or future neighboring uses, persons, property or the public welfare
due to the lack of adequate on-site parking.
2. That the Special Land Use in the middle of a residential block would not be
compatible, harmonious, or appropriate with the existing character of the
neighborhood.
SUPPORTED by Ms. Works.
The Commission addressed the Standards further:
Grand Rapids Planning Commission
September 11, 2008
Page 10 of 32
The current zone district is Traditional Neighborhood – Low Density Residential and
the proposed activities would take away from a low density residential zone and not
contribute to it.
With respect to neighborhood character, the parking becomes an issue in a low
density residential area.
Detrimental effect – the proposed use has the potential to be a disturbance to the
neighborhood with extensive traffic and parking issues. While that may not be the
immediate case, an approval would remain with the property and in the long term
there is potential that it would be detrimental to the neighborhood.
A 5,600 sq. ft. building has the potential to hold 150-200 people and could greatly
impact the neighborhood with that size of occupancy.
A similar, recently approved request was located in a commercial area as opposed to
being located central to a residential neighborhood. Often religious organization
approvals are located at a corner or on a larger parcel which provides more
opportunity for buffering the use from surrounding uses.
The proposed use has the potential to generate more traffic than the former school
use generated, which would have a greater impact on the neighborhood.
There is no way to control the growth of the organization and the intent, per
testimony, would be to grow the membership.
Judge Soet related that he is a former resident of the 400 block of Morris where there
was more space between houses than is the case in the 500 block. His experience
in the neighborhood was that parking has always been an issue in the 500 block and
the proposed use would only increase that congestion.
Mr. Koetje AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE BULLETED COMMENTS
ADDRESSING THE STANDARDS. SUPPORTED by Ms. Works. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
______________________________________________________________________
2007 S. Division Avenue – Special Land Use – Falcon Lounge (Chip Walker) seeking
approval to operate a private social club, without alcohol sales or service, on the second
floor of an existing building at 2007 S. Division Avenue. PLN08-132
Mr. Bartley presented the request for a men’s social club, to be located on the second
floor of this commercial building. The first floor is occupied by an adult movie and book
store. The applicant is not requesting approval for alcohol sales or consumption.
Mr. Bartley described the surrounding uses as commercial uses and a City district
parking lot containing 227 spaces. A photo of the building was presented. He explained
further that the proposed use would occupy approximately 3,600 sq. ft. and is a private
men-only social club with membership open to men 18 years of age and older. No
alcohol will be offered for sale or consumption on site. The proposed activities include a
lounge, a business center, a game room, library music room, TV room and study rooms.
Proposed hours of operation are 8 a.m. to midnight, 7 days a week. One employee
would be on duty at all times. Parking is adequate and no sign request has been
presented.
Mr. Bartley related that the Neighborhood Assoc. and Business Assoc. have not offered
comments. The Police Dept. has responded and strongly opposes the proposed use.
4c
CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION
HEARING DATE: November 17, 2011
Tabled from September 15, 2011
1:30
c)
Address: 44 Lafayette NE
File No: P-BZA-2011-0029
Applicant/Owner: Ann Finkler, David Devries and Paul Devos
Type of Variance: Use
Requesting: To operate a 12-room hotel/inn with special indoor and outdoor events,
which would allow for up to 15 outside events and unlimited inside events per year, all
outdoor activity would end by 10:00 pm. The request also includes approval for parties,
meetings, weddings and receptions, fund-raisers, picnics and similar banquet type uses
including entertainment and music for up to 150 persons with alcohol beverages not
served after 10:00 pm. In the TN-LDR Zone District lodging and banquet facility uses
are not a permitted.
Zone: TN-LDR
Lot size:
Inspection: Mark Lewis
Frontage: 130.95 ft Depth: 223.95 ft Area: 29,259 sq ft
Ordinance: Article 5
Article 15
Table 5.5.05.B
Table 5.15.10.B
Previous Appeals and Disposition: See Attached
Motion:
T:\Planning Department\__BZA PROJECTS\_2011 BZA General Documents\LAFAYETTE NE 44 PBZA-2011-0029\PH INFO\LAFAYETTE NE 44 STAFF PAGE 11-17-11 mtg.doc
4c
4c
4c
4c
4c
4c
4c
From: Delano, Dennis J HHHH [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 10:12 AM
To: Planning
Cc: Merritt Taylor; Dennis DeLano & Merritt Taylor
Subject: Challenge to New Zoning Request for 44 Layfayette NE
We have recently learned of a request for a 12-room boutique hotel and special events
facility request for 44 Lafayette NE.
We own a owner occupied rental, just one half block away from this location. We support any use of the
homes on Heritage Hill that will further their value and preserve the property itself, but we do not want
this to preclude the value of the neighboring properties. In reviewing the usage for this property, some of
the utilities suggested may be detrimental to the quality of the neighborhood, and thus the property
values of homes and businesses as well. It seems that the building would be used as a banquet and
party rental facility. The traffic (already congested), noise, and resulting parking (already crowded) will
be a hardship to the neighborhood and does not meet the guidelines for the Heritage Hill Master Plan or
the Grand Rapids Zoning Code.
We would fully support other uses for this property, including: single family home, multi-family
residential, or similar uses that do not require the exterior events and crowds.
The following four conditions exist that need to be addressed or challenged in this process:
No Substantial Detriment: That the Use Variance shall not alter the essential character
of the neighborhood, nor be a detriment to adjacent properties.
1.
>Our biggest concern: As proposed, the extensive outside and large activities will have detrimental
impacts on the neighboring properties in terms of inadequate parking, noise, and a scale of activity not
commonly found in a residential neighborhood. The hours that most of these events will occur are when
the neighborhood is at its most quiet and peaceful. These activities will create significant noise and scale
of activity that is not found today and is in conflict with current regulations and zoning. Even the
previous more limited use caused significant parking, traffic and noise problems.
2.
Unnecessary Hardship: That the condition, location, or situation of the specific property or
intended use of the property that creates an unnecessary hardship is unique to that property and the
Zone district.
>The physical characteristics of the property are similar to others found within close proximity
and used for residential purposes in compliance with the Grand Rapids Zoning Ordinance.
Not Self-Created: That the need for the variance was not created by the applicant or the
applicant’s predecessors in title.
3.
>The proposed use is not currently in existence at this site and is not allowed in the current
zone. Almost all properties in this area are used for residential purposes, with any other uses in
existence long before the current Zoning Code was adopted.
Cannot Be Reasonably Used: That the land, building or structure cannot be reasonably
used for the permitted uses in the Zone District.
4.
>We would fully support other uses for this property, such as: single family or multiple family
residential or similar use without exterior events.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Merritt Taylor and Dennis DeLano
230 Fountain Street NE
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
From: Shipman, David [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:07 PM
To: Planning
Subject: Variance for 44 LaFayette NE
Dear Planning Commission,
As a home owner and occupant of 132 Prospect NE, I oppose the granting of a variance to the
owner of 44 LaFayette NE for use as a hospitality facility and boutique hotel. The neighborhood
is zoned for residential use and should stay that way.
Sincerely yours,
David A Shipman
132 Prospect NE
Grand Rapids, Mi 49503
From: Pamela Lucas [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 6:50 AM
To: Planning
Cc: Hill Heritage
Subject: Request for Variance at 44 Lafayette NE
To the Members of the Zoning Appeals Board:
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to a proposed variance for the Philo
Fuller House at 44 Lafayette NE, as requested by Ann Finkler, Charles DeVos and David
DeVries (44 Lafayette Partners LLC). In the Traditional Neighborhood-Low Density
Residential Zone District, lodging is not a permitted use. There has been no evidence
presented as to how this zoning change would positively impact anyone in the
neighborhood but the applicants. In fact, approval of this variance may, in fact,
decrease the values of other properties in close proximity.
1. Unnecessary Hardship: That the condition, location, or situation of the specific
property or intended use of the property that creates an unnecessary hardship is
unique to that property and the Zone district.
The property at 44 Lafayette is like many other large properties in Heritage Hill: despite
the fact that they have been converted to multi-family dwellings or office space, they
were originally built to serve as single-family homes. The applicants' statement that the
home is "much too large to be used as a single-family residence," is a matter of opinion
(and one which serves the applicants' argument). Until 1942, according to the narrative
that was provided with the application, it was, in fact, a single-family home.
Theoretically, the property could be restored to that use. In a neighborhood that is
zoned Low-Density Residential, one could argue that a use more in keeping with the
cultural and social vision for the Heritage Hill neighborhood would be to convert it back
to "residential" by creating either a single family home, apartments or condominiums.
Alternatively, even keeping the status quo and retaining it as office space would
be substantially less "commercial" in nature than the proposed use. Simply stating that
the "house is too big" does not demonstrate that unnecessary hardship exists and
precludes the applicants from conforming to current Zoning requirements.
2. Not Self-Created: That the need for the variance was not created by the applicant
or the applicant’s predecessors in title.
This variance is self-created, as the proposed use is not currently in existence at this
site and is not allowed in the current zone. The applicants write that "past uses over the
last sixty years have been commercial in nature--school, synagogue and offices. The
proposed variance would bring it back closer to the existing zoning of residential." This,
too, is a subjective opinion of the applicants, and one could argue that a "boutique
hotel" is only marginally different on the continuum than these past uses. The
inference that the proposed development would be "more residential" is specious
because a) the lodging is itinerant, not long term or in any way "residential"; and b)
the applicants' proposed use of the property as a venue for events makes the operation
purely a commercial venture, not residential. The fact that the proposed development
may offer beds and sleeping quarters for a two-week stay does not put it on par with an
apartment or condominium or other residential development.
3. No Substantial Detriment: That the Use Variance shall not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood, nor be a detriment to adjacent properties.
The applicants assert that "the proposed use would enhance walkability of the
neighborhood." Only in the eyes of a business person could the prospect of increased
foot traffic be seen as a positive. In fact, this highlights an obvious detriment to the
current residents. It is highly unlikely that the residents of this neighborhood will find
having dozens (if not hundreds) of transient guests and event attendees using the
sidewalks and streets to be a positive.
Functions held will likely take place in the evenings and on weekends, when neighbors
are home. The house features a large yard and this is also part of the proposed use of
the venue. Even with inside functions, guests (especially smokers, etc.) are likely to use
the outside of the property, and groups may migrate and socialize outside. In addition,
large groups of people at functions (possibly or probably consuming alcohol) will bring
increased noise levels to the neighborhood. There will be additional noise, both human
and vehicular, when guests arrive at or leave the functions.
Given the limited parking available on the property, it will be a necessity that attendees
park on the street in front of other neighborhood homes. Not only are crowd size and
noise an issue, but the neighbors/property owners will find themselves competing with
event attendees for parking places in front of their own homes, and will find a dramatic
overall increase in the level of activity in their neighborhood. This is in no way a
"positive" outcome for nearby residents of this property, and could even devalue the
neighboring properties.
4. Cannot Be Reasonably Used: That the land, building or structure cannot be
reasonably used for the permitted uses in the Zone District.
There are, as stated above, a number of alternative uses available for this property
other than that of boutique hotel/events venue. Any of those uses would make much
less an impact on the neighborhood and neighbors, but perhaps would not be as
lucrative for the owners. While the applicants have every right to pursue business
opportunities, commercial activities should be restricted to areas already zoned for such
development, and should not be at the expense of the established neighbors and
neighborhood. Clearly, this is a commercial enterprise that has great potential to
disrupt the quiet and the character of this neighborhood.
5. Summary: My opposition to the requested variance is colored by my experience
living across the street from another property owned by two of the three applicants
(Ann Finkler and Paul DeVos). In October 2008, they approached the Planning
Commission with a request for a Special Land Use to operate a bed and breakfast with
five guest rooms. On their application, in response to the request to "Describe how the
proposed use will not be detrimental, hazardous, or disturbing to existing or future
adjacent uses or to the public welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke,
odors, glare, visual clutter and electrical or electromagnetic interference," the applicant
(Mrs. Finkler) responded "No difference from current use." Unfortunately for the
neighbors, that has proven to be patently false.
For approximately the last two years, this property, the Leonard at Logan B&B, has also
been operating as a self-described "unique event venue." The owners have exceeded
many times over the limit of 4 outside special events in a twelve-month period that was
imposed by the Planning Commission, and it has been at the expense of the solitude of
the neighborhood. Where we once had a quiet street with a low activity level, we now
have a dramatic increase in vehicular activity, not only that of the lodging guests, but
the event guests, delivery and service vehicles. We have residents who must compete
with event attendees for on-street parking: Morris and Logan Streets are, during
events, lined with cars on both sides of the street, leaving but a narrow lane for traffic.
We have had a dramatic increase in the pedestrian traffic as well. Event attendees have
shown a shocking lack of consideration for the nearby neighbors as they engage in loud
celebrations, oblivious to the fact that the property is on a modest-sized lot, surrounded
by other homes. We've heard attendees shouting loudly to each other down our streets
as they come and go to their cars that they park in front of our houses. They create
noise when they socialize outside the home itself. The music playing inside the house
gets turned up such that the reverberation of the bass can be heard from inside our
homes. The disco-ball hanging in the front room shines out their windows and in
through the windows of others. In mid-August, one of the bridal parties actually
trespassed on the property of an nearby neighbor. Marching up several stairs to the
front porch, the bride and groom stood under the portico while their photographer
staged pictures. Although the homeowner was in the house, not one of the group saw
fit to ring the bell and ask permission.
In their operation of the Leonard at Logan, Mrs. Finkler and Mr. DeVos have shown
repeatedly that they have little or no respect for either the neighbors or the
neighborhood. Likewise, they appear to have little regard for the conditions that were
imposed on them by Planning Commission and the Special Land Use. As of August 24,
2011, the owners have now been issued with Notice of Zoning Violation, and the
response will be keenly observed by the exasperated residents.
It is said that experience is the best teacher. Our experience as neighbors tells us that
two of the three applicants will not operate any differently at the Philo Fuller property
than they have at the Leonard at Logan. For this reason, I would strongly encourage
the Board of Zoning Appeals to deny their request for a variance.
Sincerely,
Pamela Lucas
455 Morris Ave. SE
From: Jodi Watson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 8:42 AM
To: Planning
Cc: Jodi Watson; Kirby Watson
Subject: Challenge to New Zoning Request for 444 Layfayette NE property on Heritage Hill Grand Rapids
We have recently learned of a request for a 12-room boutique hotel and special events facility request
for 44 Lafayette NE.
We own a single family home, just one half block away from this location. While we support any use of the
homes on Heritage Hill that will further their value and preserve the property itself, we believe that there are
some serious and concerning facts that could damage our surrounding property values and residential way of life.
While the property request is billed as a boutique hotel, it actually seems as if it will be used as a banquet and
party rental facility instead. The traffic (already congested), noise, and resulting parking (already crowded) will
be a hardship to the neighborhood and does not meet the guidelines for the Heritage Hill Master Plan or the
Grand Rapids Zoning Code.
We would fully support other uses for this property, including: single family home, multi-family residential, or
similar uses that do not require the exterior events and crowds.
The following four conditions exist that need to be addressed or challenged in this process:
1.
No Substantial Detriment: That the Use Variance shall not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood, nor be a detriment to adjacent properties.
>Our biggest concern: As proposed, the extensive outside and large activities will have detrimental impacts
on the neighboring properties in terms of inadequate parking, noise, and a scale of activity not commonly found
in a residential neighborhood. The hours that most of these events will occur are when the neighborhood is at its
most quiet and peaceful. These activities will create significant noise and scale of activity that is not found today
and is in conflict with current regulations and zoning. Even the previous more limited use caused significant
parking, traffic and noise problems.
Unnecessary Hardship: That the condition, location, or situation of the specific property or intended use
of the property that creates an unnecessary hardship is unique to that property and the Zone district.
2.
>The physical characteristics of the property are similar to others found within close proximity and used
for residential purposes in compliance with the Grand Rapids Zoning Ordinance.
3.
Not Self-Created: That the need for the variance was not created by the applicant or the applicant’s
predecessors in title.
>The proposed use is not currently in existence at this site and is not allowed in the current zone. Almost
all properties in this area are used for residential purposes, with any other uses in existence long before
the current Zoning Code was adopted.
4.
Cannot Be Reasonably Used: That the land, building or structure cannot be reasonably used for the
permitted uses in the Zone District.
>We would fully support other uses for this property, such as: single family or multiple family residential
or similar use without exterior events.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Jodi & Kirby Watson
222 Fountain St. NE
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
From: Kimberly Wade [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:34 PM
To: Planning
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 44 Lafayette NE
Good afternoon, Regarding the recent request for a 12-room boutique hotel and
special events facility at 44 Lafayette NE, I am a Heritage Hill resident and do NOT
support this.
I oppose this based on the disruption it will cause our neighborhood, specifically
with the added traffic, noise, general congestion and there is no need for this –
there are hundreds of options for banquet facilities within a 2 mile radius. This is
likely not a viable business in the long term.
This proposal is in no way conducive to our neighborhood setting.
Kimberly Wade
510 Lyon ST Ne #1
From The Home Office of:
Bridget Dupont-Tingley
225 Prospect Avenue NE
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
H# 616-235-0874
Date: September 8, 2011
Grand Rapids Zoning Appeals Board
1120 Monroe NW
Grand Rapids, 49503
RE: Zoning Variance request at 44 Lafayette NE (Philo Fuller)
Date of hearing: Thursday, September 15 – 2:15 pm at 1120 Monroe – 2nd floor
Dear Grand Rapids Zoning Appeals Board:
I am responding to the property owner at 44 Lafayette NE’s request for a special zoning variance to establish a 12-room
boutique hotel and special events facility.
I support the feedback that The Heritage Hill Association provided to the GR Zoning Appeals Board in OBJECTION to this
zoning variance request. I support their comments and ask their answers stand for me as well. Reasons as follows:
1. Unnecessary Hardship: That the condition, location, or situation of the specific property or intended use of the
property that creates an unnecessary hardship is unique to that property and the Zone district.
HHA Comment: The physical characteristics of the property are similar to others found within close proximity
and used for residential purposes in compliance with the Grand Rapids Zoning Ordinance.
2.
Not Self-Created: That the need for the variance was not created by the applicant or the applicant’s
predecessors in title.
HHA Comment: The situation is self-created as the proposed use is not currently in existence at this site and is
not allowed in the current zone. Almost all properties in this area are used for residential purposes, with any
other uses in existence long before the current Zoning Code was adopted.
3.
No Substantial Detriment: That the Use Variance shall not alter the essential character of the neighborhood,
nor be a detriment to adjacent properties.
HHA Comment: As proposed, the extensive outside and large activities will have detrimental impacts on the
neighboring properties in terms of inadequate parking, noise, and a scale of activity not commonly found in a
residential neighborhood. Even the previous more limited use caused significant parking, traffic and noise
problems. The new request is a substantial change not only because of its use as a banquet facility but also
because it will likely have the highest use on weekends and nights. This pressure on the residential
neighborhood will be at times when most neighbors are home.
In this regard, it needs to be noted that another property in the Heritage Hill neighborhood operated by the
applicant as a Bed & Breakfast has exceeded the use allowed under the Zoning Code. It has had multiple
complaints registered with the City of Grand Rapids and is currently being investigated. While this variance
request is specific to the property and the past actions of the potential operators might not come into
consideration, their actions at a Bed and Breakfast elsewhere in the neighborhood does raise questions of
credibility.
4.
Cannot Be Reasonably Used: That the land, building or structure cannot be reasonably used for the permitted
uses in the Zone District.
HHA Comment: While a lesser use may not be as economically desirable, other uses including multiple family
residential or similar use without exterior events. As noted under #3 above, the exterior events and large
gatherings are major concerns that will affect neighbors and traffic on an already busy street. Therefore, this
standard is not met.
From what I understand, the vast majority of neighbors who attended an open house by the applicants after the use
variance was filed and those who have since learned about the request have expressed their opposition to this proposed
use to the Heritage Hill Association.
I, the single family property owner at 225 Prospect Avenue NE Grand Rapids, MI 49503 oppose this variance
requested at 44 Lafayette NE (Philo Fuller). Please note my objection for the record.
I also object on the grounds that I feel the GR Zoning Board has been making decisions in recent years toward gaining
financially for the city versus the actual good for the residents as a whole (meaning, approving projects that will
hopefully bring in bigger tax dollars to the city treasury regardless of how bad it really is for local citizens). Example – The
old Bethlehem Lutheran Church on Prospect and Crescent. A zoning variance was granted for extra condos to be
developed a few years back. The condo project never succeeded and eventually died out. The property was cleared for a
zoning variance AGAINST HHA and local resident objections. Objections were strong based upon limited parking in both
public and private areas, heavy weekly traffic with the colleges/schools/hospital and high population densities already
for the given area. The property has sat vacant and neglected for years now – overgrown grass and weeds in the
front/back and sides of the property, trash/debris littering the site as seasons go by, steps and concrete walkways
breaking down and rusted hand railings around the site . Plus lovely, old, attractive trees had been cut down early in
the project to make way for progress, and once the project died out, the site now sits empty and unappealing. A once
beautiful and well cared for property looks to be an ever increasing eyesore. This variance granted earlier has been a big
negative for the area and will continue to be so even if the old owners try to convert the property into apartments.
Hopefully, other variances will not be requested and approved as well.
It’s time the GR Zoning Board looks to the big picture – not just possible increased tax revenue, but is the variance good
for the local permanent residents, the local transient residents (students/teachers/etc.), does it make logical sense for a
predominately residential area and will such a decision lead to future precedents? Poorly thought out variance
deviations set a very bad precedent. The old Bethlehem Lutheran Church is one such decision. Let’s not make 44
Lafayette another.
Regards,
Bridget Dupont-Tingley
City of Grand Rapids/Heritage Hill Resident
4d
CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
TABLED
ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION
HEARING DATE: November 17, 2011
Tabled from October 20, 2011 –
Request to Table Until January 19, 2012
1:45
c)
Address: 1975 East Beltline NE
File No: BZA-2011-0031
Applicant/Owner/Agent: Johnny Brann Jr./Meijer/Paul Henderson
Type of Variance: Dimensional
Requesting: To allow grading and the removal of vegetative cover and the installation
of a retaining wall for the construction of a restaurant/retail building and a parking lot
with a minimum buffer of 25 ft. from a wetland. A 75 ft. buffer from a wetland or other
water body is required.
Permitted:
75 ft. “do not disturb” area from
wetlands and water bodies
Requesting:
25 ft.
Zone: SD-PRD
Lot size:
Variance Needed For:
50 ft.
Inspection: Rabaut
Frontage: 334 ft. Depth: 266 ft. Area: 1.85 Acres
Ordinance: Article 11
Section 5.11.09
Previous Appeals and Disposition: NA
Motion:
T:\Planning Department\__BZA PROJECTS\_2011 BZA General Documents\EAST BELTLINE NE
1975 P-BZA-2011-0031\PH INFO\EAST BELTLINE NE 1975 Staff Page 11-17-11.doc