View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
June 8, 2010
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: E. Fordham, S. Brock, B. Larson, R. Hilt, J. Clingman-Scott
MEMBERS ABSENT: E. Fife, S. Wisneski
STAFF PRESENT: M. Cameron, M. Franzak, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: J. Rooks, 750 Terrace Point Drive
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of June 9, 2009 be approved was made by S.
Brock, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A motion to retain R. Hilt as Chairman and E. Fordham as Vice-Chairman was made by S.
Brock, supported by J. Clingman-Scott and unanimously approved.
M. Cameron introduced the new Zoning Administrator, Mike Franzak.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing Case 2010-001: Request for a variance from Section 2334: Signs, to allow construction
of a freestanding sign larger than what is allowed in Table II, at 650 Terrace Point Dr., by Jon
Rooks, Parkland Associates, LLC. M. Cameron presented the staff report. The subject property
is located between Terrace Point Drive and the railroad tracks running parallel to Shoreline Dr.,
with 750 feet of actual road frontage along Terrace Point Dr. It is a vacant parcel zoned B-2,
Convenience and Comparison Business. Zoning of adjacent parcels is B-2, with WM,
Waterfront Marine to the east and west and B-3, Central Business to the south. Terrace Point
Drive was originally aligned with First Street at Shoreline Drive, but was re-routed to align with
Third Street in 1993. This change and the subsequent creation of the berms along Shoreline Dr.
eliminated much of the line of sight the three businesses enjoyed for motorists travelling
Shoreline Drive. The freestanding signage normally allowed for this parcel would be 200 square
feet in area. The proposed sign is 289 square feet, and will be in a V configuration with two
faces. To qualify as one sign, they must be connected at the center of the V and the least angle
of intersection must not exceed 90 degrees. The proposed signage panels are not allocated to
specific properties; this will allow changes in use by one entity or another to be accommodated
without the need for a new variance request. Additionally, this would allow all three off-premise
entities to have space/time on the electronic message board as needs may dictate and the owner
desires. If granted, this variance for an additional sign structure would not be considered the one
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 6/08/10 1
freestanding sign allowed for 650 Terrace Point Dr., as long as it is used for off-premise signage.
If there is a need for a freestanding sign for a future development at 650 Terrace Point Dr., that
parcel would still be entitled to one freestanding sign of the size allowed by the ordinance in
place at the time of the request. Our ordinance provides for a freestanding size allotment which
is based upon the linear frontage of a parcel along the road right of way. This allotment is then
calculated using Table II of the ordinance. Table II is designed to allow an increase in a
property’s freestanding signage allotment for every ten feet of additional road frontage the
property has. The maximum sign allotment peaks at 470 feet or more of linear road frontage.
This allows a maximum signage area of 200 square feet, but does not allow larger signage area
for properties with the longer frontages. While this property has visual frontage along Shoreline
Drive, there is a city bike path and railroad right of way between the road and the property line of
this parcel. Because of these properties, the owner may not use this as the road frontage for sign
calculations. With the current Table II there would be no benefit to using this frontage in any
case.
The sign being proposed by Mr. Rooks would be 25 ft. 3 in. above the grade at the point on the
site plan where it will be installed. Under the provisions of Table II the sign could be up to 30
feet in height above grade. Due to the topography of this parcel, the property owner may not
need to utilize the full 30 feet. The oversized sign is being requested to accommodate off-
premise signage for 3 properties that are located on the other side of Terrace Point Drive from
this property, all owned by the same entity. If signage were installed on these 3 properties to
meet our code requirements, they would have very limited visibility due to the topography of the
area. The fourth panel on the sign will be used by the owner for one of his existing business
properties, but in the future it could be used to help motorists looking for the former SPX
building. If this became a consideration, the owner of that property would have to seek their
own variance for off-premise signage. The sign structure would also contain an electronic
message board that would be required to meet our ordinance requirements, including being
required to dim at dusk. Staff received no public comments on this request.
J. Rooks owned all four properties being considered at this meeting. He explained the layout and
functions of his properties, and his future plans for them. He stated that because Terrace Point
Drive was so far back from the main roadway (Shoreline Drive), and the terrain - including high
berms - between those two streets partially blocked the view, it was difficult for passers-by to see
his properties. E. Fordham asked why he needed a sign that was in excess of the 200-foot
maximum size. J. Rooks stated that there were four separate entities that needed signage space,
and he wanted to make sure the sign was readable by passing traffic. He had talked with staff
about it, and there was a concern of possible traffic mishaps on busy Shoreline Drive if people
were slowing down to look for an address or trying to read a small sign. E. Fordham asked M.
Cameron why the maximum sign size in the ordinance stopped at 200 feet. M. Cameron stated
that parcels with long road frontages such as these were very scarce in the City, and were not
adequately addressed in the ordinance.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by J. Clingman-Scott
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
substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 6/08/10 2
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 as determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals be adopted and
that the variance request to allow construction of a 289-square foot freestanding sign used for
off-premise signage of adjacent properties be approved, subject to the conditions that 1) the
additions to the property must be complete within one year (Sec. 2504) or the variance is void, 2)
the sign is built as shown on the included depiction with staff being allowed to approve minor
changes that do not enlarge the overall size of the sign, 3) this sign is considered an additional
sign for the property and it is not part of the normal sign allotment, unless it is no longer being
used for off-premise signage, and 4) the variance is recorded with the deed to keep record of it in
the future, was made by B. Larson, supported by J. Clingman-Scott and unanimously approved.
Hearing Case 2010-002: Request for a variance from Section 2334: Signs, by Jon Rooks,
Parkland Associates, LLC, to allow off-premise signage for the Lake House Restaurant at 730
Terrace Point Drive, to be placed upon a sign structure located at 650 Terrace Point Drive. M.
Cameron presented the staff report. The Lake House Restaurant is the former Rafferty’s
Restaurant, zoned B-2, Convenience and Comparison Business. Zoning of adjacent parcels is
also B-2, with WM, Waterfront Marine to the east and west and B-3, Central Business to the
south. This parcel is located between Terrace Point Drive and Muskegon Lake. Terrace Point
Drive was originally aligned with First Street at Shoreline Drive but was re-routed to align with
Third Street in 1993. This change and the subsequent creation of berms near the roadway
eliminated the line of sight this business may have enjoyed for motorists travelling Shoreline
Drive. The freestanding signage allowed for this parcel would be 138 square feet in area at a
maximum of 25 feet above grade to the top of a sign, based upon the 315 feet of linear road
frontage staff believes the property has. The signage area to be used for this property was
included in a previous variance request and would be limited by the amount of overall signage
approved in conjunction with that request. Because this request is for off-premise signage, this
property is still entitled to the allowed sign allotment for the B-2 zoning district. The property
currently has a small monument-style sign that is in the process of being updated by the owner to
better represent the new restaurant name. The restaurant does have a non-conforming off-
premise sign located at the intersection of Terrace Point Dr. and Shoreline Dr. This currently has
the word “Rafferty’s” spelled out in two places on the concrete structure. This building and
property are secluded and hidden by the large berms located on the property to the south of this
parcel. Because of the topography of the area to the east, the view of motorists, tourists and
customers attempting to find the restaurant is completely blocked. This area’s topography
renders a normal sign and sign placement to be virtually useless for motorists on Shoreline
Drive. The street that runs past this parcel is currently a dead end road, and sign placement along
this minimally traveled roadway would not assist motorists attempting to find the facility, except
those already on Terrace Point Drive. This certainly leads to confusion for motorists traveling on
the business route into or out of Muskegon. Since this business route is heavily travelled, staff
feels it may not be safe or in the best interest of the community to have confused motorists
stopping or travelling slowly along this highway business route, while attempting to find their
way.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 6/08/10 3
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by E. Fordham and
unanimously approved.
M. Cameron clarified the signage allotment for the properties for board members.
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
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 as determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals be adopted and
that the variance request to allow off-premise signage for this property be approved, subject to
the conditions that 1) the additions to the property must be complete within one year (Sec. 2504)
or the variance is void, 2) the off premise signage is built and located as indicated in ZBA Case
2010-001, and 3) 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.
Hearing Case 2010-003: Request for a variance from Section 2334: Signs, by Jon Rooks,
Parkland Associates LLC, to allow off-premise signage for the Shoreline Inn and Conference
Center at 750 Terrace Point Drive to be placed upon a sign structure located at 650 Terrace Point
Drive. M. Cameron presented the staff report. Zoning of this parcel and adjacent parcels is B-2,
Convenience and Comparison Business, with WM, Waterfront Marine to the east and west and
B-3, Central Business to the south. The parcel where the inn is located is between Terrace Point
Drive and Muskegon Lake. Terrace Point Drive was originally aligned with First Street at
Shoreline Drive, but was re-routed to align with Third Street in 1993. This change and the
subsequent creation of the berms eliminated the line of sight this business may have enjoyed for
motorists travelling Shoreline Drive. The frontage of this parcel along Terrace Point is not
known by staff but it appears to be similar or a little less than the allotment for the restaurant
which is 138 square feet in area at a maximum of 25 feet above grade to the top of a sign, based
upon the 315 feet of linear road frontage. The off-premise signage area to be used for this
property was included in a previous variance request and would be limited by the amount of
overall signage approved in conjunction with that request. Because this request is for off-
premise signage, this property is still entitled to the allowed sign allotment for the B-2 zone. The
property does not currently have a freestanding sign. The hotel has recently updated its
nonconforming off-premise signage located at the intersection of Terrace Point Dr. and Shoreline
Dr. These are two signs attached to a concrete structure located on the property owned by Mart
Dock. The hotel building can be seen from Shoreline Drive because of its height, but since the
building is an unconventional design for a hotel, it can easily be missed. The property where a
conventional sign would be placed is somewhat secluded and hidden by large berms located on
the property to the east of this parcel. Because of the topography of the area to the east, the view
of motorists, tourists and customers attempting to find the restaurant is partially blocked. This
area’s topography renders a normal sign and sign placement to have a minimal impact for
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 6/08/10 4
motorists travelling on Shoreline Drive. The street that runs past this parcel is currently a dead
end road and placement of signage along this minimally traveled roadway would not assist
motorists attempting to find the facility, except those already on Terrace Point Drive. This
certainly leads to confusion for motorists traveling on the business route into or out of
Muskegon. Since this business route is heavily travelled, staff feels it may not be safe or in the
best interest of the community to have confused motorists stopping or travelling slowly along
this highway business route, while attempting to find their way.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by J. Clingman-Scott
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
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 as determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals be adopted and
that the variance request to allow off premise signage for this property be approved, subject to
the conditions that 1) the additions to the property must be complete within one year (Sec. 2504)
or the variance is void, 2) the off-premise signage is built and located as indicated in ZBA Case
2010-001, and 3) the variance is recorded with the deed to keep record of it in the future, was
made by B. Larson, supported by E. Fordham and unanimously approved.
Hearing Case 2010-004: Request for a variance from Section 2334: Signs, by Jon Rooks,
Parkland Associates LLC, to allow off-premise signage for Terrace Point Marina at 770 Terrace
Point Drive to be placed upon a sign structure located at 650 Terrace Point Drive. M. Cameron
presented the staff report. Zoning of this and adjacent parcels is B-2, Convenience and
Comparison Business with WM, Waterfront Marine to the east and west and B-3, Central
Business to the south. This parcel is located between Terrace Point Drive and Muskegon Lake.
Terrace Point Drive was originally aligned with First Street at Shoreline Drive, but was re-routed
to align with Third Street in 1993. This change and the subsequent creation of the berms
eliminated the line of sight this business may have enjoyed for motorists travelling Shoreline
Drive. There would be no freestanding signage allowed for this parcel since there is no road
frontage to calculate the allotment. Any freestanding signage would require a variance request.
The off-premise signage area to be used for this property was included in a previous variance
request and would be limited by the amount of overall signage approved in conjunction with that
request. The marina area is secluded and hidden by large berms to the south of this parcel.
Because of the topography of the area to the east, the view of motorists, tourists and customers
attempting to find the marina and public access area adjacent to the marina, is completely
blocked. This area’s topography renders a normal sign and sign placement to be virtually useless
for motorists on Shoreline Drive. The street that runs past this parcel is currently a dead end
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 6/08/10 5
road, and placement of signage along this minimally traveled roadway would not assist motorists
attempting to find the facility, except those already on Terrace Point Drive. This certainly leads
to confusion for motorists traveling on the business route into or out of Muskegon. Since this
business route is heavily travelled, staff feels it may not be safe or in the best interest of the
community to have confused motorists stopping or travelling slowly along this highway business
route, while attempting to find their way.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by S. Brock, 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
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 as determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals be adopted and
that the variance request to allow off premise signage for this property be approved, subject to
the conditions that: 1) the additions to the property must be complete within one year (Sec. 2504)
or the variance is void; 2) the off-premise signage is built and located as indicated in ZBA Case
2010-001; and 3) the variance is recorded with the deed to keep record of it in the future, was
made by B. Larson, supported by J. Clingman-Scott and unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
Barbed wire fences – M. Cameron was asked by a board member to look into the barbed wire
fencing at a business on Sherman Blvd. to see if it complied with a prior ZBA ruling. M.
Cameron stated that when he checked the building, the fencing was installed as proposed. He
stated that he would keep an eye on it to ensure that it remains compliant.
OTHER
None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:43 p.m.
dl
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 6/08/10 6