this is the board of appeals meeting for july twenty five two thousand and thirteen but before we get to the public hearing portion we need to make a motion an elected chairperson and a vice chair person so let's congratulations now we open the public portion of the meeting for the board of appeals of the city of holland this is the time in the place for the media the board of peels of the city of holland we are here to respond to applications for construction zoning variances and or special exceptions housing  infrastructures this part must try to interpret each application as it relates to city ordinances this part is not empowered to rezone or take any action that could be considered rezoning variances must meet for crucial tests in order to be granted those of you who are here for varian have already answered questions about the tests on your application we'll be asking you about those answers again tonight this is the procedure we follow we will we ask that you come to the microphone to speak and state your name and address we will hear first and anyone supporting the application then anyone in opposition to it typically would hold the public hearing an application and then deliberate and decide on the application before moving on to the next application you are welcome to stay for the deliberations but there is no opportunity for further public comment if you elect not to stay for a deliberation decision you can call the city clerk's office after eight thirty tomorrow morning to learn the results will hear the applicants in the following order construction zoning housing good evening my name is johnny degree's i'm the attorney representative for preferred developments l l c you please give your address for the record my personal address one fifty six west washington zealand michigan thank you i also have with me tom he is an owner also of preferred developments l l c so hopefully any questions that you may have that i cannot answer he will be able to step in although i hope it's not too many that i can answer for you essentially you have done a great job of summing up our request we believe it's one hundred percent true that the landscape ordinance will cause an undue hardship on this personal and particular part in part because of the natural size and shape of the parcel being a very also the location of structures that were on the parcel when it was originally purchased prior to the current owners acquiring that parcel it would be difficult to utilize the parcel in any fashion for its intended use specifically as shown on the third drawing that we submitted with our application it's going to create serious problems with maneuverability to kind of put it in perspective if you it does take the full length of a truck to turn around a truck if you look at the area properties that's primarily what you're looking at large equipment and truck sales with the location of the building as mandated by the planning commission it would be nearly impossible to utilize the parcel and in effect of manner  the modification is necessary for reasonable use of the property because that i'm forty corridor is presently largely on occupied by large equipment and truck sales what's new or construction reflecting the city's desire to create the gateway entrance to the southside industrial district use of these parcels in a way that reflects a desire but also keeps like you says will require some modification of that landscape ordinance they don't intend to eliminate the landscaping and certainly they'll put in what is required within that twenty foot buffer but the limitation will be necessary for them to utilize the parcel and in effect of manner it's not going to modify the essential character of the neighborhood either i think there's been several photos of comparable properties in the area showing parcel due to lies in parking nearly up to the sidewalk we're not proposing anything like that we do want to utilize the landscaping and make it  essentially it'll be new construction so it will look as that actually pleasing and like i said they will comply with it whatever requirements you put in place for that twenty foot buffer that they would like to see thank you very much  before you say i would like to offer the opportunity for anyone from the board to ask you questions s when you went in front of the planning commission they were aware of the zoning application at the time they made the approval parking around the main service building but then there will also be trucks along the road much like you would see in a car sales type of lot it is for maneuverability it's also kind of come about because of the planning commission's desire to move the proposed building eight feet closer to the road so again that's limiting maneuverability as well so in this situation that's specific to this type of development for this property general for any use of the property i would say it is going to be general for almost any use because of the fact that when you take in to consideration the drainage pond the landscape ordinance the placement of the building as required when over ability for almost any type of user would be very limited so you think the type of answer your question would be equally plausible along the lines where eric said to say only answer keeping company if they're using trucks yes i think that would be correct any business that would use trucks and i think that's probably true for most of the area businesses along that i'm forty corridor are going to have maneuverability issues for sure anybody else have any other questions for the applicant i guess i'm still a little fuzzy on how this increases the maneuverability of the property in a way that can't be figured out just by rearranging the original plan was to have the building set back an additional eight feet when that kind of got crunched forward with the planning commission site plan approval eight feet as well as a lot an additional twenty feet as a lot and speaking with tom just before the meeting commenced you know he said twenty feet is huge when you're looking at maneuvering any type of large machinery or trucks so why not apply for an additional eight feet from the variance why twenty we would quite frankly be happy with any additional space that you would allow twenty was what we were hoping for i'm not sure hopefully tom can give some idea of what minimum would be necessary but there's an opportunity for someone here to speak in support of the application i'm just going to zoom that is the applicant and if you want to come up and speak and answer questions certainly would allow that but please state your name and address for the board huge when you're talking so my trucks if they're parked out there along the road and there's employee parking in there that twenty to thirty feet is huge when you're trying to back a vehicle without interfering with other vehicles that are parked along the doors and openings in the building that what that would be used for trucks are either on the south elevation in the north elevation to the west elevation reading this correctly is the one that faces m forty and wouldn't be necessary for to have a truck along that side at all to still be able to use that building you know a truck center where a dealership shop is used for service parts and service and there's going to be semi trucks parked out along the road for  sale the reason why i ask the question is what about one of the requirements is that you know strict compliance with the regulation would unreasonably prevent you from using the property for a permitted purpose not necessarily the purpose that you specifically want to use it for  so that's one of the one of the factors we need to look at in terms of deciding whether or not we can we can allow a variance in this area and i guess i'm having difficulty and i think mr davis is having that same difficulty in determining whether or not there is a nother permitted purpose that you could use this property for and still and still stay within the ordinance even if it's you know doing something with larger vehicles is it absolutely necessary for the variance for this property  know stairs but because that was application was specifically for that user of the property we were able to grant the variance because it's not general to the property it's only the user the current user  still feeling that this is a very similar situation where it's your use that is requiring the variance not specifically the property i would think most business is just like all of our neighbors that that building is made for what word on if we were to ever be gone it's going to be used for a trucking company of some sort or heavy machinery dealer and certainly understandable and from what i understand based on our research the existing heavy equipment dealers were there grandfathered before the annexation and one of the ordinances that helps to illustrate the intent of what we're judged in reviewing this application are section thirty nine thirty forty one specific area standards for them forty quarter or expectation levels will be high regarding the quantity and quality of landscaping and other environmental treatments  it's a gateway into the city of holland and they want to ensure the drafters intent was desirable quality and that's part of the reason why the put the landscape requirement in there i would imagine and so as we take that and apply it to the particular test it's not necessarily everyone that's around that perhaps it's grandfathered in but it was going forward and as both eric and mr box illustrated hey let's take the trucking portion of this equation what it was another company what if it was you know i suggested landscaping or something else would this still on reasonably burn the property and that's part of the  we're trying to address right here in the moment certainly if you have any to speak with that and or your attorney would be happy to hear that right now but i do believe it's a struggle for a couple of us if not more what the quality i mean i know this doesn't necessarily address the concerns that you're having but would the quality or the density of landscaping put in there anyway compromise that forty five forty foot  barrier we're still trying to and i've read through that intent as well and we're still trying to make sure that we fit within that intent but it is a struggle to use that property as it is is there any sort of compromise that we lesser amount that would be reasonable after those standards were met then we could do something like that but as far as you know denser that we would in fact one of the standards is the minimum relief necessary is this the as to the least intrusive method of modifying this we still believe it's the least intrusive our alternative is really to move existing structures and buildings  make this work i understand the struggle that you're having but i really truly believe that the businesses in the area would all have the similar struggle with the usable area when you look at the drainage pond the drawing in conjunction with the buildings that are existing as well as the shape of the parcel the drawing of the first drawing that we've provided is kind of misleading that you can't really see the boundary between the two parcels perhaps a ta map is a better to see that but it is a long narrow parcel and i don't mean to beat a dead horse or anything here but certainly that's coming from is anybody else here to speak in support of the application if there's no one here to speak in support is there anyone here to speak in opposition to the application and if there's not going to close the public hearing and open up deliberations amongst a board proceeding of i'm ready to make a motion i movie tonight motion by box to deny is anyone here support that motion support support by davis finding don't number three i do not believe that strict compliance of the regulations governing so area is set back from its height bulk density or the dimensional requirements would under reasonably prevent the property owner from using the property for limited purpose  i believe that they could stay within the forty foot required landscape set back and still use the property for a permitted purpose under the ordinance thank you do have everything you need  yes yes then we are and yes the motion passes to deny thank you very much as that was the only applicant tonight we have a couple of other items that we need to finish first of all we have some unfinished business the last meeting we created large number not conforming structures and your request is to send this to the planning commission to have them study it and or amend the tax to remove the most most of the non conforming situations that occur there thank you very much and just to reiterate this resolution is does not pass anything other than to send to the planning commission for review planning commission now and rather than reading the entire resolution and this will be made available to anybody who would like to see it correct if nobody has any questions with regard to what i'd like to call for a motion to send the resolution to the planning commission  the only the only comment i have is that i really hope that the planning commission takes a close look at this i think this is a special neighborhood within the city hall and i'm actually a property owner within that district only i'm i own a commercial property rather than a residential property so this wouldn't affect me directly as a property owner but definitely as a neighbor to the properties that are there i think that this is a unique and special area and how and i think that we need to make sure that we as the planning commission to take that into consideration when looking at the possibility of are we seeing a lot of requests for variances in this area but also we believe that there's a special character at least i believe there's a special character in this neighborhood and to reiterate what  two thousand and thirteen board meaning if nobody has any problems with those minutes please have a motion the motion to prove the minutes of the june twenty seventh two thousand and thirteen meeting past the next meeting they will be august twenty two two thousand and thirteen and we have known for the business before the board the scene please have a motion to a