View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
June 12, 2007
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Hilt, E. Fordham S. Brock, K. Davis, B. Larson, J. Clingman-
Scott, L. Gomez-Payne
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: M. Cameron, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: T. Witmer, 2089 Addison
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
L. Gomez-Payne arrived at 4:02 p.m.
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of February 13, 2007 be approved was made by
J. Clingman-Scott, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing Case 2007-002: Request for a variance from Section 2307: Permitted Yard
Encroachments, to allow installation of a new front landing and stairs that will encroach into the
required front setback further than the allowed five feet, by Thomas Witmer of 2089 Addison.
M. Cameron presented the staff report. Zoning of this parcel and those to the north, south, and
west is R-1, Single Family Residential. The property across Addison St. is McGraft Park, which
is zoned OSR, Open Space Recreation. This request is the result of a staff visit to the site where
a contractor had partially removed the home’s stairs and was preparing to construct forms for the
new stairs and landing without a permit. There had been a permit issued for similar work in
October of 2004 when the previously existing stairs were built, but the stair treads, while up to
building code, were created only nine inches wide. After my site visit, the homeowner applied
for a building permit which, after review of the site plan, could not be approved due to the front
setback requirements. A second concept drawing was proposed and approved by staff that had
the stairs coming off a landing at a right angle to the ground level. This concept, while usable,
was not aesthetically compatible with the area homes, and made ingress and egress from the
home much more difficult for use in an emergency situation where equipment may have to be
brought in or taken from the home. The front of the home is only 129 inches or 10.75 feet from
the sidewalk, with the property line in this area normally 1.5 feet inside the sidewalk. This
places the front of the home a likely 9.25 feet from the property line. A front porch, landing, or
set of stairs may encroach into the required front setback up to a total of 5 feet. The proposed
steps would protrude from the front of the structure a total of 8 feet. The current front setback
required for this location would be 10 feet from the property line to the structure’s drip edge
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –06/12/07 1
because the subdivision was developed prior to 1940. A field inspection shows that most homes
in this area are approximately 10 feet from the property line. As stated in the application on page
2, this home is located on a lot that has sloping terrain running higher in elevation to the south
and lower to the north. While this elevation difference is not dramatic, it is enough that the home
was built higher above grade than some others in the area. Because of the home’s increased
height, the run of a staircase would need to be greater in order to meet building codes. Staff has
received one comment on this case from C. Gomez of 2121 Addison, in support of the request.
Board members and the applicant discussed the work done on the steps previously. K. Davis
asked what the normal depth of a stair tread was. M. Cameron stated that the minimum depth
was 9 inches.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by K. Davis and
unanimously approved.
K. Davis stated that a 9-inch stair depth could be treacherous, especially in the winter. He stated
that allowing the variance as proposed would be in keeping with the look of the other front steps
in the neighborhood, would not be detrimental to neighboring properties, and was a reasonable
solution to the problem.
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, 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 installation of a new front landing and stairs that will encroach
into the required front setback further than the allowed five feet as shown on the included site
plan 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, 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
Case 2006-020 Determination of compliance for building lighting at 601 Terrace St. R. Hilt
provided board members with information regarding Parmenter’s site lighting given to him by
Buck Construction, and the information was discussed. He stated that he had visited the site
several times at different hours and during varying weather conditions to observe the lighting.
He stated that in his opinion, the lighting was sufficient to meet the conditions of the variance
granted at the February meeting.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –06/12/07 2
Board members discussed differing opinions on the lighting ordinance, including night sky and
horizontal plane requirements. B. Larson stated that the Planning Commission had considered a
request from staff at their last meeting to further define the horizontal plane, but that request was
denied, with Planning Commissioners deciding to further explore the issue at their June meeting.
OTHER
None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:38 p.m.
dml
6/12/07
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –06/12/07 3
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails