View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
July 11, 2006
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Hilt, S. Brock, K. Davis, E. Fordham
MEMBERS ABSENT: J. Clingman-Scott, excused; C. Kufta, excused; L. Gomez-Payne,
excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Cameron, L. Anguilm, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: N. McCarthy, 888 Terrace; T. Bailey, Mill Street Group LLC; B.
Reckell, 1430 Beach; R. Reckell, 1430 Beach
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of June 13, 2006 be approved was made by K.
Davis, supported by E. Fordham and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing, Case 2006-012: Request for a variance from Section 2326: Off-Street Parking and
Loading, to exceed the minimum parking spaces at 908 Terrace St. by more than one-third (33%)
for an end total of 10 spaces over the maximum allowance for the combined uses at 888 Terrace
St. M. Cameron presented the staff report. The applicant is Nancy McCarthy of Hackley
Visiting Nurse Services & Hospice. The parcel is zoned B-5, Governmental Services, with the
adjacent parcels zoned B-3, Central Business except directly south which is B-5. The property
formerly held the Beerman Music Store building which was recently demolished to make way
for the proposed parking expansion. The proposed project will include increased green space and
other landscaping accents as shown on the included Landscape Plan. Final site plan approvals
have not yet been given, due in part to the excess parking spaces shown on the plan. The Zoning
Administrator has determined that the maximum allowed number of parking spaces for the uses
at 888 Terrace Street would be 60 spaces. The request is to allow a total of 70 spaces. The
Zoning Administrator has requested that the Assessors office combine the two properties into
one lot, which will be done at the beginning of the next tax year. There are no on-street parking
spaces available in this area. Staff has not received any comments on this case.
N. McCarthy stated that they had over 180 employees plus frequent visitors to hospice patients
and their parking lot was often full, with overflow into the Manpower lot next door. She stated
that the plans provided more green space than required and that the lot would be visually
appealing. They had not received any objections from the neighbors.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –07/11/06 1
A motion to close the public hearing was made by K. Davis, supported by E. Fordham and
unanimously approved.
The following findings of fact were offered: 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; 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; 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; 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; 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 that the requested variance is the minimum action required to
eliminate the difficulty.
A motion that the variance request to exceed the maximum allowable parking spaces at 908
Terrace St. by 10 spaces for a combined total of 70 parking spaces 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,
and 3) the parking lot expansion is built as shown on the final approved site plan, was made by
K. Davis, supported by E. Fordham and unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
Tabled Case 2006-006: Request for a variance from Section 2003: Area and Bulk Requirements
and Table I: Heights, Areas, and Yards to reduce the minimum required square footage of a lot in
the H, Heritage District from 4,000 square feet to 2,461 square feet. M. Cameron provided board
members with a memo from the Zoning Administrator regarding the Artworks PUD status. He
also provided documents that had been requested by board members at last month’s meeting,
including minutes from the January 2004 Planning Commission meeting and the final PUD
approval document. Items provided by T. Bailey of Mill Street Group were the cross parking
agreement and photos of the Artworks project.
R. Hilt stated that it was his understanding that the PUD approval included all 3 buildings, and
he didn’t see a problem with this one being separated from the main building. K. Davis thought
that separating this unit from the others would set a precedent for changing an approved PUD,
and he was against it. He stated that he had spoken to other City Commissioners about it and
they agreed that they should stick to the original PUD. S. Brock asked if discussing the case
with others outside of the ZBA was allowed. K. Davis stated that since he was the City
Commission representative to the ZBA, he thought that he should see what the Commissioners
opinions on the issue were. E. Fordham asked for clarification of a PUD. K. Davis provided
examples of other PUDs in the City, and M. Cameron and L. Anguilm provided additional
information on PUD requirements. E. Fordham asked if the original zoning was retained with a
PUD. M. Cameron stated that it was. S. Brock asked T. Bailey what the plans were for this
building if the variance were not approved. T. Bailey stated that they needed to be able to
separate this property from the Artworks in order to obtain the necessary financing to renovate
this building. If the variance was denied, they would have to go back and look at their options,
but the building would probably sit as it is. R. Hilt thought that he had read in the paper that this
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –07/11/06 2
building would be the Artworks office. He didn’t recall any mention of it being split off. T.
Bailey stated that the Artworks office was located in the Artworks building. He stated that he
was not involved in the original PUD presentation to the City Commission, but he was trying to
provide the two market rate units that the City had wanted. M. Cameron stated that the City’s
Zoning Administrator had determined that this building could be split from the PUD, so the only
issue before the ZBA was the lot size. S. Brock asked K. Davis what his objections were. K.
Davis stated that all 3 buildings were part of the project as originally presented and approved.
He stated that the building was in compliance now and could be developed without being split
from the main parcel. T. Bailey stated that they needed this building to be a separate entity in
order to obtain financing.
A motion to approve the variance request was made by S. Brock and supported by E. Fordham,
with discussion continuing on the motion.
R. Hilt stated that the Planning Department had already determined that the building could be
separated from the PUD. L. Anguilm reminded board members that this request must meet the
findings of fact. K. Davis didn’t think it did. T. Bailey stated that this building was built before
the ordinance was enacted. It would improve the area, not be a detriment. S. Brock thought that
granting the variance would make the building more profitable for the City than the owner.
Members discussed the findings of fact but disagreed on whether the request met those criteria.
E. Fordham suggested that the matter be tabled until a full board was present.
S. Brock withdrew the motion to approve the variance and E. Fordham withdrew his support. A
motion to table this case until next month was made by S. Brock, supported by E. Fordham and
unanimously approved.
Tabled Case 2006-008: Request for a variance from Section 2311: Accessory Structures &
Buildings, to erect an accessory structure (gazebo) on a vacant lot prior to the establishment of a
principal structure at 1426 Beach Street. M. Cameron stated that he had not heard from the
applicants since the last meeting, but they were present at today’s meeting. R. Hilt asked if they
had received the necessary information from the DNR regarding the critical dune designation. B.
Reckell stated that they received the paperwork, but it would cost them $600 to apply for a
permit. E. Fordham asked what type of permit was required for a gazebo, and if the Reckells had
obtained one. M. Cameron stated that a development permit would be required if it was under
200 square feet, or a building permit if it was larger. They had applied for a permit, which was
what precipitated this request. M. Cameron stated that the development permit was denied
because there was no principal structure on the lot, and he also could not approve a City permit
without a DEQ permit. K. Davis stated that the main issue was having the gazebo on a lot
without a principal structure, and he didn’t think that this request met the criteria for a variance.
B. Reckell asked why it would not. K. Davis stated that this situation was not unique for the area
or caused by the ordinance. B. Reckell asked about the findings of fact. M. Cameron stated that
those criteria were requirements of the State. R. Hilt had a problem with the lots having different
owners. He would be less opposed if the properties were combined. B. Reckell stated that she
would then have a front yard issue, which would still require a variance. K. Davis stated that he
was more comfortable with that than having the gazebo on a lot with no principal structure. B.
Reckell stated that she would take the information under advisement and discuss it with family.
A motion to table this case was made by K. Davis, supported by S. Brock and unanimously
approved.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –07/11/06 3
E. Fordham asked M. Cameron if he knew of any instance where an accessory structure was
allowed on a lot without a principal structure. M. Cameron stated that he knew of nothing in
recent memory. R. Hilt asked if a variance could be granted without DEQ approval. M.
Cameron stated that the ZBA could grant a variance that was contingent on DEQ approval, but
he would still not be able to issue a development permit without it.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:01 p.m.
dml
7/11/06
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –07/11/06 4
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails