View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
May 9, 2006
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Hilt, S. Brock, E. Fordham, K. Davis, J. Clingman-Scott,
L. Gomez-Payne
MEMBERS ABSENT: C. Kufta
STAFF PRESENT: M. Cameron, L. Anguilm, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: P. Corbin, 3384 Millard; J. Corbin, 3384 Millard; N. Hulka, 3389
Lakeshore; B. Hendrick, 3377 Lakeshore Dr; T. Hulka, 3389
Lakeshore; M. Hyrns, 3376 Lakeshore
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of February 14, 2006 be approved was made by
J. Clingman-Scott, supported by K. Davis and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2006-004: Request for a variance from Section 2311: Accessory Structures &
Buildings, to erect an accessory structure in a front yard at 3383 Lakeshore Dr./3384 Millard.
Applicant: Patrick & Joann Corbin. M. Cameron presented the staff report. The subject property
is an irregularly shaped lot between Millard and Lakeshore Drive. Zoning of the adjacent
properties in the area is R-1, Single Family Residential. The parcel is located at the base of a
sand dune. The parcel known as 3383 Lakeshore Drive is being combined with the parcel
known as 3384 Millard. Confirmation of the lot combination has been received from the
assessing department and the resultant property will be known as 3384 Millard. The ordinance
defines a front yard as: "An open unoccupied space extending the full width of the lot, the depth
of which is the horizontal distance between the front lot line and the nearest point of the
building. In the case of lots abutting lakes, rivers, and canals, the front yard shall be that side of
the lot or parcel on the street side." The front lot line is defined as: "Lot Line, Front: The
line(s) separating the lot from any street right-of-way, private road or other access easement.
Such line shall be continuous at least a sufficient length to conform with the minimum lot width
requirement of the district." The front yard is thus defined as being any area between the
building and the front lot line. The term building as applied here is the principal structure
currently on the property. The Zoning Administrator has determined that the area that would be
used for the accessory structure is in fact a front yard area as defined in the ordinance.
Accessory structures are not allowed in these areas. Access to the proposed garage would be
achieved using an existing alley. The proposed garage would have the following setbacks: front
setback is 30 feet, side setbacks are 5 feet and 15 feet. The setback between the home and
garage would be in excess of 53 feet. It is not known if the provided setback dimensions are at
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –05/09/06 1
the walls or drip edges of the roof. The required setbacks for accessory structures are 3 feet to the
drip edge of the roof on the sides and at least 6 feet to the principal structure. The required front
setback is 15 feet. The project has been reviewed by the Department of Environmental Quality
and a permit with conditions has been issued. Staff received a voice mail from Chris Jensen of
3361 Lakeshore Dr. who was not opposed to the request, and an e-mail from B. Hendrick of
3377 Lakeshore who was opposed to the request.
J. Clingman-Scott asked about the lot dimensions. M. Cameron stated that it was approximately
112 feet on one side and 117 feet on the other. E. Fordham asked if the proposed structure was
going to be built on a vacant lot. M. Cameron stated that the lot on Lakeshore would be
combined with the lot on Millard where the house sits, so it would not be considered a vacant lot.
J. Clingman-Scott asked if the alley shown on the drawing was a public right-of-way. M.
Cameron stated that it was. R. Hilt stated that it appeared that the garage would be much closer
to Lakeshore Drive than to the house. M. Cameron stated that, based on the drawing, the garage
would be 30 feet from the property line. R. Hilt asked if there was previously a home there. J.
Corbin stated that there was, but it had been demolished. L. Gomez-Payne asked if the only way
to get to the garage was by the public access. M. Cameron stated that it was the only accessible
way by vehicle. J. Clingman-Scott asked if the DEQ was requiring that the garage be placed
where the drawings showed. M. Cameron stated that the DEQ would not allow the applicants to
disturb the dune on the property.
Applicant P. Corbin presented a petition in favor of his request which was signed by 8 neighbors
who could not attend the meeting. He stated that he had owned the property since 1987 or 1988
and had wanted to build a house there, but had been denied by the DEQ. They did receive
approval for a garage from the DEQ and will build within the requirements of that permit. The
garage would sit back farther on the lot that the houses on either side of it. K. Davis asked if
there was room for a garage on the Millard lot. P. Corbin didn’t think so, since it sat on a dune.
K. Davis asked if the house was on a slab with no basement. P. Corbin stated that was correct.
N. Hulka spoke on behalf of her mother who lived at 3389 Lakeshore, directly adjacent to the
subject property. She had concerns about the size of the garage, where it would sit on the lot,
and if there would be living space in the proposed loft. L. Anguilm showed her the drawings and
site plan she had. M. Cameron stated that the proposed size was 30 x 40 feet, and that the issue
of living space would be addressed in the second case, but that staff had recommended against it.
K. Davis asked if a garage apartment would be allowed in an R-1 zone. M. Cameron stated that
there could not be two primary residences on the one lot. S. Brock asked if the lot could be split
at some time in the future, where living space would be allowed. M. Cameron stated that if there
were such a request, they would have to come before the ZBA and it would be difficult to meet
the requirements. B. Hendrick felt that a large garage with the back facing Lakeshore Drive
would not enhance the area. She had concerns about the size and what it would look like. T.
Hulka stated that the house that had been on the lot previously was demolished in 1979. N.
Hulka stated that the house had been very small; less than the 1200 square feet of the proposed
garage. M. Hyrns asked how far from the house the garage would be. M. Cameron stated that it
was at least 53 feet. M. Hyrns asked if the garage could be moved closer to the home. J. Corbin
stated that it could not due to the dune. B. Hendrick asked about the difference between this case
and the next one. R. Hilt stated that this case would decide on the footprint of the garage, and
the next case would decide the height. J. Clingman-Scott asked if this case included the size of
the garage. M. Cameron stated that it did. J. Clingman-Scott asked if the two issues could be
separated. M. Cameron stated that it would be up to the board. J. Clingman-Scott stated that the
garage size was the unusual part of the request, not the placement. M. Cameron stated that the
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –05/09/06 2
garage size was addressed in condition 3 of the suggested motion, and the board could change
that if they wished. S. Brock asked for clarification on the “front yard” issue, which M.
Cameron explained. K. Davis asked what the setbacks and height restrictions would be if the
structure were a house instead of a garage. M. Cameron provided that information. E. Fordham
stated that although a nice garage might improve the neighborhood, the size seemed quite large.
He stated that he would like to approve the placement but not the size.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by J. Clingman-Scott, supported by K. Davis 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 determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals be adopted and
that the variance request to allow construction of an accessory structure (garage) in the front yard
between the principal structure and Lakeshore Drive at 3384 Millard Ave. be approved, subject
to the conditions that 1) the variance is recorded with the deed to keep record of it in the future,
2) the additions to the property must be complete within one year (Sec. 2504) or the variance is
void, 3) the setbacks comply with the ordinance requirements, and 4) no portion of the structure
may be used as habitable space, was made by J. Clingman-Scott supported by E. Fordham and
unanimously approved.
Hearing, Case 2006-005: Request for a variance from Section 2311: Accessory Structures &
Buildings, to erect an accessory structure (garage) that exceeds the maximum allowable height at
3384 Millard / 3383 Lakeshore Dr. Applicant: Patrick & Joann Corbin. M. Cameron presented
the staff report. The subject property is an irregularly shaped lot between Millard and Lakeshore
Drive. Zoning of the adjacent properties in the area is R-1, Single Family Residential. The
parcel is located at the base of a sand dune. The parcel known as 3383 Lakeshore Drive is being
combined with the parcel known as 3384 Millard. Confirmation of the lot combination has been
received from the assessing department and the resultant property will be known as 3384
Millard. Access to the proposed garage would be achieved using an existing alley and the drive
from the property line to the structure must be paved. The maximum allowable height for an
accessory structure is one story or 14 feet in height. The proposed garage would exceed one
story in height and be 23.5 feet tall to the point midway between the ridge and the drip edge of
the roof. The applicants indicate a height of 18 feet for the structure on page two of the
application. This height appears to be arrived at using the lower of the two rooflines; we would
not use this roof line to determine the maximum height but would use the higher of the two.
Applicants indicate on page two of the application that there is a requirement for a 5/12 roof
pitch; staff is not aware of such a requirement either in the zoning ordinance or in the building
codes for a detached accessory structure. The garage would be 30 by 40 feet in size with a loft.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –05/09/06 3
The City does not directly regulate the size of garages; rather, size would be regulated by lot
coverage. Staff received a voice mail from Chris Jensen of 3361 Lakeshore Dr. who is not
opposed to the request, and an e-mail from B. Hendrick of 3377 Lakeshore who was opposed to
the request.
P. Corbin stated that they had designed the garage to try and have it fit in with the neighborhood.
He thought it would look nice as people were travelling down Lakeshore Drive from Lake
Michigan. He needed the space for his hobbies and storage. J. Corbin stated that they have a
one bedroom home with no basement or garage, and they need storage space. L. Gomez-Payne
asked which side of the garage would face the closest neighbor’s house. M. Cameron and P.
Corbin illustrated where the garage would face, using the garage drawings.
B. Hendrick was concerned that a large garage so close to her property would have a detrimental
effect on the value of her home. She believed that a smaller structure would preserve her
property value and the integrity of the neighborhood. N. Hulka appreciated the thought that the
applicant’s had put into the plans, but felt that the size would be very imposing for the houses
next to it. She stated that lack of storage was a common problem for many homes in that area,
but it was a trade-off for living in close proximity to Lake Michigan.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by S. Brock, supported by J. Clingman-Scott and
unanimously approved.
K. Davis had no problem with a second story on the garage. He stated that there were houses of
various sizes and shapes in that neighborhood, some of which were similar to the proposed
garage. He stated that the size of the lot dictated what could be put on it. He asked if the 5-foot
setback could be increased to 8 feet. M. Cameron stated that the 8-foot setback only applied to a
house. A garage only required 3 feet. E. Fordham stated that the large garages in places like the
Bluffton Bay Estates were attached garages, unlike this one, and they were smaller than 1200
square feet. He asked if a two-story garage was allowed anywhere in the City. M. Cameron
stated that they were not, which is why the variance would be required. J. Clingman-Scott asked
what the lot coverage would be with this garage. M. Cameron stated that he hadn’t calculated it
because it appeared to be well below the 50% requirement. J. Clingman-Scott didn’t feel that the
findings of fact had been met. She stated that the lack of storage would not constitute a hardship
for this property alone, because it was a common issue throughout this area. She also felt that a
garage of this size could be a detriment to adjacent property owners. She stated that a request for
a 2-story garage on Lakeshore Drive had been denied in that area in the past. S. Brock asked if
there was any reason that a basement couldn’t be put in. M. Cameron stated that city ordinance
didn’t prohibit it but he didn’t know about the DEQ.
A motion that the request for a variance from Section 2311: Accessory Structures & Buildings,
to erect an accessory structure (garage) that exceeds the maximum allowable height at 3384
Millard / 3383 Lakeshore Dr. be denied based on the following review standards: a) that there
were not 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 was not 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
may be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and could materially impair the purposes of
this chapter or the public interest, d) that the alleged difficulty was not caused by the ordinance,
and e) that the requested variance was not the minimum action required to eliminate the
difficulty, was made by J. Clingman-Scott and supported by E. Fordham, with discussion
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –05/09/06 4
continuing on the motion.
E. Fordham stated that the proposed loft would add another 720 square feet, bringing the total
square footage of the garage to nearly 2000. S. Brock asked the applicant if the DEQ had told
him he could not build a basement. P. Corbin stated that they hadn’t. R. Hilt stated that it
appeared that the façade facing Lakeshore Drive would be a large blank wall. L. Gomez-Payne
thought that the applicant had stated that he was going to put a door and window on that side.
She asked how many structures in the area were of that height. R. Hilt stated that those
structures were homes, not garages. J. Clingman-Scott stated that she hadn’t seen anything in the
presentation that indicated a hardship caused by the zoning ordinance. E. Fordham stated that it
appeared the garage was higher than allowed even without the loft. M. Cameron stated that was
correct.
A vote was held on the above motion and passed, with K. Davis and L. Gomez-Payne voting
nay. Request for the variance was denied.
NEW BUSINESS
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:07 p.m.
dml
5/9/06
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –05/09/06 5
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails