Board approves variances for 12‑unit Coit Avenue project, urges planning review of parking and screening

The Grand Rapids Board of Zoning Appeals on Jan. 2026 approved dimensional variances needed for a proposed 12‑unit multifamily building at 801/811 Coit Avenue Northeast, finding the site’s steep topography creates exceptional circumstances that justify relief from several setback and façade requirements.

Staff presented four requested variances: permission to disturb and grade defined steep slopes, an increase to the required building line by 12.4 feet (from 29 feet to 41.4 feet from the curb), a reduction of the building façade required at that line from 60% to 30%, and a 17‑foot reduction of the 25‑foot rear‑yard setback to 8 feet to permit a parking area. Rowan, a planning staff member, told the board the site has multiple steep slope areas above 20% grade and showed an area‑of‑disturbance plan staff recommends be restored “to the extent practicable” after construction.

Greg Metz of Metz Crutcher Architecture, speaking for the applicant, said design choices sought to avoid steep slopes and that the project team reached an agreement or letter of intent to acquire an adjacent city parcel to square off the development site. Metz said city engineering is requiring replacement of a retaining wall, which will increase disturbance because the wall must be moved back about 8–10 feet onto the applicant’s property. “We were trying to do everything we could to minimize variance request,” Metz said.

Neighbors and members of the nearby Newberry Place cohousing community told the board they worry the project will worsen chronic parking and winter traffic congestion. Erin Magley, who said she lives on the cul‑de‑sac adjacent to the site, told the board she supports new housing but questioned whether the property presents unique conditions that require the number and scale of variances requested: “The number of variances and the extreme nature of the variances seem to me to be created by the scope of the project,” she said.

Commissioner King, who visited the site with staff, reviewed the five variance standards in the zoning ordinance and found them met for each request, citing the steep slopes, efforts to minimize disturbance, and the proposal’s consistency with the city’s compact‑neighborhood goals. King proposed, and the board adopted, a condition requiring that designated steep‑slope areas be restored to the extent practicable per the applicant’s grading plan.

The board also noted the proposal will require a separate special land‑use review by the planning commission and that issues such as screening of the parking area and a potential parking reduction request (the project proposes 12 parking spaces where 18 are required) are best addressed at that stage. Planning staff and the applicant were directed to work together on required documentation and potential conditions; staff indicated planning commission review remains a required next step.

Outcome: The Board of Zoning Appeals approved the requested steep‑slope, building‑line/façade, and rear‑yard/parking variances, with the condition that steep slopes be restored as shown in the applicant’s grading plan and with planning commission review required for special land use and screening.