Zoning board approves West Michigan Avenue façade variance for multifamily project; member announces forthcoming reconsideration

The Zoning Board of Appeals approved a dimensional variance on Feb. 13 to allow a primary building façade of approximately 318 feet for a multi‑family residential building proposed at 3619 and 3625 West Michigan Avenue. The ordinance limits a primary facade to 200 feet for a strictly multi‑family building; the developer sought relief because the parcel configuration and site constraints push a long facade toward the street.

Nut graf: AR Engineering representative Whitney Pizzala and city staff said the lot is a flag-shaped parcel with an irregular footprint and that moving the building farther south to shorten the frontage would intrude on steeper slopes and tree cover already addressed during previous Natural Features Protection (NFP) reviews. Staff noted a vacant, blighted former nursing-home structure on site and said redevelopment would remove a longstanding neighborhood blight.

Pizzala said the proposed building has been in design and review for several years and that, after zoning changes last year that reclassified the parcel from commercial to RM‑15 residential, staff identified the 200-foot facade limit that applies to multifamily buildings. She said the design places most of the façade far back from the street — nearly 300 feet — and that shifting the building to meet the 200-foot cap would push it into steeper slopes, requiring additional NFP review and tree impacts.

A nearby neighbor, Rex Brogeman, spoke in opposition at the meeting, urging the board to follow the ordinance and questioning whether the applicant had shown the variance is the minimum necessary. The applicant's owner representative, Greg Guilen (on the phone), said the team has worked for nearly three years on the project and had proceeded based on earlier submittals and approvals.

The board adopted a finding of fact and voted to grant the facade-length variance by a 4–2 roll-call vote. Recorded votes: Wark — yes; Vanden Homburg — yes; Hahn — yes; McReynolds — no; Harrington — yes; Holler — no. After the vote, one member announced she intended to make a written motion to reconsider the decision (allowed under the board's rules if submitted within 10 days by a member who voted with the prevailing side). The board chair confirmed that if a written reconsideration request is filed it will be placed on the next regular meeting agenda and the applicant will be notified.

The approval allows the developer to proceed with site-plan finalization subject to standard permitting and any conditions the board included in its approval. The announced reconsideration means the decision could return to the board at the next meeting if procedurally pursued.