Grand Rapids board denies proposed two‑story front‑yard garage, approves smaller shed and driveway paving at 2128 Duiker Avenue NE

The Grand Rapids Board of Zoning Appeals on April — denied a request to place a two‑story, two‑car garage with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in the front yard at 2128 Duiker Avenue NE but approved a separate variance to allow a small storage shed in front of the house and a dimensional variance to pave a driveway straight from the street back to the house.

Why it matters: The board split actions so it could consider the accessory structure, any existing unpermitted storage shed, and driveway paving separately. The applicant, Tiffany Ireland, sought the garage and an ADU above it to provide covered parking and extra living space; neighbors had raised concerns about scale and density. Planning staff recommended approval of the shed and the driveway paving but noted the proposed garage and two‑story structure would substantially change the appearance and scale of the lot.

Planning staff opened the case by saying the request includes multiple variances to allow an accessory garage and ADU in the front yard and to permit drive paving that would extend past the front facade of a proposed garage. Staff identified specific code citations in the packet that prohibit accessory garages in the front yard (listed as section 5 10 0 3 f 6 e 4 b in the staff summary) and restrict accessory structures in the front yard (section 5 2 0 8 I 1). Staff said the lot is narrow and the existing house sits far back on the parcel.

Applicant remarks and neighborhood context Tiffany Ireland told the board she and her husband now occupy the property; she described storage needs, car parking problems during spring thaw, and a desire for an ADU above a garage so family members could stay occasionally. She said the house is small and has limited basement storage; she also described trying to reach neighbors and said one adjacent property owner raised concerns about shade and height.

Board discussion and findings Planning staff and board members visited the site. Staff member Miss Swanson reported the house was built in 1927 and is set well back on a narrow lot; she concluded that a small front‑yard shed and a paved driveway could meet the variance criteria but expressed concern about the size and placement of a two‑story, 24-by-24-foot garage that would place a large accessory structure forward of the primary building.

Several board members said they were sympathetic to the applicant’s desire for covered parking but repeatedly cited concerns that a two‑story garage of the proposed size would "dwarf" the existing house and harm the residential character of the block. One member noted the board must apply four variance criteria: an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance, a substantial property right, whether the condition is self‑created, and whether the variance would cause substantial detriment. That member said they did not find the proposed two‑story garage met the substantial‑property‑right or non‑detriment criteria.

Votes and actions - Garage/ADU variance (placement of a two‑story, two‑car garage and associated dimensional requests): board motioned to deny the variance after discussion; the motion carried. The denial applies to the proposed garage/ADU as presented. The board and staff discussed that the applicant may return with a substantially different, single‑story design and staff will advise on noticing and application requirements.

- Shed variance (existing unpermitted storage shed moved into front‑yard footprint shown on plans): after initial procedural confusion about vote counts and a short tabling, the board approved a variance to allow the shed to be placed closer to the house and within the property’s setback requirements, conditioned on compliance with setback limits and permitting.

- Driveway paving/dimensional variance: the board approved a variance to pave a straight driveway from the street to the house (the board clarified that paving into the portion of the site reserved for the proposed garage — which was denied — is not included in the approval).

What the board directed next The planning staff told the applicant that a single‑story garage or alternate design would be treated as a substantially different request and that staff would work with the applicant and the city attorney’s office about permitting, noticing, and any reduced fees the city can offer if she reapplies.

Clarifying details and limits The board repeatedly distinguished between the ADU as a permitted use (if built in compliance) and the placement of a large accessory building forward of the primary house, which is the zoning issue before the board. The board noted historic lot and house placement (house built circa 1927) and that front‑yard garages are expressly restricted by the cited code sections. The applicant described driveway sketches and said the driveway would extend from the sidewalk to the rear French doors; she estimated distances roughly while acknowledging measurements were approximate.

Ending Planning staff said they will work with the applicant on a revised application if she chooses to return with a single‑story design; the applicant was told staff would try to reduce fees where possible. The denial stands for the two‑story garage as presented; the shed and the straight driveway back to the house were approved with the conditions described above.