use variance sport must try to interpret each application as relates to city ordinances this board is not empowered to rezone or to take any action that could be considered rezoning variances must meet four crucial tests in order to be granted those  you who are here for a variance have already answered questions about the tests on your application will be asking you about those answers again tonight this is the procedure we follow we ask that you come to the microphone to speak and state your name and address we will hear the applicant first and anyone supporting the application then anyone in opposition to it typically we hold the public hearing an application then deliberate and decide on the application before moving on to the next you are welcome to stay for the deliberations but there is no opportunity for further public comment if you elect not to stay for deliberation and decision you can call the city clerk's office if after eight thirty tomorrow morning to learn the results we will hear applications in the following order  tonight it's just amended application for the nine use variance but that said and will you please read the application on the application was submitted and get the church at seven tension chicago avenue as amended application for a non variance request at seven ten chicago avenue we have received letters of support from they come out from big coffee and tory pell's culture works stating that the conversation of the building church will have a positive impact on the surrounding business in neighborhood also we received additional letters of support one from big apple bagels and a letter from the first ward council members truthy we which i will read as he would like it read into the record i am in full support of the request for a variance to the old k mart building under consideration by the zoning board of appeals i believe this to be a grand opportunity for the community in this plaza to put what could become of this whole parcel and surrounding structures with this type of proposed investment on limited investment proposed will employ a number of people for some time and get the church has been and hopefully continues to be a great neighbor to the area granting the variance will not have a negative impact in preparing out a way to overcome the plotlines situations placed in ninety three will only help this project come together and find a new use for this empty building thank you for your time sincerely mi first of all just want to thank you all for having a special meeting i realized that the notice issue caused a bit of a pick up last time because time is of the essence force in this project and the donation really appreciate your willingness to schedule a special configuration other than has medic improvements to the building but no changes to you know the the traffic layout parking layout landscaping anything like that so the variances we're asking for are i guess whatever it takes to get that project done from what i see in the record i believe that that requires an amendment to the c v a condition imposed in one thousand nine hundred three that said the four lots had to be held together listening in on your study session i think that there might be some thought that that isn't necessary but if you look at tab e of the materials that's been  a declaration there is a condition put in place that the lats be helped to gather so it seems to me that there would need to be an amendment to that condition or some way to address that existing requirement that's on the record  that would include at least a side yard setback for both kmart building as well as the lots behind it neighbor jason to the east is a culture of art space so we'd be looking for side yard setbacks for both of those resulting parcels and sounds like there might be a frontage issued in and which way you view the building so we'd be looking for a frontage variance i believe that's section thirty nine sixteen for the back yard for the back lots and you know there's other things that i'm not sure if they're all compliant i think that or you know existing non conforming uses to the extent that they're not things like the height of the lighting in the parking lot the amount of landscaping those sorts of things i am not sure if they comply or not so to the extent that any other variance is necessary we'd be requesting those as well if for any reason you're not able to rule on each of the various requests tonight simultaneously we would appreciate you approving whatever you can tonight and if we need to come back with more information on something like the lighting of the parking lot landscaping we'd be happy to do that but because of the time line for the church is proposed construction and negotiations with the owner of the property  is of the essence for us to get a lot at least transferred in under the ownership of engage sure that we can begin our construction process if we are delayed there's a possibility that the do any of the property in new york  may no longer be interested in donating to the building so it could kill the thing entirely if there's a further delay in the transfer and if it doesn't kill it there's going to be at least additional costs we paid about seven thousand dollars a month in rent for current space so to the extent that were delayed in building out the new space that we can move in there the church would be spending an additional seven thousand dollars a month on rance and the construction bids that we have with you and i didn't realize this at the time i presented the application but i wonder if there might also be an ability to allow the proposed transfer in use under section thirty nine forty two of the ordinance which allows for the continuation of nine or mean structures that are conforming in use so i just mention that as an alternative so i don't want to further burden the board with more things to consider but if that's helpful just throw that out there as was mentioned we've got some letters of support from folks in the area there are hundreds of weightman and with mayor dykstra all of those conversations were very positive and in my estimation they're all in support of the project so i invite you to converse them directly we do have the original letters if you want church and next to him is doc with g m b architects he's been involved in helping us put together construction plans i think brian may or may not have additional comment but i want to make you aware of their presence because we're all here to answer any additional questions you might have provided information or anything we can do to support its decision so thank you for the opportunity to present the application and for your consideration and if there's any questions happy to come back up if it could be helpful so thank you for your introduction to that request but that would ask that you would stay up to the board to have the opportunity to ask and perhaps you answer any questions that we have i have a number start all right thank you for all the information that you've given us so far mr i have let me ask i want to make sure i've got the the history of this correct in that you guys understand that you guys are in agreement with the history that we've been given with this anyway the original project all of the buildings were constructed back in one thousand nine hundred seven one thousand nine hundred eight that kind of that time frame and my understanding is that the zoning ordinance was different at that point did not require the setbacks that are required at this  point i'm not aware of what existed back then having not been in the practice or the community at that time ok that does sound sound right ok but to the best your knowledge all these buildings were built at about the same time in a number of different businesses were in these buildings over th over the years that's my understanding ok are there i haven't driven through there recently frankly since k mart closed and and the other the other businesses aren't there i don't find myself over in that area that much are there other businesses that are in that in that development at this point yeah cultural works which is there's a letter from his next door it's an arts program for middle age high school youth ok it's right next door to keep mart frank's greenhouse still has some operations drive we're talking about that portion that might my sense of direction is terrible here that's south of that kind of access drive that splits that crack that's correct but they're all part of the same model all under the same ownership ok and i mean this is this is more  personal observation but that that area that developments been a little bit economically distressed since k mart moved out there hasn't been as much activity in that area and very true ok there's a number of vacant storefronts i mean it's not been  quite up to speed as a result and in general it's looking pretty tired ok and into the best of your knowledge the splits that took place of the splitting of these different parcels occurred after zoning ordinance change took place i'm not aware of when the owning or in its change came in but yeah it's my understanding that this was planted in the buildings were constructed after they were constructed the planning was done around determination that condition restricting the transfer of these four lots was put in place and i think that's about what brings us to today's ok and you're not looking at you know moving any walls any ext configuration this is going to be the same essential building outline in that the division of these different units you know for lack of a better way of putting it that it's been in place for almost twenty five years that's correct ok i don't have any other questions this point does anybody else have any questions for the  applicant more question for ron first and that will determine whether i question if we allow them to split the lot for for the drawing here in the i would say no because i the one thousand nine hundred three zoning board decision determined that the front yard of the parcel was facing north and so all of these little spot lots here would be facing north for front yard purposes and that was done and that was done you know based on the representations that it was one lot for zoning purposes that's why it's sort of awkward front yard scenario here once it's divided but  that would be the front yard so the the argument there is that since that determination is already been made we don't need to worry about remaking it just because we're doing a separate ownership exactly ok and for clarification that the terminations is not a condition  i do not have much to say but thanks again for i really appreciate your and all of your complete ten away at forest hills drive here in holland and appreciate being able to be here tonight and really just want to say thanks for all of your time  boxer already commented which is we really i mean i know the due diligence side we need to do well as far as what's appropriate legally and what not but it is that is the case we more or less just want to leave the building exactly how it's been for the last twenty years and and fix up the interior and make the exteriors look a little bit little bit better the physical structure but outside of that as far as i think the community is is concerned it will continue to function on as i and and i do think that the local businesses would say and this is what's been a good thing it's still the case both during the week and on sundays that in getty brings more traffic into that shopping center than any other stablished more than bumblebees more than  the green house when it's open more than even family farm and home we just have a lot going on so i think that's part of why the businesses have been so encouraged by what we're about as as a church we ultimately drive business to their to their shops on a regular basis basis and in fact like the bubbles these folks even of said we'd like to and they'd like to partner with us and some different things that we do so which we were all about those kinds of partnerships but in any case appreciate the time and  as you guys is concern and encouragement on this project and i think that's that's about it thanks thank you if i can get some input from other people on the board who who may be seeing this differently than i am or maybe able to help us i think this is a project that screaming to be done that that i really want to try to find a way to be able to make this this happen within the confines of what we've been given with the ordinance and i think that you guys may be in agreement on this that there are some issues here with unique circumstances and you know the need for the variance not being self created but when i when i go back and look at the history of this project in the fact that this construction was done this large development project was done on this one parcel prior to the time that the zoning change took place that you couldn't do this kind of a project under the current current ordinance i mean if we had have twenty five what setbacks for all of these different parcels that are here just wouldn't happen and i'm not sure that there is a use for this property that's going to be able to to exist or move forward unless we try to figure out a way to be able to make this thing happen in the way i'm looking at it is when i look at the the timeline the construction was done in one thousand nine hundred eight prior to the time that the zoning ordinance change the zoning ordinance changed at some point then following the issuance of the certificate of occupancy the splits took place after that point but very close to that point it was probably in the works already to make these splits occur had the splits occurred shortly prior to the zoning change i don't think we would even be sitting here talking right now might my understanding that right run if they had done if they'd done those splits before the zoning ordinance change took place we wouldn't even be having this discussion purposes under the under common ownership it's been conforming yeah ok and if he is sorry but i tossed up on that if the lines were there when it was built where there's common ownership there's a lot of  lot lines drawn by the owner doesn't determine the one that stays under common ownership doesn't determine the application of the zoning he look to the property but i think there's been some precedent before where you wanted to look at granting variances when there's a lot line for example it runs through the j c i building one of their buildings in the south side where they've done expansions i can't remember the exact circumstances of those expansions but you know you've covered those are governmentally created lines that the school district lines i guess what i'm looking at here is i'm trying to figure out if there's a way to be able to view this legitimately as this is an issue that was created in in large part by the zoning change that took place and that the then that there was there was simply bad timing on the part of the splitting of these parcels and that if that if the if the zoning ordinance had been changed six months or a year later that that this would not have been a problem and i'm trying to see that as maybe an issue that that wasn't necessarily created by the developer because there's been discussion that the idea of this being split into separate parcels was done prior to that i think i see what your question is if the zoning change had come about after the lot lines were there that would change the scenario a bit because the property was and still is conforming with yeah right if it if that but if those if those lines had been placed and they had been in separate ownership and the right of the prior to the zoning change we would not be having this discussion oh exactly if there was a separate ownership prior to the zoning change we wouldn't have this discussion just like any other building that is owned and there's only requirements change i think that change came about because of the there's the hotel over in twenty four st and waverly that was built real close to the streets and it was that was sort of a motivation to change it but that hotel is still there because it was built before the zoning change so any time you build before the zoning sure change you live with your zoning ordinance that was in effect at the time the changes right exactly exactly but i guess i'm looking at this and going ok what's that what's what is the what was the purpose of the zoning change was there was that zoning change meant to impact a property like this was the is the the setback requirements me to deal with the property like this you know i don't i don't want to sort of i want to set a bad precedent here but i'm looking at this going this doesn't seem like it makes sense to me to require those kinds of those kinds of change those kinds of setbacks in this kind of a development and i guess that's what i'm looking for i guess for me or not me figure out if there isn't a i'm missing something you say and historically back in eighty eight was this type of development unique to me i don't seem to recall these me yeah i don't know that there's any evidence before the board determined that maybe maybe it wasn't you know i don't know the history of developing a shopping mall into separate ownership or are they staying is common ownership you know if you're looking at a strip well right now ok but i guess i'll let me let me rephrase my question if people were interested in doing a development like this with a multi use larger larger commercial development like this are they able to do it with separate ownership and separate parcels with twenty five foot setbacks so if i'm going to put a strip mall up i've got to keep it under common ownership we have any other instances city where we've a building divided across the city now that has a single building across across multiple parcels that is not required to have those twenty five foot setbacks the only one that i'm aware of is  royalty square development where the same process was done by the same developer and before the city learned of a city learned of this situation the zoning people in the city learned of this situation when they came in for the variance in one thousand nine hundred three to do an addition  about the same time they learned that in royalties square was done the same way but by that time a couple lots of been sold off already and so that's already a done deal they were in violation of the ordinance but it was really nothing that could be help me out board i'm trying to get over the hurdle of the unique circumstances i'm trying to get over the hurdle of the variance not due to factors other than the actions of the current the previous owner that i view this board is the reason why we're here is to look at circumstances like this that it doesn't the the ordinance doesn't seem to make sense for a property like this that the property seems unique in history in how it was developed by the particular developer and the circumstances that then sprung forth from that seemed to happen in only two developments that were designed by this developer now they had subsequently changed but to me it seems that it's very roots it was perhaps aggressive for the time and certainly different not of  me the time the place from which it sprung forth was different then and perhaps what we're used to now under the current and existing zoning ordinances and how developers now practice one i i guess maybe i'm i'm looking at it from the standpoint of is there any other way to be able to make this property useful you know can this property be used by anybody without granting a variance of this type you know is it is it likely  you know is it that is that the minimum or leave necessary to actually know number four strict compliance with regulations governing setback and road access unreasonably prevent use of the property for the permitted purpose or render it unnecessarily burdensome for them to do it you know is it unnecessarily burdensome with with this property based on the size that it is based on the configuration that it is based on the location where it is isn't necessarily burdensome to require them to have that twenty five foot setback in my opinion it touches upon you need at least in the context and the time and the developer especially if that's the only other example that we can think of unless there's others out there that we're missing as you know i had to that the unique circumstances are that the construction took place just before that zoning change occurred but that's a that is a relatively unique circumstance for this parcel the timing was in close enough proximity yes to the change of the ordinance that it won't be well for the record considering these two particular parcels general t square and this one were developed by the same owner i have driven by the church property in the last week on multiple occasions at different times and well and there seems to be a linkage between who developed at the time that it developed and the particular state of affairs that they're in now as the elected official that represents the neighborhood where  would characterize it as beyond tired and i see an opportunity here to try to make it less so and that's that's where i hope that's why but i want to we have an ordinance that we've got to work within that's why i want to try to try to make sure that we do this correctly and don't get ourselves into a situation where we're we may be creating a precedent that we don't want to have in an attempt to try to do something good for a particular particular parcel know i i think that this this the size and the location of this particular project this this development make it unique and i think that the parcel that was created as  part of this whole process in the late eighty's and early ninety's makes this a unique parcel within the within his own district and you know even though i know we're looking at this in terms of all of these parcels for zoning purposes one lot but i still think that the way this thing was was set up the way this thing was put together and the timing of it makes it a set of unique and i don't see that that the need for this variance be doing due to the factor of factors that were created by this or it or previous owner but in conjunction with what the city did in terms of changing the zoning ordinance if you were to find that it was unique i would be inclined to agree with you i'm ready to make a motion on this most anybody anybody else has any discussion or any comments before we make that motion i just want to make you aware that we did receive another letter of support just recently from heights of hope and also in support at the twenty foot wide road so that the proposed backlots would have street access and then we're also looking at the required side yard issue can i combine that into one i don't know if you want to split it into two yeah i don't see a reason why you can't combine them into one unless other zoning and for both both issues the twenty foot wide road eliminate that requirement as long as we get a reciprocal use agreement to allow access to the backlots and that reciprocal use agreement needs to be permanent so that they always have supports we have no idea only where there are buildings or limited side yards only where there are buildings so i think that's the minimum relief that we need to do in order to make this thing  we have a motion by box in support of the application for anyone that like to motion by box to prove the application is their support support starbucks would you like to present your findings of fact yes i do believe that there are unique circumstances that are not common with this within the stoning district based on the physical size of this property the timing in which  developed and that the process in which it was developed related to when that when the building was constructed when the lot lines were created and when the zoning ordinance was chain but changed by the city of holland also based on the fact that  we're finding that property to this property is not economically feasible in its current state i think that makes it unique within the zone district as well and also the fact that this building is stretching across  multiple parcels at this point it would be difficult to be able to do much in regard to this building of this property related to that fact in the site when the need for the variance is due to factors other than the applicant's personal or economic difficulty it is due to the unique circumstances of this lot again the fact that it stretches across multiple parcels the building is already in existence and that there was a zoning change subsequent to the construction of the building the need for the variance is due to factors other than the actions of the current or previous owner i believe that the need for the variance has as much to do with economic changes in changes in the zoning ordinance as it does with any other factor that that's related here and i do not believe that that's related to the actions of the kerner or the previous owner stricter alliance with the regulations governing the setback and road access do unreasonably prevent the use of this property for a permitted purpose or and renders it unnecessarily burdensome i believe that if we require strict compliance with the with the regulations in this regard that it will not be economically feasible to be able to use this property for for any permitted use and i believe that the requested variance is the minimum relief necessary to do substantial justice to the applicant as well as to other property owners within the district i think that this is a relatively small change that we we are proposing here related to this property and i think that it is a very small amount of change to provide the relief that they need in order to use this particular property and i do believe that the applicant has overwhelmingly established that there will not be adverse impact on the surrounding property and property values the outside exterior walls are going to stay the same they're actually asked looking to improve the exterior of the of the building they have received we've received multiple letters of support from they were in property owners that are in support of this i think that this is actually going to do a whole lot to improve the surrounding property and property values within that  neighborhood and again the only condition that i would require is in regard to that twenty foot wide road that there'd be that reciprocal use agreement to allow access to those backlots we need all of ron's normal laundry list of things on chance to review it so there's not an issue there and i take it reciprocal you screen needs to be superior to any kind of mortgage on the property yes yeah yeah i was going i was going to let you work that out with them that to make sure that we met all of those requirements you have