View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: December 8, 2015
TIME OF MEETING: 4:00 p.m.
PLACE OF MEETING: Commission Chambers, First Floor, Muskegon City Hall
AGENDA
I. Roll Call
II. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 17, 2015.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Hearing; Case 2015-06: Request for a variance from Section 2311 of the zoning
ordinance to allow a shed to be constructed within 1.5 feet of the rear property line in an
R-1, Single Family Residential district at 1560 Nelson St, by Robert and Sue Baglien.
B. Hearing; Case 2015-07: Request for a variance from section 1303 of the zoning
ordinance to allow a building addition all the way up to the front property line in a B-4,
General Business district at 1991 Lakeshore Dr, by BTBG Investments.
IV. New Business
V. Old Business
VI. Adjourn
AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT POLICY FOR ACCESS TO OPEN MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION AND ANY OF ITS COMMITTEES OR SUBCOMMITTEES
The City of Muskegon will provide necessary reasonable auxiliary aids and services, such as signers for the hearing
impaired and audio tapes of printed materials being considered at the meeting, to individuals with disabilities who want to
attend the meeting, upon twenty-four hour notice to the City of Muskegon. Individuals with disabilities requiring auxiliary
aids or services should contact the City of Muskegon by writing or calling the following:
Ann Marie Cummings, City Clerk
933 Terrace Street
Muskegon, MI 49440
(231) 724-6705
TTY/TDD: Dial 7-1-1 and request that a representative dial 231-724-6705
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
July 14, 2015
Vice Chairman E. Fordham called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Larson, E. Carter, E. Fordham, S. Warmington, T. Halterman,
W. German
MEMBERS ABSENT: R. Hilt, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: P. Bergeman, 15703 Rannes, Spring Lake
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of June 9, 2015 be approved was made by S.
Warmington, supported by E. Carter and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
Hearing; Case 2015-05: Request for a variance from Section 1100 of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow a single family residential home in a B-2, Convenience and Comparison Business district
at 631 E. Laketon Avenue. M. Franzak presented the staff report. This property is located in a
B-2, Convenience and Comparison Business District, and single-family homes are not allowed in
this district. The building on the property was used as a single-family residential home for many
years, but was eventually rezoned to B-2. It was then used as several different office-type uses.
A rezoning back to R-1, Single-Family Residential is not possible because it does not meet the
minimum lot size standards of 6,000 square feet; the lot measures 37’x 128’, for a total of 4,736
square feet. The property also does not meet the minimum lot size requirements for B-2 zones,
which is 10,890 square feet. The request is to allow a single-family residential use on the
property while continuing the B-2 zoning. Notice was sent to all property owners within 300
feet. Staff did not received any comments from the public. Staff recommends approval of the
request because the structure was originally built as a single-family residential home and the
ordinance amendments have caused the hardship.
W. German asked if a business could still be run there, if the variance was approved. M. Franzak
stated that a small business would still be allowed, per the B-2 zoning. The variance would
allow a residential use in the B-2 district. P. Bergeman stated that he wanted to turn this into a
single family home, clean up the property, and either rent it or sell it. W. German asked if the
inside layout was conducive to a single family home. P. Bergeman explained the layout, stating
that it should not be too difficult to convert it back to a residence. W. German asked if the back
paved parking lot was part of the property. P. Bergeman stated that it was.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by S. Warmington, supported by W. German and
unanimously approved.
E. Fordham asked staff if the house would require a certificate of occupancy before it could be
used as a residence. M. Franzak stated that it would. He also stated that this property would be
suitable for residential use, since it was on the edge of a residential neighborhood and it was
originally built as a single family home. Since there were residences all around this parcel, the
variance should not cause any hardship to the neighborhood. It was not originally zoned as a
business, but rather the zoning was changed after the house was built.
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 use variance request to allow a single-family residential home at 631 E.
Laketon Avenue be approved, was made by S. Warmington, supported by B. Larson and
unanimously approved, with B. Larson, E. Carter, E. Fordham, S. Warmington, T. Halterman,
and W. German voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:18 p.m.
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
STAFF REPORT
December 8, 2015
Hearing; Case 2015-06: Request for a variance from Section 2311 of the zoning ordinance to
allow a shed to be constructed within 1.5 feet of the rear property line in an R-1, Single Family
Residential district at 1560 Nelson St, by Robert and Sue Baglien.
BACKGROUND
1. The parcel measures 58’ x 116’ for a total of 6,728 sf, which makes it a buildable, legal
conforming lot.
2. The existing garage to the east of the home is currently considered a legal conforming
structure because it meets all applicable setback requirements.
3. The applicant would like to construct a shed that would be attached to the east side of the
garage. The shed would be 8 feet wide, which would only leave an 18 inch setback from
the rear property line. The 18 inch setback would be from the drip edge of the structure,
with a 12 inch overhang. This would give the owner the ability to maintain the entire
structure without trespassing on neighboring property.
4. The applicant is claiming that the hardship is due to being a corner lot, which limits the
placement options for an accessory structure. Staff agrees that the there are no other
options for a shed on this property due to the street corner and the placement of the home.
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
DETERMINATION:
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move that the variance request to allow an accessory structure to be built within 18 inches of
the rear property line at 1560 Nelson St be (approved/denied), based on the following review
standards listed below (found in Section 2502 of the Zoning Ordinance) and subject to conditions
(if any):
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.
Hearing; Case 2015-07: Request for a variance from section 1303 of the zoning ordinance to
allow a building addition all the way up to the front property line in a B-4, General Business
district at 1991 Lakeshore Dr, by BTBG Investments.
BACKGROUND
1. The parcel measures 155’ x 125’ for a total of 19,375 sf, which makes it a buildable lot.
The building currently sits back only seven feet from the front property line. The required
minimum setback is 10 feet, which makes this building legal, non-conforming.
2. The applicant would like to construct a patio with a canopy in the front. The minimum
front setback on this property is 10 feet, but the property is already non-conforming. The
addition would be all the way to the front property line, with no encroachment upon the
city sidewalk.
3. This variance would make this building a conforming lot, even without the addition of the
patio.
4. Some of the businesses in Lakeside are built with a zero-line front setback, others are
setback a few feet and the business actually owns a portion of sidewalk. This property
owns 7 feet of sidewalk in front.
5. The adjacent property at 1983 Lakeside Dr was recently granted a variance for a patio in
the front.
6. The applicant did not include the questionnaire on second page of the application, but it
will be presented at the meeting.
1991 Lakeshore Dr, looking south from Lakeshore Dr.
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
DETERMINATION:
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move that the variance request to allow a building addition with a zero-line front setback at
1991 Lakeshore Dr be (approved/denied), based on the following review standards listed below
(found in Section 2502 of the Zoning Ordinance) and subject to conditions (if any):
g. 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.
h. 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.
i. 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.
j. 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.
k. That the alleged difficulty is not founded solely upon the opportunity to make the
property more profitable or to reduce expense to the owner.
l. That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the difficulty.
1991 Lakeshore Dr looking east