Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables dimensional‑variance request for 1900 Will Avenue NW to allow plan revisions
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals tabled the application for 1900 Will Avenue NW after members raised questions about alley access, truck circulation, parking requirements and plan completeness. The applicant was directed to work with planning staff on revised plans or a narrowed request.
The Grand Rapids City Board of Zoning Appeals voted to table — with the motion left open — the dimensional‑variance application for 1900 Will Avenue Northwest to allow the applicant to work with planning staff and return with revised plans or a narrowed request.
Staff presented five requested dimensional variances needed to build a contractor’s/warehouse building on the roughly 13,000‑square‑foot lot in the SDIT zone: (1) eliminate or alter the required building line on Will Avenue (staff said the proposal would place the building 61 feet from the curb, requiring a variance), (2) alter the required building line on Edwin Street, (3) eliminate the requirement to access the property from the alley, (4) allow parking within a defined front yard, and (5) allow parking to exceed 50 percent of lot width. Staff noted the lot meets SDIT dimensional requirements but the applicant requested the variances to facilitate truck access and site layout.
Property owner and presenter Brian DeSmit said the unimproved alley is gravel and broken concrete and argued it would be unsafe or impractical for regular truck access. "It really just screws up your traffic flow coming," DeSmit said, describing difficulties with alley access and turning radii for trucks and trailers. The applicant and several board members described alternative configurations that might permit curb cuts from Will or Edwin, but board members repeatedly said they lacked sufficient revised plans, traffic measurements or a clearly minimized set of variance requests to approve the package presented.
Planning staff told the board the ordinance requires 12 parking spaces for a contractor’s yard of the proposed building size, though staff offered to return with available parking‑reduction options if the applicant revised the submittal. Several board members urged the applicant to work with staff to reduce the number or scope of variances (for example, pursuing only an alley access variance or adjusting the required building line) and to provide truck‑turning or traffic‑flow data to justify variances affecting circulation.
After discussion the board voted to table the application and leave it open so the applicant could consult with planning on revised plans or pursue a narrower variance request. The board did not set a date certain; staff said the applicant could resubmit or pursue a separate application for a specific variance if desired.
