View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
December 13, 2011
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: E. Fordham, R. Hilt, J. Clingman-Scott, S. Wisneski, S. Brock, B.
Larson, T. Halterman
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: F. Schossau, 1259 Lakeshore Dr; B. Schossau, 1259 Lakeshore Dr; J.
Moore, 1271 W. Southern Ave; P. Price, Raymond James & Assoc.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of August 9, 2011 be approved was made by E.
Fordham, supported by S. Wisneski and unanimously approved.
T. Halterman arrived at 4:01 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing Case 2011-004: Request for a variance from Section 2311: Accessory Structures and
Buildings, to allow for an accessory structure to be erected closer to the principal structure than
the required minimum setback of six feet, at 1259 Lakeshore Dr, by Fred Schossau. M. Franzak
presented the staff report. The subject property is a bed and breakfast located in an RM-1, Low
Density Multi-Family Residential zoning district. The applicant applied for a building permit to
construct a carport on the southwest side of the property on September 8, 2011. The application
was denied because it did not meet zoning requirements. At that time, the proposed carport was
attached to the principal structure, but it did not meet the side setback requirement of 10 feet for
principal structures. This site plan also shows that it does not meet the side setbacks of 10 feet
each and a total of 24 feet combined, which makes the principal structure legally non-
conforming. Accessory structures (i.e. detached carports) can be placed on legally non-
conforming properties as long as a development permit is obtained. Principal structures (i.e.
attached carports) can be increased up to 30% with approval from the Planning Commission. The
applicant started construction of the carport after being denied the permit, and was issued a stop
work order on October 6, 2011. The boards that have already been installed are roughly ½” from
the principal structure. The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a detached carport to
be built ½ inch from the principal structure. The zoning ordinance requires that all accessory
structures be placed at least 6 feet from all principal structures. The applicant is also requesting
to cover the “breezeway”. If the area between the carport and the principal structure is
connected with a cover, then it is not considered a detached accessory structure and would be
considered part of the principal structure. This site plan would not meet the side setbacks, which
was the problem with the application that was originally denied. The size of the parcel is 13,200
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 12/13/11 1
square feet. The rear of the property has an unconstructed area comprising no less than 4,575
square feet (37% of the lot) where the accessory structure could be legally placed and still meet
zoning requirements. This means that there is no hardship present, since the inability to place a
structure exactly where you want it does not constitute a hardship. Staff does not recommend
approval because there is not a hardship; there is room on the property to meet the setback
requirements. P. Young of 1249 Lakeshore Drive and L. Greeno of 1249 Lakeshore Drive called
to say that they have no objections to the request. In addition, letters were received from the
neighboring Hume Home and Lakeshore House Condominiums stating that they did not object to
the request.
S. Wisneski stated that he was on the Hume Home board and they had no problem with the
applicant’s request. They had always been good neighbors and their home added value to the
neighborhood. F. Schossau presented a letter from the Hume Board and the president of the
Lakeshore House to the north of him, showing their written approval of the project. He stated
that they needed a covered shelter close to the house, since they were unable to shovel due to
health reasons. Placing the structure on the back of the lot would not solve their problem. He
was asking to place the structure on the side of the house, without the required six feet distance
between structures. He had a large, historic home that took up a large portion of the lot, leaving
little room on the sides to meet the side setbacks. The house was there before the City’s zoning
ordinance was enacted. F. Schossau stated that he was using all fireproof materials including
cement board siding, and that he had done that on the side of the house facing the carport as well.
He stated that the structure would be safe and would match the house, and that it would not
detract from the neighborhood. J. Moore lived next to the applicant’s property and stated that he
was in favor of the request. He stated that this was an old City with old homes that did not
always conform to today’s ordinances.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by J. Clingman-Scott, supported by B. Larson
and unanimously approved.
Board members discussed the request and stated that this was a very old, large, well-maintained
home that pre-dated the City’s zoning ordinance, and the size of the house left little room on the
lot to accommodate parking close to the house. B. Larson stated that the request seemed to be a
reasonable use of the property. S. Brock concurred and stated that the project would not
negatively affect the neighborhood. J. Clingman-Scott had questions regarding the setbacks.
She asked why the carport couldn’t be attached to the house. M. Franzak stated that the setbacks
for an attached structure would be 10/24 feet, which would be even more non-conforming. J.
Clingman-Scott stated that she was concerned with the minimal setback and the safety issue of
having a carport so close to the older home. R. Hilt stated that the applicant had indicated he
used fire resistant siding. J. Clingman-Scott asked if the fire safety requirements would be
covered by the building inspection department. M. Franzak stated that was correct. E. Fordham
asked if drawings of the structure were available. M. Franzak stated that the building department
would have those.
The following findings of fact were offered: a) that there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question or to the intended use of the
property that do not apply generally to other properties or class of uses in the same zoning
district, b) that such dimensional variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the
vicinity, c) that the authorizing of such dimensional variance will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 12/13/11 2
interest, d) that the alleged difficulty is caused by the Ordinance and has not been created by any
person presently having an interest in the property, or by any previous owner, and e) that the
alleged difficulty is not founded solely upon the opportunity to make the property more
profitable or to reduce expense to the owner.
A motion that the findings of fact be adopted and that the variance request to allow an accessory
structure to be built ½ inch from the principal structure for this property be approved, with the
conditions that 1) the additions to the property must be complete within one year (Sec. 2504) or
the variance is void, and 2) the variance is recorded with the deed to keep record of it in the
future, was made by B. Larson, supported by S. Brock and approved, with R. Hilt and J.
Clingman-Scott voting nay.
Staff and board members clarified that the ½ inch clearance area between the house and the
carport must remain uncovered and unattached to the house, so that it is still a detached structure.
Hearing Case 2011-005: Request for a variance from Section 2334: Signs, to allow for an off-
premise sign at 560 Mart St, by Raymond James and Associates. M. Franzak presented the staff
report. The subject property is located in a B-2, Convenience and Comparison zoning district
and is owned by West Michigan Dock and Market Co. The applicant is Raymond James and
Associates, whose office is located at 700 Terrace Point Dr, which is north of 560 Mart St. Since
Raymond James’s lot has only 90 feet of road frontage, the zoning ordinance only allows for a
sign size of 46 square feet, and 15 feet tall. Due to the layout of the streets and landscaping
(berm), this would not be visible from Shoreline Drive; the only people that would be able to see
the sign would be those that are already driving to the end of Terrace Point Rd. The property
owner of 560 Mart Street has given permission for the sign to be placed on their property, per a
letter included in the staff report. The monument sign located at the southeast corner of the
parcel at 560 Mart Street already hosts two off-premise signs for businesses on Terrace Point
Drive. Those businesses are the Shoreline Inn & Suites and The Lake House Restaurant. Staff
has not yet received a depiction of the sign, but will present one at the meeting. Staff
recommends approval of the variance because it is the minimum action required to eliminate the
difficulty. J. Rooks, who has an easement across this parcel to access his property on Terrace
Point, indicates that he has no problem with the request, as long as the new sign was no bigger
than the Lake House sign currently on the site.
P. Price from Raymond James stated that they had relocated to their current address in the former
SPX Corp. building about 14 months ago. The building owners had talked about a multi-tenant
sign when the lease was negotiated, but that was now on hold until more tenants moved in.
Meanwhile, it had been difficult for people to find the Raymond James office, which was set off
the main roadway (Shoreline Drive). P. Price clarified that he was requesting to install 2 signs,
one facing each direction, like the Lake House signage. R. Hilt suggested that the board approve
the signs now, but require that they be removed once the multi-tenant sign was erected. Board
members concurred.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by J. Clingman-Scott, supported by B. Larson
and unanimously approved.
The following findings of fact were offered: a) That there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question or to the intended use of the
property that do not apply generally to other properties or class of uses in the same zoning
district, b) That such dimensional variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 12/13/11 3
substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the
vicinity, c) That the authorizing of such dimensional variance will not be of substantial detriment
to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public
interest, d) That the alleged difficulty is caused by the Ordinance and has not been created by any
person presently having an interest in the property, or by any previous owner, e) That the alleged
difficulty is not founded solely upon the opportunity to make the property more profitable or to
reduce expense to the owner, and f) That the requested variance is the minimum action required
to eliminate the difficulty.
A motion that the findings of fact determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals be adopted and
that the variance request to allow two off-premise signs (one facing in each direction) at 560
Mart Street be approved, with the conditions that 1) the additions to the property must be
complete within one year (Sec. 2504) or the variance is void, and 2) The variance is recorded
with the deed to keep record of it in the future, was made by J. Clingman-Scott, supported by B.
Larson and unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 12/13/11 4