Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting

Development Center Board of Zoning Appeals 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 November 17, 2022 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. 12:00 - 12:30 p.m. Commissioner's lunch - Room 303 PRESENT: Rabaut, Zeiser, Schaffer, Montgomery, Stella, Lewis ABSENT: Swanson, McCoy, Kilpatrick, Perkins, King Staff Present: Planning Director Kristin Turkelson, Dale Fitz, and Assistant City Attorney Michael Hoeker II. 12:30 p.m. Roll Call III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from October 20, 2022 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Traci Montgomery SECONDER: Cortney Schaffer YEAS: Rabaut, Zeiser, Schaffer, Montgomery, Stella, Lewis ABSENT: Gornowich, Swanson, McCoy, Kilpatrick, Perkins, King IV. Public Hearings beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in the Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor A. 1:00 PM - P-BZA-2022-0006 - Dimensional Variance Address: 800 Fairview Ave NE Case Number: P-BZA-2022-0006 Applicant/Owner: Andy Guy Sanborn Variance Type: Dimensional Requesting: To construct a 2-story addition, with the southeastern section extending into the front yard, to within 22 ft. of the back of curb, on Newberry St NE. In the TN-LDR zone district the Required Building Line (RBL) from the back of the curb to the building facade structure is 30 ft. (Note: In 2010 a Dimensional Variance was granted to allow a 1 story addition to extend into the same front yard area as described above.) Permitted: RBL – 30 ft. Requesting: RBL- 22 ft. Generated 11/30/2022 8:06 PM Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 2 November 17, 2022 Variance Needed For: 8 ft. Lot Size: Frontage: 50 ft. Depth: 120 ft. Area: 6,000 sq. ft. Zoning: TN-LDR Inspection: Stella Ordinance Sec. 5.5.06.D.2. Previous Appeals and See Attached Disposition: Mr. Fitz introduced the request for a dimensional variance to construct a 2-story addition, with the southeastern section extending into the front yard, to within 22 ft. of the back of curb, on Newberry St NE. In the TN-LDR zone district the Required Building Line (RBL) from the back of the curb to the building façade is 30 ft. Mr. Fitz advised that in 2010 a dimensional variance was granted to allow a 1-story addition to extend into the same front yard area as described. Mr. Stella provided the inspection report. The property is located at the corner of Newberry and Fairview. Being a corner property, it has two frontages. The area in question facing Newberry overlooks Belknap Park. There is a detached garage on the property with an alley at the rear. There are similar 2-story homes in the neighborhood. Andy Guy Sanborn was present on behalf of the request. Mr. Stella explained that the first point the Board must find for is that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. It seems at first glance that there are no extraordinary circumstances or conditions that would allow for granting approval. Mr. Sanborn feels this is a modest request relative to the substantial development that is continuing to happen on and around Belknap hill. There have been significant changes with corporate facilities, educational institutions, housing being torn down and new housing developed, and other things planned such as parks and trails. Mr. Sanborn stated that they are in the process of a basic home renovation. They are a family of four and would like to stay in Belknap but they need more room. They have worked out a plan to expand the second floor to add a bedroom and bathroom to accommodate two teenage girls. They will be making some improvements to the kitchen, improve the basement access, install new siding and a new roof. It will be a significant investment but they feel it is a renovation that will accommodate their family and a renovation that isn’t inconsistent with a lot of the properties in the neighborhood or adjacent neighborhoods around the city. The request may not align with the letter of the zoning code but they don’t feel it is necessarily an unusual project. Mr. Sanborn wished to emphasize a few key points for the Board’s consideration. He indicated that they will be using the existing footprint of the house. One reason it is important to come out over the existing one room area is that that is what makes the floor plan work on the second floor in terms of getting a bedroom, bathroom and appropriate amount of space. Mr. Sanborn also wished to emphasize that the existing setback condition of this property is consistent throughout the neighborhood and adjacent neighborhoods in the city. He added that they also believe this is consistent with the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 3 November 17, 2022 Master Plan goals; more housing, more quality housing, adding to the variety of housing in the neighborhood, and to support families and home ownership. More specifically, as it relates to the Master Plan, they are preserving and expanding an old structure. The history of the home is it began as a small box. They added on twice and the proposed would tie all of that together. Mr. Sanborn stated that they are thinking about the orientation to the street and how the additional space will face that street. They aren’t building plain walls; they are thinking about windows and transparency and how all of that would work together. They believe that this project meets the standards for approval of the request. He would think it is the type of project to be encouraged more in the city as we look to add housing and support families. Mr. Sanborn added that they engaged the architect that worked on the neighborhood’s Area Specific Plan. He is very familiar with the neighborhood and was able to use that knowledge in designing what has been submitted. Mr. Stella finds that the applicant’s reasoning supports the second standard. The third standard is whether the practical difficulty is self-created. The property currently conforms to the Ordinance, with the variance received several years ago. Mr. Stella asked how this is not self- created. The previous variance was granted to address water leakage. The proposed project has nothing to do with the structure or preserving the house. There isn’t a problem to be corrected other than the desire for additional space. Mr. Sanborn replied that they will be fixing a lot of problems on an old, aging structure. His response to the question of not being self-created is that it would be difficult to build that house today under the current zoning requirements. In fact, a lot of the housing in the neighborhoods don’t conform to the existing ordinance, whether it is green space, setbacks, or parking. He didn’t rezone the property and make these types of improvements that are consistent with the way houses used to be built in the 1880s and 90s and the turn of the century, which is the way he was thinking about that. Mr. Stella commented on the fourth standard stating that he doesn’t believe there would be any substantial detriment to the adjacent property or surrounding neighborhood. With respect to the fifth standard, the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, he recalled that the applicant’s testimony is that their plan is in conformance with the Master Plan. There is a provision for green space. He asked how they will address that aspect of the project. Will this diminish or expand green space? Mr. Sanborn replied that there won’t be a lot of change in terms of green space. They are using the existing footprint of the structure so the amount of green space currently there will remain. Mr. Fitz interjected that the lot is presently in compliance with the green space requirements. They could add a couple hundred square feet to the ground floor, going toward the interior side on Fairview and still be in conformance with setbacks and green space. Ms. Schaffer noted from the application, with respect to not being self-created, that they bought the house located on a corner lot. She asked staff if the regulations would be different if the house wasn’t located on a corner lot or would they be subject to the same requirements they are considering today? Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 4 November 17, 2022 Mr. Fitz replied that where the house sits on the lot, with the exception of the variance that was granted in 2010, is conforming; lot width, lot area, and the RBLs are conforming, with the exception of the variance that was granted. Ms. Turkelson added that the setbacks would be different if this were an interior lot. Ms. Schaffer asked if this were an interior lot whether he would need this variance. Mr. Fitz explained that corner lots are viewed as having two front yards and two side yards. Interior lots have two side yards, a front and a back. Ms. Turkelson indicated that they didn’t evaluate if this meets the required side yard setbacks for an interior lot. Visually, she isn’t sure. Mr. Fitz stated that it is less than 5 ft. so it wouldn’t meet the standards for an interior lot. Ms. Schaffer asked that the applicant speak to the basement/foundation and how that was built. It seems as though there were some ice and snow issues and also that it sits beyond the exterior walls when they bought the house. Mr. Sanborn stated that that is something they will be investigating further as they go through the building permit process. The home was built in 1880 and there are a few things going on in the basement. The issue they were in for previously was that the deck and roof were dumping right into the foundation of the house. The previous variance was to extend the roof out to get it out away from the foundation. It delivered some other benefits to the home as well but they will be addressing the foundation question as they dig deeper into this. Ms. Montgomery recalled from testimony that the footprint of the home will remain the same. She asked if the second floor addition would extend out over the existing footprint. Mr. Sanborn replied affirmatively. The short history of this area where the improvement will be made was when they originally purchased the house there was a deck with that roof pouring into it and down into the basement. They improved that with the previous variance to enclose that and provide a mud room situation. This addition will go on top of that. They aren’t changing the footprint other than continuing to go up in that same area. Ms. Turkelson referred to the image displayed and noted the bank of three windows. Ms. Schaffer clarified that Mr. Sanborn pointed to the three windows identified by Ms. Turkelson and that the upper three windows shown are what is proposed/requested by variance; the exterior elevation on the south side. Mr. Sanborn emphasized that that is a very common condition around the neighborhood. Ms. Rabaut asked what is present on the second floor now. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 5 November 17, 2022 Mr. Sanborn replied that when they built the second floor it only goes over half of the house. There is a 5 ft. tall attic type of storage area and they are planning to go off over that to improve that area. Ms. Rabaut pointed out that the only consideration for the Board is the fact that the request is to go up where the three windows are on the south side; to add a story to the variance that was given in 2010. Ms. Rabaut added that in 2010 the variance was very specific to a single-story. She asked why it is necessary to come out over that area. Could they build what they want to accomplish on the second story without having the addition go out over the area of the variance addition? Mr. Sanborn replied no, not with what they want to accomplish in terms of additional bathroom facilities. That area is quite critical to making that floor plan work with the bedroom closet areas and things like that. Ms. Rabaut asked if the entire upstairs will be one bedroom and one bath. Mr. Sanborn replied one bathroom and two bedrooms. Ms. Turkelson clarified that post renovation there would be two bathrooms upstairs. Mr. Sanborn agreed. Ms. Rabaut clarified that there would basically be two master suites upstairs. Mr. Sanborn stated that he wouldn’t call them master suites. He would define it more as one nice bedroom added on. There is nothing extravagant about it; it is a pretty modest addition to the house. Ms. Turkelson noted that above the existing portion of the home there are two bedrooms. Post construction there would be three bedrooms and a bathroom that would likely serve those three bedrooms and then there is the master suite that is at the back/east side of the house that is labeled as master bedroom and master bath and two walk in closets. Dimensionally, the bathroom is 10 ft. wide from north to south and the portion of the bedroom is 16 ft. wide. If the variance is not approved, that would result in the bedroom being approximately 9 ft. wide. Ms. Montgomery asked if there are minimum requirements for bedrooms. Ms. Turkelson replied yes. Mr. Fitz added that the minimum requirement is quite small. Mr. Stella asked what they would have to do to stay within the requirements of the Ordinance and still do what they desire to do. Mr. Sanborn explained that he isn’t the architect but they would have to dramatically rethink the second floor plan and how or if it would work and whether it would be worth the investment. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 6 November 17, 2022 Ms. Rabaut asked for clarification. Are there three bedrooms and three baths upstairs or two bedrooms and two baths. Mr. Sanborn replied that currently there are two bedrooms and one bath. Ms. Turkelson added that post construction there would be four bedrooms and two bathrooms. Mr. Sanborn added that there are no bedrooms on the main floor of the house. There is a great room, kitchen, and bathroom. Ms. Montgomery asked staff if there was any particular reason the previous variance was only granted for a single-story. Ms. Turkelson replied that some of it was likely what was being asked for and how it was presented. At the time, the investment/remodel project was significantly different and smaller in scale than what is being considered today by the owner. There was a lot of reference to weather and getting protection from the elements because of where the house was. In this particular case it was based on what was presented but there is also a tendency to approve something per plans and the expectation was that it was to be a single-story addition. Mr. Fitz added that there was also testimony from a neighbor across the street that said he would support it as long as it didn’t get any larger. Ms. Rabaut invited public comment; there was none. There were no letters submitted. Mr. Lewis referred to the survey and asked if the applicant would be allowed to build one and a half feet over the existing covered area since it would remain within the setback. Mr. Fitz indicated that the setback shown isn’t actually correct. The setback on the interior side that says 10 ft. on the survey is actually 5 ft. They can build toward that side but that isn’t something he is requesting. The RBL is 30 ft., what is there, and 27 ft. is a setback that is not established. That is what the table states; that the RBL should be at 27 ft. if there isn’t an established RBL. Following some confusion/misunderstanding, Mr. Fitz related that where the 10 ft. mark is shown on the survey is about 27 ft. from the back of curb. Many surveyors make the error of putting in setbacks but for corner lots there are RBLs. Ms. Turkelson added that there is very minimal opportunity to bring the house toward the south. There are opportunities at grade to expand the footprint of the home. However, when you look at the floor plan of the home, not to mention the cost to expand footings and such, the proposed would likely be seen as the most practical expansion without adding footings and without increasing the physical footprint of the home. Mr. Lewis clarified that the 27 ft. setback requirement on the Newberry side is because there isn’t an established RBL. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 7 November 17, 2022 Mr. Fitz indicated that the Required Build Line on the Newberry side is 30 ft. He suggested not paying attention to the numbers shown on the survey. Where the house exists now is 30 ft. from back of curb. Motion by Mr. Stella, supported by Ms. Montgomery, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stella addressed the points: 1. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances or Conditions. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same Zone District or in the general vicinity. The applicant has made his case for this point. 2. Substantial Property Right. That the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same Zone District and in the neighboring area. Mr. Stella feels the applicant has made a case for the fact that this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same zone district. 3. Not Self-Created. That the immediate practical difficulty causing the need for the Variance was not created by an action or inaction by the applicant or the applicant’s predecessors in title. Mr. Stella feels there is a benefit to what is being requested. 4. No Substantial Detriment. The Variance, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. If granted, the variance would not cause substantial detriment to adjacent property or the neighborhood. 5. Master Plan/Zoning Ordinance. The Variance, if granted, is consistent with, and not materially impair, the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and District under consideration. If built per plans and testimony, it seems to fall within the intent of the Master Plan. It retains green space and substantially improves the existing property. Mr. Stella MOVED TO GRANT, per plans and testimony. SUPPORTED by Mr. Zeiser. Ms. Schaffer suggested amendments. With respect to point one; the structure was built in the 1880s and is on a corner lot. Additionally, it appears that the original variance did not approve a second story, which she feels is an extraordinary circumstance of not having the foresight that this would be desired in the future. With respect to point three, Ms. Schaffer noted that the property was built in the 1880s. In addition, the original variance was to correct a water/ice issue that was not created by the applicant and this expansion over that current variance is not bigger than what was previously approved. With respect to point four, no substantial detriment, this is a neighborhood and the applicant wishes to continue to use this home as a single-family house. In terms of being consistent with the Master Plan, the Master Plan encourages neighborhoods to be used as such for families and this use would be in line with that. Mr. Stella and Mr. Zeiser were in support of the suggested amendments. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 8 November 17, 2022 Ms. Rabaut indicated that she remains unclear as to what the exceptional circumstances are. She doesn’t see how adding a second story to a single-story addition that was constructed to solve water issues is an exceptional circumstance. She also doesn’t favor using a prior variance as a reason to grant a second variance when the reasons for the variance aren’t the same. Ms. Rabaut does believe that there are similar property rights. There are a lot of two-story homes in the area. With respect to not being self-created, she heard from testimony that if the expansion toward Newberry isn’t permitted, they would have to redesign the second floor. That sounds like they can do what they desire without the variance. Basically, the request is something they want vs. a need. Ms. Rabaut doesn’t believe the project would result in substantial detriment because it is a good investment for the neighborhood and the family. With respect to the Zoning Ordinance, it is what it is. Having a livable home in a neighborhood, having it improved, and all of those things, fit the Master Plan. Ms. Rabaut indicated that she is struggling with exceptional/extraordinary circumstances and being self-created. Mr. Stella repeated his findings for points one and three at Ms. Montgomery’s request. For point one, it would not be out of line with the character of the neighborhood and he didn’t feel it would impede upon anyone in the neighborhood. In terms of whether it is exceptional, in looking at the house it appears that the improvement could occur as shown in the plans without being an eyesore or obstructive. Ms. Montgomery felt that addressed a substantial property right as well as substantial detriment. She asked what exceptional or extraordinary circumstances require the design as proposed. Ms. Schaffer recalled the amendment she offered, which was accepted; the record shows, and the applicant stated, that the foundation did extend from the primary exterior of the house and the shed was built to remove the ice and snow problem. Ms. Schaffer also feels it is valuable to note that it is on a corner lot, which is a unique circumstance for that particular house, and it was built in the 1880s so it was plotted and that’s where the house is and any improvements have to be in line with that. She can appreciate that isn’t the most extraordinary of circumstances. However, in her opinion, it meets the fact that those findings would not generally apply to the neighborhood as a whole. With regard to not being self-created, Ms. Schaffer recognized that this is challenging. Ms. Rabaut suggested considering previous variances may not be the best way to do things. However, when the house was built and how it was built on the lot was not something created by the applicant. In addition, in her opinion, she doesn’t feel they should deny this request simply because they didn’t have the foresight to request a possible two-story when they requested the original variance. Ms. Turkelson added that the circumstance of the original structure being built in the 1800s does present some challenges when it comes to extensive remodels and reconfigurations. The addition at the back is only 26 ft. total so trying to update what would otherwise be historic homes presents challenges in terms of configuration of the space that can be used for today’s family. When looking at what the Master Plan is supporting, and the needs of the community, to support investment in single-family homes that serve families of different sizes, not just having studios and one-bedrooms, having a four bedroom home is certainly a need within the community, based on the Housing Needs assessment. When looking at homes built a long time ago, allowing for the reconfiguration within the space is challenging. Compounding that with the width of the lot, there are opportunities to expand the footprint of the home, which would allow for some Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 9 November 17, 2022 expansion of both floors within the code. One consideration is whether it is reasonable to suggest that that amount of investment in an expansion of an existing home, which does affect the green space and also has a greater impact to residents that are immediately to the north as well as to the east because the scale and massing is growing differently and closer where currently the massing is to the south, which is a public street. Therefore, the impact of this proposal on the surrounding property owners is less than if it were an expansion to the north. Ms. Turkelson suggested that when looking at the age of the home as well as the desire to continue investment in existing housing stock there are always unique challenges architecturally to be able to update those homes to meet today’s needs and expectations. Ms. Rabaut indicated that she still believes they can accomplish what they desire within the footprint available to them per code. She realizes it is a bit more challenging and will require a redesign. A variance shouldn’t be granted when it can be done legally. The question was called. YEAS: 4. NAYS: 2 (Rabaut & Zeiser). MOTION FAILED. Ms. Turkelson asked Mr. Zeiser and Ms. Rabaut if there are any conditions that could be added that would allow them to reconsider. Both replied negatively. Mr. Zeiser feels it could have been approved as part of the previous variance. Ms. Rabaut added however, that they don’t know if it would have been. There was testimony that a neighbor was only supportive of the addition at the size proposed. Mr. Zeiser understands it will cost more to do it as he would suggest it. He understands Ms. Turkelson’s point but that wasn’t brought up as extraordinary; that the cost would increase. Ms. Turkelson explained that her point about the expansion wasn’t necessarily speaking to cost as much as just whether the impact such an extension would have. Mr. Zeiser feels that they could go to the east. RESULT: FAILED [4 TO 2] MOVER: Fred Stella SECONDER: Lawrence Zeiser, Alternate YEAS: Cortney Schaffer, Traci Montgomery, Fred Stella, James Lewis NAYS: Lynn Rabaut, Lawrence Zeiser ABSENT: Swanson, McCoy, Kilpatrick, Perkins, King B. 1:20 PM - P-BZA-2022-0005 - Use Variance - Postponed from 10/20/2022 Address: 975 Ottawa Ave NW Case Number: P-BZA-2022-0005 Applicant: My Space Self Storage (Gary Gerrits) Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 10 November 17, 2022 Owner: 973 Ottawa Ave LLC (David De Maagd) & Propertal LLC (Ismail Sallam) Agent: Michael Corby Variance Type: Use Requesting: To convert an existing building into a self-storage facility, with four stories of storage units, and approximately 3,300 sq. ft of ground floor commercial/ office/retail space, abutting Ottawa Ave NW. Self-storage facilities are not a permitted use in the TN-CC Zone District. Lot Size: Frontage: 283.52 ft. Depth: 182.73 ft. Area: 1.06 acres Zoning: TN-CC Inspection: Stella Ordinance Sec. 5.6.06.B. Previous Appeals and See Attached Disposition: Mr. Fitz introduced the request for a use variance to convert an existing building into a self- storage facility, with four stories of storage units, and approximately 3,300 sq. ft. of ground floor commercial/office/retail space, abutting Ottawa Ave. NW. Mr. Fitz explained that self-storage facilities are not permitted in the Traditional Neighborhood - City Center Zone District. Ms. Rabaut asked that Mr. Fitz highlight what has changed with the request. When it was tabled at the last meeting there was a question about traffic circulation. Mr. Fitz explained that there is an exclusive easement on the vacated Walbridge. As a result, the applicant has redrawn their plans and put in an ingress and egress both from Ottawa on the north side of the building. Previously, the plan was to enter from Ottawa and exit onto Walbridge. By having both the ingress and egress from Ottawa, it reduces the amount of retail space they were showing previously. The total commercial space previously proposed was approximately 6,000 sq. ft. and it is now 3,300 sq. ft. Mr. Stella provided the inspection report. The request is to convert an existing building into a self-storage facility with four stories of storage units and approximately 3,300 sq. ft. of ground floor commercial on Ottawa Ave. Self-storage facilities are not a permitted use in the TN-CC Zone District. Mr. Stella related that the building has previously had a number of uses, one of which was the Charlevoix Club. The property is located at 975 Ottawa and the applicant is My Space Self Storage. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 11 November 17, 2022 Mr. Stella noted that the building is 100 years old. According to City historians it should not be given any special preservation status. The application states that this is a great application for an urban storage site as the property is surrounded by predominantly manufacturing operations yet it is still generally in an area that will serve its market. The application also states that the building is unique. Mr. Stella stated that he doesn’t see the uniqueness of the building. The application also indicates that the building’s configuration limits what uses will work effectively and that it has been vacant for many years. While it is in the TN-CC District, it is an area that is on the edge of the district with nearby TN-CC zoning districts. The use directly across the street is a large manufacturing facility, which is inconsistent in the area. Mr. Stella disagreed that the facility across the street is inconsistent. He feels the facility across the street is consistent with current zoning due to the materials used in its manufacturing. Mr. Stella asked the applicant to explain why he feels the building is unique and why a storage facility, which is not permitted in the zone district, should be allowed when there are storage facilities nearby that are in appropriately zoned areas. David DeMaagd, related that he is the owner of one of the four condos in the building. He provided a brief background relating that he purchased the former Spectrum Health Club condo, unit #1, in this building in 2005. Spectrum Health vacated the space in 2015. Upon his purchase the other three units were unoccupied and were later purchased by an out of state investor around 2009. Although partially refurbished, the units were never occupied and have been empty for approximately 2 decades. Since Spectrum vacated the space that he purchased he has been trying to sell his condo, and the other spaces, for several years now. It is an unusual building since it was formerly the Riverfront Fitness Center with a pool and gymnasium. In sum, they have had a number of interested parties but a combined use never materialized or made sense, including the following. A national fitness company was interested but parking arrangements could not be achieved and they terminated for that and a number of other reasons. A couple of affordable housing groups were interested. However, due to the unusual building spaces and profiles relative to the available tax credit programs and construction costs, both groups ultimately terminated. They have also had investors, developers and non-profits come through with many different ideas but none could assemble or procure the necessary combination of tenants, funding, parking access, and other arrangements. Over the last year they had a group, whose representative is present, comb through a multitude of development options, including market rate housing and mixed use. However, the unusual building layout, high construction and financing costs were overwhelming. Finally, they have what they consider the perfect user who is ideally positioned to occupy the building for their business and use the extra volume associated with the property for self-storage and other mixed uses. There would be an active operating business, self-storage business, and retail venues on the street level. The owner- occupant would care for the building, which it is in urgent need of, and would move here with an active business and also use the building volume that perfectly aligns with self-storage use and other street level venues. Mr. DeMaagd stated that he has over a decade of experience with this building and has tried his utmost to market it. Sitting empty it does no one any good whatsoever. Ms. Rabaut noted that there are times when the City puts forth an effort to help move properties. Mr. DeMaagd related that there was a developer tour that he participated in with no results. That occurred this fall. There were one or two buses, approximately 60 people, and no results. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 12 November 17, 2022 Spectrum was the only occupant and the balance of the building has been empty for decades, which is approximately 3/4 to 2/3 of the building. Mr. Fitz asked which portion Mr. DeMaagd owns. Mr. DeMaagd replied unit 1, which is the south main floor half. It was used by Spectrum for a very long time under a long-term lease. They had parking to the south secured but when they left the parking became separate and parking is not part of the building other than 15 spaces contiguous to the south edge of the building. Mr. Fitz recalled that there was a party by the name of Buchanan involved. He asked when they terminated their involvement. Mr. DeMaagd recalled that they owned it as part of Blue Bridge Ventures. They sold unit 1 to Mr. DeMaagd and sold the other units to an out-of-state investor during the recession. They started sandblasting paint off the wood ceilings and things like that, got it cleaned out and started to do some framing in on the north portion of the cafeteria area and then it came to an abrupt halt and nothing has happened since. Mike Corby, Integrated Architecture, wished to clarify that the retail area is predominantly on the south and it has actually grown since the previous application. The area that shrunk was the area to the north, which is the self-storage offices. They actually made the retail area deeper. The retail area is actually larger than what it was in the previous application. On the north are the offices for the users of the building, Mr. Gerrits company. The retail area, which is on the south end of the building was made deeper so it is larger. Ms. Rabaut asked if there was any retail on the north side in the previous submittal. Mr. Corby replied no; it was offices for the self-storage. It is an active use but it is the offices for the self-storage facility and their Service Master Operation. Ms. Montgomery asked about the 6,000 sq. ft. that was mentioned by staff. Mr. Corby replied that that was all of the area for both the offices and the retail. Ms. Mongomery asked what the total office and retail space is now. Mr. Corby replied approximately 4,300 sq. ft. The office spaces aren’t as deep as in the previous proposal. They tried to keep the activated frontage fairly equitable. In order to provide the turning radiuses, they had to scale back the office space. The storefront activation is fairly equitable to the previous iteration of the application, which he feels is an important point. As they’ve talked to the neighbors, the Business Association, as well as the Belknap Neighbors, that was an important consideration. Ms. Rabaut asked if it started at 6,000 sq. ft. including the offices and now it is at 4,300 sq. ft. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 13 November 17, 2022 Mr. Corby stated that he doesn’t believe they were at 6,000 sq. ft. He felt it was closer to 5,000 sq. ft. What they did with this application, the space to the south that is dedicated to retail is now deeper than it was in the previous iteration. That square footage increased although the dimension of the storefront didn’t change any. There was a lobby just north of the stairway that is on Ottawa and that lobby has shrunk. The office area previously went deeper into the building. That is the biggest change in square footage; the office. The storefront they will have along Ottawa, which includes the retail and offices, hasn’t changed materially. Mr. Fitz indicated that the numbers that were used for retail, commercial and office in the three spaces were the numbers shown on the plans since it wasn’t scaled, which is the 3,300. There is the additional leasing office shown on the plans of 850 sq. ft. Mr. Corby agreed. He clarified further that in terms of area there is less area but in terms of the frontage, it isn’t far off. Ms. Turkelson circulated a comparison of the two plans amongst the Board showing the difference between the two layouts. Mr. Corby indicated that Mr. Gerrits stated that the space behind the office will likely be used by Service Master. In comparison to what was previously proposed, the depth of that space is fairly similar and the area isn’t far off. He doesn’t feel it is materially part of what they are considering today but the part that is material is the fact that they are trying to maintain the storefront activation. As they have talked to neighbors, the activation portion is important. Mr. Stella asked what kind of interest there is in the retail space. Mr. Corby wasn’t sure. However, there is someone present in the audience that has an opinion on that. Mr. Corby indicated that he is present as the applicant’s agent but he is also a neighbor. His operation is 300 ft. south at 840 Ottawa. He explained that he is with Integrated Architecture and they just renovated an old building in the neighborhood and they are happy to have their operation in the neighborhood. He is also a resident of the neighborhood occupying what was previously Olds Manor. He is also a practitioner that has done a lot of building renovation in the core and just outside of the core. He has a lot of interest in making sure that the core, and areas around the core, are doing what they need to do. When this first came before him, he had the same reaction that a lot of the people have had that they’ve talked to, especially the Monroe North Business Association and the Neighbors of Belknap Lookout. The initial question is why a storage facility here. This is his seventh engagement by a client to look at this building to do something with it. Many of the potential uses that Mr. DeMaagd mentioned in his presentation are people that brought him into the building to look at it. They looked at it as an event center, mixed-use housing with 4 or 5 different developers, a fitness center, and as a light manufacturing facility for a distillery. Needless to say, he has been in the building a lot with other potential clients and it is unique. Some things that make it unique are that the west wall of the building is on a vacated railroad right of way or easement. It is basically a fire wall based on the proximity to the property line. That takes a lot of uses out of play because they can’t reasonably put windows in that elevation. It is a very deep building. The former Spectrum space is horrible. There is no natural light in that space and it has low ceilings. The fitness center was a reasonable use but it doesn’t make sense, otherwise they would have pursued it. The building has no Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 14 November 17, 2022 significant available parking. There are some available parking areas in the neighborhood and they are expensive. The City is soon going to require one to pay for parking north of Mason so the parking situation is only getting more aggravated. Mr. Corby stated that the use is unique in some ways. While this may not be ideal in a lot of ways, what they found from talking to others is that it is a good thing for this building and what it offers and it is a good thing for the neighborhood to get the building activated. If this building continues for another ten years not to be activated, that is not a good thing either. Mr. Corby addressed questions relating that this portion of Ottawa is unique. Whether the manufacturing is unique or not, Ottawa will never be a walkable corridor in the same way that Monroe could be. Spectrum just got their parking garage approved, which has no activated frontage. It is an interesting corridor that has some uniqueness in and of itself and this just happens to be in the midst of that unique corridor. Investments have recently been made in the manufacturing facility so that isn’t going away anytime soon. Mr. Corby stated that he looks at this proposed use much like he would look at a parking garage. It is there to support the uses that are permitted in the area. Just as a parking garage requires activation on the frontage, that is what they are proposing here as well. It isn’t incongruent with what is going on in the neighborhood, it is supporting it. Even though the use itself is not permitted, Mr. Corby feels there is a case to be stated that it is supporting what is going on. Over 60% of the people that live downtown rely on storage outside of their units. This will serve that need, no different than the people that want to live downtown and need a parking space. Mr. Corby feels that from that perspective there is no substantial detriment. It may be an arguable point but he feels it is congruent with the Master Plan in that sense. As Mr. DeMaagd mentioned, having the building sitting and continuing to do nothing because of its uniqueness is not congruent with the Master Plan. With respect to Standard 4, that the property cannot be reasonably used, he has history with the building and has tried to look at how to use it in a way that is more consistent with the Master Plan and Zoning. He feels this is unique. They have support from the associations in the neighborhood. As an investor in the neighborhood Mr. Corby feels it is a good thing. Is it the best thing, no. But it is a good thing, not bad. There is a strong reason it should be considered. Having the building vacant is not a good thing. The proposed storage business is different than what some are used to with storage units sprawling along properties. What Mr. Gerrits company does are buildings that you wouldn’t know were storage units if not for the sign. It doesn’t require a lot of parking and they have the ability to get vehicles in and out. Mr. Gerrits is marketing this to the urbanites and will make it convenient for them so it doesn’t require a lot of support in terms of parking and similar things. This body’s role is to look at these unique situations and it is supported by the area associations. Mr. Corby explained the issue with access to the north that caused them to alter their application. What they found is that there is potentially a legal right for them to use that. However, it is arguable. Their reason for not wanting to rely on that was based on concerns that the person that does have rights to that could create some issues with the proposed operation. It is still possible they may be able to use it as an egress route as was previously planned but they don’t want to rely on that at this point. Until they know it is a clean legal situation, they chose to avoid it. Ms. Rabaut asked Ms. Turkelson to comment on that. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 15 November 17, 2022 Ms. Turkelson stated that, based on the information they had, both Planning staff and internal legal counsel reviewed the information and concluded that there didn’t appear to be a legal right for them to utilize the access point, which is why they required the applicant to revise their plans if they wished to move forward. Gary Gerrits stated that the area where this property is located is in transition. They are experienced developers with mixed-use projects. Mr. Gerrits displayed boards to demonstrate mixed-use projects they’ve done in other locations. Mr. Gerrits related that they own and operate twenty-six different Service Master franchises in Michigan. He displayed a second board relating that in Farmington Hills they did a mixed-use development that is not dissimilar to what they are proposing here. They combined their Service Master operation with their storage operation and in that case, it was a Planned Unit Development. On Ottawa it would be a mixed-use development. It has been very successful. Their goal in combining Service Master and bringing that into the downtown area is that they have been operating out of Wayland for the last 20 years. Eighty percent of their work is done in the downtown Grand Rapids market so the extra 20 minute trip each direction, with the increased costs for gasoline and labor hours, is very costly. They sold their operation in Wayland and have been looking for a new home in the downtown Grand Rapids area. They would be bringing jobs and activity into the area. Based on their experience, they feel there is a natural synergy between Service Master and storage. Ms. Rabaut asked that Mr. Gerrits explain what Service Master is and what type of parking they will need to operate in the subject location. Mr. Gerrits explained that Service Master is a service company that does fire and water damage restoration work. They will have 8-12 service vehicles. The plan presented has an interior drive. Along the north wall, beyond where the drive is, is where they intend to park the service vehicles overnight. They are weather sensitive with water vacuum machines so they cannot be outside in the cold weather. The center area in the semi-circular drive will be utilized by them for their equipment. That area will be for the self-storage office as well as the Service Master reception area and the remainder of that semi-circle will be utilized by Service Master. Mr. Gerrits stated that they feel the subject building is historic in nature by no other reason than age. It may not have been designated as such but they feel it is a beautiful building that lends a lot of charm to the area. They would like to activate the street frontage on Ottawa. They will move their Grand Rapids/Kent County Service Master operations into the building bringing jobs into the downtown market. They will create vibrant retail offerings along the remaining street frontage including their storage office, Service Master office, and several retail spaces, none of which will need parking that is scarce in the area. Mr. Gerrits recalled the question about what retail businesses would locate here. He stated that they haven’t approached any of their connections in retail about this particular project. However, based on the other locations they’ve developed over the years, they do have connections and resources to bring in what they feel are synergistic opportunities, one of which is a UPS store. Coffee shops and sandwich shops also seem to be popular. Mr. Stella asked how they would do that without parking. Mr. Gerrits replied that there is paid parking along the street frontage. All of the uses mentioned, the small retailers, have a goal of 900-1,200 sq. ft. store. They will have 2-3 customers inside the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 16 November 17, 2022 store at any given time. There is currently parking along Ottawa that will suffice for that. Despite the legal opinion given about the vacated street on the north, he believes that they do own 15’ of that and he could create parallel parking spaces along the north face of the building, which is where he would intend to have his employees park so they aren’t taking any of the spaces on Ottawa. In the event it is necessary, they can set it up to where they would supplement the retailers to pay for their customer’s parking. He doesn’t anticipate parking is going to be an issue. Ms. Turkelson felt it was also worth noting that there is no parking required in the City Center Zone District. Therefore, they would not be required to provide parking. Mr. Gerrits continued, with respect to parking and traffic, explaining that the self-storage use is a very light traffic generator. In a property of this size, if they have 60,000 sq. ft. of storage space, they will have a maximum of five visitors a day moving things in or out or coming in to inquire about renting a unit. There is a synergy between Service Master and the self-storage use. Service Master, in the water and fire restoration business, gets calls from home owners and business owners all the time when there is a pipe that breaks, a sump pump fails, or a kitchen fire. The first thing Service Master does when going into a home or business is package up all of the contents and take them to their facility to clean them. After they are cleaned, they are wrapped in plastic wrap and placed in storage until the property is ready to have them back after the repairs have all been made. Mr. Gerrits explained that that is how they got into the self-storage business. They were in the Service Master business long before the self-storage business and they used to have a central facility similar to what they are proposing here. They took all of the contents from the homes or businesses to the central facility, processed it all, stored it, and returned it at the appropriate time. They had a customer on the east side of the state that didn’t want their belongings taken 50 miles away; they wanted it closer. He took them to a public storage facility and asked them why they couldn’t get him two units two blocks away from his home. That gave them the thought that they could do that and ultimately converted their facility in Brighton to an interior, climate-controlled storage facility. Service Master was operating there and over time their share had to become less and less as they got greater and greater demand from the public for the storage units. Service Master can be expected to occupy approximately 30% of the storage spaces proposed. The remainder would be available to the public. Ms. Turkelson asked if Service Master occupies one of the three tenant bays shown on the plan. Mr. Gerrits replied no. Service Master will share the office with the self-storage office and the Service Master operation team will be in the section behind what is currently shown on the plans as a lot of cubes. Mr. Gerrits recalled mention of another storage facility within a few blocks of this location. That building opened approximately 2 ½ years ago. Service Master had a large water damage job and inquired about space there and out of 714 units they had 11 available. That indicates that there is definitely a demand in this immediate market for more self-storage space. Mr. Gerrits indicated that they are satisfied that the demand is real and sufficient to support their business model. They don’t tax City services. They will be a very minor water and sewer user, will generate very low traffic counts, will add to the City’s tax base rather than the property continuing to be unoccupied, will provide a much needed service to the downtown residents and businesses that are currently underserved. Mr. Gerrits added that they will invest a significant amount of capital into the project and they believe they are excellent corporate citizens. They Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 17 November 17, 2022 will bring Service Master jobs to the downtown market along with the storage and management personnel and the retail employees. Mr. Gerrits asked that the Board allow them the opportunity to see their plan through to fruition. Jack VanGessel, commercial real estate broker, stated that they looked at this project a number of ways trying to figure things out. As Mr. Corby explained, they have gone through this building and tried everything to make this work. Mr. VanGessel stated that he was tasked with the opportunity to sell Mr. Gerrits building in Wayland and try to find them a new location in Grand Rapids. They’ve run into several stumbling blocks including unwilling neighbors to negotiate to the west and south. They came into a legal issue with the access to the north and looked at other alternatives for accessing the building. Mr. VanGessel related that he lives downtown and was aware that the Belknap Neighborhood Association was against multi-story development and wanted more retail components. He went out and beat the street and talked to every retailer in the area and asked them what they felt about the building, if they could buy it, and just as Mr. DeMaagd brought dozens of developers through, there was no interest. Mr. VanGessel approached Mr. Gerrits pointing out that their business would fit downtown and how the building was quirky and needed to be activated. Mr. VanGessel has talked to hundreds of retailers that have expressed interest in small format or big format to be in this building. This building doesn’t make sense to redevelop into an office building or small retail building because it is confusing. The applicant team has put together a very comprehensive plan to occupy the building and activate it with the support of the North Monroe Business Association and Belknap Neighborhood Association. Mr. Lewis asked the square footage of the existing building. Mr. DeMaagd replied 45,000 sq. ft. The ground floor is 28,000 with the balance upstairs. Ms. Rabaut opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Amanda Metzner read a letter she wrote on behalf of William Tingley III, the general manager of Proto-Cam, which occupies the building to the north. Ms. Metzner stated that she is the office manager of Proto-Cam, located at 1099 Ottawa NW. The letter she read is an addendum to previous letters from Proto-Cam opposing the zoning variance request. They understand that the redevelopment plan has been revised with an entrance and exit from Ottawa Ave. Within the space of approximately 100 ft. the applicant proposes three intersections with Ottawa making left hand turns onto and from that street, in addition to the already limited parking available. It is a recipe for chaos. The TN-CC district specifies uses to encourage and accommodate dense pedestrian traffic, not vehicular traffic. For this reason, the City expressly prohibited self-storage facilities in the TN-CC zone. They are centers of vehicular traffic, especially trucks and trailers. The applicant’s proposal tries to squeeze all of this traffic into a tight space right next to their freight access. It is directly contrary to the objectives of the TN-CC zone regarding a traffic friendly environment. It creates a traffic hazard where none exists now. This use and hazard directly interfere with a long-standing business and zoning compliance of their property. For these, and reasons previously stated, this variance must be denied. Ms. Metzner stated that in addition to the parking issue, the north side of the building is currently private property and is signed for no parking or vehicles will be towed. Another problem they Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 18 November 17, 2022 have is because they are now landlocked that is their only entrance and exit to their parking, which is behind their building. There is too much traffic going in. Their receiving door is off of the vacated Walbridge. They have semi trucks that come in there. They have to back up to the door and it takes up all of Walbridge. There is no way that they could have parking there; it would be in the way. Ms. Metzner related that her office is right next to Ottawa with a large window. She has observed a lot of people that illegally turn around using the entire street. She rarely sees patrols in the area. They also have problems with trespassing on their private property. They don’t want to have after hours parking of their employees or storage customers parking in their parking lot. Jeff Lehman, resident of 600 Monroe, stated that they have rented in the neighborhood for 21 years. The reason he and his wife moved to the area originally is that they could tell North Monroe would be a very vibrant and exciting place to live over the years. It has been developing exactly as they expected and hoped. Mr. Lehman referred to the list of permitted uses in the Ordinance noting that self-storage is not available by Special Use permit. It isn’t permitted and is very specifically excluded. Therefore, it becomes a matter of zoning and if the use is to be permitted then perhaps a zone change is the more appropriate course. While self-storage would be a great use for the building, it isn’t appropriate within the City Center zone. Mr. Lehman recalled the building owner’s testimony that they’ve had a difficult time finding users for the building. That is difficult and creates a financial hardship. However, variances are not to be granted to remove inconveniences or financial burdens. There are 130 uses listed within the Ordinance. Of the 130, 20 are shown as excluded in the City Center. When the former Grand Rapids organization working with the City developed the new zoning regulations five years ago, they took all of this into consideration. Historically, they found that developing self-storage did not encourage people to want to live in the area. Mr. Lehman stated that, more importantly, self- storage is specifically excluded in the zone district. Granting the variance would be illegal and the City would be opening itself up to a challenge if it is permitted. Mr. DeMaagd responded to the Tingley/Proto-Cam opposition. He offered the Board documentation of a court case where the party to Proto-Cam has basically sued the Mayor, judges and others and the court ruled very explicitly saying they were being totally unreasonable and there was no basis for the suit. It was further stated that if they sue again they would have to disclose the suit to the judge or it will be grounds for a dismissal. He is a very litigious person and has denied any kind of development in that area, which is part of the reason this building sits here for 2+ decades. Mr. DeMaagd feels this use is the most complementary use to minimizing parking demand. If housing were to go in, the result would be numerous cars. Doing anything else, such as an event venue, it would interfere far more with the Proto-Cam operations. Mr. DeMaagd stated that he believes the Proto-Cam easement was something the City was party to putting together at the detriment of this building and it was to accommodate some bankruptcy with Autodie at the time. In any case, the subject building owns half of Walbridge St., approximately 66 ft. There is an additional 15 ft. from the edge of the building to the curb of Walbridge that he believes the subject building has rights to. However, there is no proposed use other than to use the inside of the structure simply to accommodate the neighbor to the north that is almost impossible to work with. Walbridge has been vacated and it is private property, with the subject site owning half of it but they can’t use it at all with the easement that the City was party to developing. If the manufacturing operation ever ceases, the easement is immediately terminated and they will have the street back but they can’t count on that. They are moving Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 19 November 17, 2022 forward in a way in which they can and they feel this minimizes demand on parking, bringing an active, operating owner into the building and adding to Grand Rapids as a service business as well as self-storage. It is using the volume of the building and making it viable. Mr. DeMaagd explained that part of the issue was that the condo units were broken out into such large pieces that they couldn’t ever really consider any small retail. If Mr. Gerrits is the owner of the entire building, he can do with it as he chooses and sub-divide it and restructure it legally. Mr. DeMaagd feels this is the best chance there is to make something, that is currently a blight, positive for the City of Grand Rapids. The question is whether the desire is for the building to sit vacant or make something nice of it. Ms. Montgomery asked the dimension of the north face of the building. Mr. DeMaagd replied that his recollection is that the building is approximately 200+ x 300+. Mr. Lewis asked if the Board would be approving the applicant’s ability to use the building as proposed or do they have to go through another planning process to approve the plan. Mr. Stella replied that they would be approving their use of self-storage. Mr. Lewis asked what happens in the planning process if the retail uses were to go away. Ms. Turkelson explained that an approval would be per plans. The next step in the process would be moving into the construction permitting process. There is nothing in the Ordinance that compels someone to lease space. The presumption is that it makes financial sense if it is built and there are retail tenants interested. The property owner would not be able to convert the commercial spaces to the self-storage. Building permits would be required to do so and permits would not be approved by the Planning Dept. because that isn’t what would be allowable per an approved variance. Mr. Lewis asked how the City views mixed-use rights later on? Is mixed-use the use of the site or do both uses have to be conforming in order for it to be approved? Mr. Fitz explained that the use variance requested is for the self-storage facility. Retail would be permitted by right. Ms. Turkelson added that, in urban planning, the term mixed-use typically means commercial and residential. However, mixed-use isn’t a defined term in the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, where there is a mix of uses in a single building you can also consider that mixed use. Self- storage plus commercial space wouldn’t traditionally be referred to as a mixed-use development. In most of the planning documents, the reference to mixed-use, pedestrian scaled environment, it is really looking for upper floor residential and ground floor commercial spaces. A lot of the work done with the GR Forward Plan looks to encourage a mix of uses with office, retail, commercial and/or residential. Ms. Turkelson asked Mr. Gerrits to speak to proposed hours of operation for the self-storage facility. Additionally, based on the number of units being constructed, what would they anticipate to be a typical number of visitor trips per day. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 20 November 17, 2022 Mr. Gerrits replied that typically in their facilities they have a management/leasing office open and available from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday. They are typically closed on Sundays. Customers can have access to their units from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. After 10 p.m. the key pads shut down until 6 a.m. the following morning and no one will have access to the building in or out. In their experience, nothing good happens in the middle of the night in a big building like that. As to the number of trips, they anticipate a facility of this size and nature, in this type of location, would generate approximately 5 visitors per day. Two or three people will be moving their things in or out in any given day and two or three will be coming in to inquire about leasing space. 96% of their business transactions are done by credit card over the internet so they don’t have people coming in to pay their monthly rent. Ms. Turkelson clarified that in addition to two employees they anticipate five self-storage visitors per day. Mr. Gerrits agreed. Hopefully the retail will be a different story. Ms. Turkelson asked how many self-storage spaces they will have. Mr. Gerrits replied that he hasn’t actually counted the number of units but it would typically be between 400 and 500. Ms. Turkelson asked if there are overhead doors for the ingress/egress that come down when the business is closed at night. Mr. Gerrits replied that the overhead doors would be closed 24/7. They would be activated as you approach with either a keypad, key card, or perhaps a detector in one’s vehicle. Typically, in their business, especially when it abuts a sidewalk such as this location, they would have a barrier arm that is also activated after the door is open and there is a loud beeping to alert pedestrian traffic that something is about to happen in the space. The barrier arm goes up and then you can enter or exit the building. He clarified that there would be both the overhead door and the barrier arm. Ms. Turkelson noted that often times you can also rent moving vans as part of a storage operation. She asked if that is something this use would include. Mr. Gerrits replied that they don’t choose to do that. He responded to public comment regarding the Service Master portion of the operation. Employees begin work at 8 a.m. and work until 5 p.m. The entering and exiting utilizing the private drive would be limited to approximately a 30- minute period in the morning and 30 minutes in the afternoon. They do have 24/7, 365, service. Occasionally, someone will need to come, get into one of the vehicles, and go out to a catastrophe. That could happen at any time but typically they are in at 8 a.m. and out at 5 p.m. Ms. Turkelson asked what type of commercial spaces they intend to build. Will they be equipped with grease traps, restrooms, etc. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 21 November 17, 2022 Mr. Gerrits replied that at this juncture they are envisioning just building the boxes. They will stub in sanitary sewer service, stub in water, provide electrical service, sprinkler system, and the rest will be bare walls and a flat slab. The slab is already existing. If it were new construction, it would be a dirt floor. Once they have a lease with a tenant, it will be dependent upon who the tenant is whether they need to add grease traps and stove hoods, etc. They wouldn’t install the restroom facilities but would provide the services for them such as a drain and water service into the space. You never know where a tenant will want to locate their kitchen or a restroom so that has to be subject to change. Once they begin the conversion process of the project they would begin to actively market the space to retailers so that hopefully everything opens at approximately the same time. Ms. Turkelson asked if the expectation is that the restroom square footage would come out of the 1,000 sq. ft. and not a central restroom that tenants would share. Mr. Gerrits replied that the expectation is that the retail spaces would have individual restrooms. The self-storage facility will also have public restrooms, typically two. Ms. Turkelson noted that there appears to be a connection between the northernmost retail/commercial/office tenant bay and the self-storage. She asked the reason for that connection and not others. Mr. Gerrits replied that there wouldn’t be a connection unless there was a need. One of their tenants at one of their facilities is Pet Supplies Plus. They rent a lot of their storage units in order to stack product. They have a connecting door between their retail space and the storage. Ms. Rabaut clarified that the Board’s consideration is the use. In 2017 there was a GR Forward study done where they specifically stated this was not a use they wanted to see in this area. She asked staff to provide further background as to how they reached that decision. Ms. Turkelson explained that in 2015 the DDA led an Area Specific Plan/Master Plan for the downtown. There was a specific amount of public engagement. It was a very in-depth planning study that was done for the entire downtown. That work was adopted as the City’s Master Plan and it is the plan that would be utilized when considering the fifth standard for any variance consideration. With that plan the downtown expanded; the City Center district was expanded. The subject property was the northernmost property in the City Center zone district until that effort. The Plan recommended that the properties across the street, the referenced manufacturing building, and one or two parcels immediately north of this be incorporated into the City Center zone district. There were also properties on the west side along Bridge St. that were incorporated in the City Center zone district. That was one significant change that is relative to this. This was no longer seen as the outskirts of downtown; it became part of the downtown core. There have been a lot of significant changes that have occurred since that planning work. Part of the planning process that was undertaken was a retail market analysis and a lot of work to determine what uses would be appropriate along what streets. Fundamentally, the plan recommends a couple of things in addition to the zoning expansion. One is that they wanted to support ground floor active uses; commercial, retail, and office uses. Industrial uses were limited within the City Center zone district and also identified the critical need for housing and population density. City wide, and downtown specifically, there is a critical need for more housing units. With more Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 22 November 17, 2022 population density it would support the desire for active ground floor or commercial uses. Part of the implementation effort included an amendment to expand the zoning boundaries as well a fairly comprehensive overhaul of the uses that were previously allowed in the City Center. It was a very deliberate decision as part of the planning work to eliminate self-storage facilities from being allowed by Special Land Use in the City Center Zone District. Ms. Turkelson feels that from a planning perspective they continue to struggle with this particular request because, although there may be some challenges with the building itself, it simply doesn’t align with the vision and the planning work that has been put into motion and that they are seeing come to fruition in other areas of the same corridor. Ms. Rabaut also wished to clarify that the Board isn’t considering parking for the Service Master business. Ms. Turkelson feels it is part of the Board’s consideration because this is a use that isn’t allowed in this zone district. When looking at the uses that are allowed, such as residential and commercial, it was determined through the GR Forward planning effort that they no longer wanted to require each individual project carry its own requirement for parking. The effort was to consolidate or centralize parking and utilize these spaces for higher and better uses. There is quite a bit of work around the country to put parking on the market; the market will bear what the market will bear. That is a tenant-based decision as to whether there is adequate parking to support the use in the district or whether mass transit may be more conducive. Part of the GR Forward work was to eliminate parking from being a requirement in the City Center zone district but that ties back to uses that are permitted. Understanding how vehicles would access the site, especially if looking at what would be considered as more of an industrial use, is part of the Board’s scope of authority. If allowing an industrial use, it should be understood how the service vehicles would operate and determine whether that is appropriate for this location. Mr. DeMaagd clarified that Service Master would not be a tenant, they would be an owner; an active business owner-occupant of the building. In conjunction with their business, which is service vs. industrial, they would be using 30% of the storage units with that business. It isn’t solely a self-storage or retail; it is a combination with an active owner-occupant business that would be coming to the downtown area. Ms. Turkelson pointed out that the two uses appear to be very integral in that the Service Master component could be viewed as ancillary to the self-storage facility, much like the office tenant. Mr. Fitz added that in looking at the use categories he is trying to determine where Service Master fits. His opinion would be that it might be considered some type of contractor, which is a Special Land Use in the CC zone district. Ms. Turkelson agreed that they have typically looked at these types of uses a contractor. Given how integral it is to the self-storage facility, she feels it could be a reasonable interpretation to consider it an ancillary use to the self-storage. If Service Master came in without the self-storage facility, she agreed with Mr. Fitz that they would be looking at it as a Special Land Use. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 23 November 17, 2022 Ms. Rabaut clarified then that the Board does need to be concerned about that. They are looking at people coming in to work there, some of whom will take a service vehicle and leave, and parking in an area that they’ve been told there is no parking. Ms. Turkelson agreed that the Board should be concerned about that. Based on the legal guidance staff has received, it is not appropriate for the Board to allow for vehicles to be utilizing the vacated right-of-way. Ms. Rabaut recalled from testimony that the applicant’s have stated that there is property adjacent to the building, before the curb, that they can park on. Ms. Turkelson clarified that based on the information they received, which has been evaluated, they don’t agree that there is legal use of that space for any tenant, occupant, or use by this property owner. She doesn’t feel it would be appropriate for the Board to allow for that as part of any approval. Mr. Lewis clarified that the application is for self-storage and not an industrial use. Is it necessary for them to resubmit the application. Ms. Turkelson explained that self-storage is considered an industrial use, which is how it is in the use category of the Ordinance. The way the project was presented, she feels it is reasonable to consider the Service Master use as part of the other industrial use, the self-storage. Ms. Montgomery clarified that they would be accommodating the storage of the vehicles associated with Service Master; parking of their service vehicles. Ms. Rabaut clarified that service vehicles would be inside the building. It is the employees that arrive to take those service vehicles during the day that need to leave their cars somewhere. She wonders how big of a deal that is to the consideration because they have been told there is no parking. Ms. Montgomery referred to the visual that indicates only two parking spaces within the turn around. She doesn’t have an understanding of how many vehicles can actually fit within that space. Ms. Rabaut pointed out the squares, which are indicative of parking spaces. Mr. DeMaagd wished to provide clarification. The building owns 15 parking spaces contiguous to the south edge of the building but they don’t have access arrangements. He has spoken with John Rooks and he has agreed to provide access in exchange for some of the spaces. Those spaces are owned by the building. With respect to Walbridge, they aren’t requesting any access. However, Walbridge was vacated. It is 66 ft. wide, 33’ on either side of the center line to the curb. From the curb to the building there is no easement. He feels that could be used for parking in the future. Motion by Mr. Stella, supported by Ms. Montgomery, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 24 November 17, 2022 Ms. Turkelson advised the Board that employee and customer parking is not relevant to their consideration because no use in this district requires parking. Vehicle movements is a reasonable consideration, such as loading and unloading for the industrial use, which is being shown on the interior circular lane. Service vehicles for Service Master is also a reasonable consideration; where will they be stored, serviced, and enter and exit. Mr. Stella suggested they review the points. 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. This is a grand building but is it unique? He would like to discuss that further. 2. Not Self-Created. That the need for the Variance was not created by the applicant or the applicant’s predecessor in title. Mr. Stella finds this is self-created. There is a building and they are asking for a variance to use it for a business that the City has said is not desired in this particular zone district. 3. No Substantial Detriment. That the Use Variance shall not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, nor be a detriment to adjacent properties. Mr. Stella finds that there could be some detriment to the character of the neighborhood as the City has planned it. 4. Cannot Be Reasonably Use. That the land, building or structure cannot be reasonably used for the permitted uses in the Zone District. The owner has made a very good case with respect to their efforts to market the building and apparently nothing fits. However, he doesn’t believe all possibilities have been exhausted. 5. Master Plan/Zoning Ordinance. That the Variance shall be consistent with, and not materially impair, the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District. Not only the Master Plan but GR Forward was very specific that self-storage is not an industry that they choose to have in this particular zone district. Mr. Stella MOVED TO DENY. There was no support for the motion. MOTION FAILED. Ms. Schaffer addressed the standards. 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 was formerly used as a fitness center. The current condition of the building, per testimony, is that it includes a gymnasium and a pool. The way the building is situated on the lot it abuts a railroad right-of-way, which is unique to the property. 2. Not Self-Created. That the need for the Variance was not created by the applicant or the applicant’s predecessor in title. The applicant did not build the building, or build the building for the particular use that previously occupied it. Additionally, the applicant didn’t create the constraints that it has in terms of its neighbors as well as the testified to railroad right-of-way. 3. No Substantial Detriment. That the Use Variance shall not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, nor be a detriment to adjacent properties. While traffic patterns could impact the surrounding neighborhood, per testimony, the traffic would be limited in nature. In addition, hours of operation will be included as a condition of approval. Testimony was that there are typically five visitors a day to the self-storage. Even at 10-15 it is relatively low considering the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 25 November 17, 2022 size of the building. In addition, it would not be a detriment to the adjacent properties because it would include retail space, which would activate a long-standing vacant building. 4. Cannot Be Reasonably Use. That the land, building or structure cannot be reasonably used for the permitted uses in the Zone District. There was extensive testimony by representatives present today indicating the number of different ways they tried to market or use the building in a manner that would be in line with the Zoning Ordinance. All of those opportunities fell through. For that reason, Ms. Schaffer doesn’t feel it can be reasonably used for any of the uses allowed in the Zone District. 5. Master Plan/Zoning Ordinance. That the Variance shall be consistent with, and not materially impair, the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including the Zone District. Ms. Schaffer acknowledged that the Master Plan excluded self-storage facilities from this particular zone district. However, the general purpose of the Master Plan is to have use of facilities within the city. In this particular case, the applicant has gone out of their way to increase the amount of retail space in order to have activated space in the front of the building in order to have pedestrian traffic and bring more people into the area to a building that has been vacant for a long time. Ms. Schaffer MOVED TO GRANT with the stipulation that the hours of operation are limited to 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., seven days a week. SUPPORTED by Mr. Zeiser. Mr. Zeiser wished to offer an amendment/additional conditions:  There shall be no vehicles rented from the facility.  No individual storage units can be rented out of the facility to be taken off premise and on premise.  Any ancillary businesses run concurrent with the self-storage business must store all vehicles within the building.  All loading and unloading for the self-storage business is to be done inside the building. Ms. Schaffer ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENTS/ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS. SUPPORTED by Mr. Lewis. Ms. Montgomery wondered if it was feasible for them to store all the Service Master vehicles inside and still have circulation for the self-storage business. Ms. Schaffer recalled from testimony that the Service Master vehicles would be stored within the building and they would maintain traffic flow. Ms. Rabaut asked that Ms. Schaffer explain the fifth point noting that in 2017 the Ordinance was amended to specifically exclude this use and expand the borders of downtown. Ms. Schaffer explained that from her viewpoint the Master Plan is focused on the use and the community of the downtown area. In her mind, for a building that has sat vacant for a long time, there is a reasonable use that meets the majority of the criteria of the Master Plan in creating retail spaces and activating a vacant building. In her opinion, the Master Plan would want use of the building. Despite the amount of effort that has gone into having uses in line with the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan, that was not self- storage, those uses didn’t materialize. Ms. Montgomery shared that she was also struggling with point five. The question was called. YEAS: 2 (Schaffer & Zeiser). NAYS: 4. MOTION FAILED. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 26 November 17, 2022 RESULT: FAILED [2 TO 4] MOVER: Cortney Schaffer SECONDER: Lawrence Zeiser, Alternate YEAS: Lawrence Zeiser, Cortney Schaffer NAYS: Lynn Rabaut, Traci Montgomery, Fred Stella, James Lewis ABSENT: Swanson, McCoy, Kilpatrick, Perkins, King General Public Comment - None. V. Discussion 1. Election of Officers (Vice Chairperson) Motion by Ms. Schaffer, supported by Mr. Stella, to elect Ms. Montgomery as vice-chair. Motion carried unanimously.  Ms. Turkelson related that she and Mr. Fitz are working to schedule training for the BZA in the new year.  The next meeting will be December 15, 2022. VI. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 3:30 PM