View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: January 13, 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 May 13, 2014.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Hearing; Case 2015-01: Request for a use variance from Section 400 of the zoning
ordinance to allow two boats and a trailer to be stored in the front yard without being
screened at 889 Washington Ave, by Steven White.
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
May 13, 2014
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Hilt, S. Warmington, B. Larson, E. Carter, W. German
MEMBERS ABSENT: T. Halterman, excused; E. Fordham, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: T. Wasserman, 1595 Lakeshore Dr.; E. Wilgenberg, 1875 Roberts
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of April 8, 2014 be approved was made by S.
Warmington, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing; Case 2014-03: Request for a variance from Section 404 of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow a zero lot line setback in a front yard for an addition at 1595 Lakeshore Drive, by
Wasserman’s Flowers and Gifts. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The parcel is located in
an R-1, Single Family Residential District. The applicant would like to attach a pergola to the
front/side of the building, which will extend outward five feet toward Vanderlinde Street. The
pergola will be considered part of the building because it will be attached to the principal
structure. There is a minimum 15-foot setback requirement for front yards in R-1 districts. This
addition would constitute a zero line setback because it will extend up to the property line.
Notice was sent to property owners within 300 feet of this property. At the time of the staff
report, no comments had been received.
N. Carter asked if the variance affected only the Vanderlinde side of the building. M. Franzak
stated that was correct; the side facing Lakeshore Drive met setback requirements and therefore
did not require a variance. T. Wasserman explained the plans for the pergola. It would encroach
onto City property about one-and-a-half feet and he was pursuing an encroachment agreement
with the City for that. He stated that they wished to shade that side of the building, since it
received direct sun. The pergola’s columns would be on Wasserman’s property; only the roof
would extend over City property. B. Larson asked what material would be used for the pergola.
T. Wasserman stated that it would be stained wood.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by W. German 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 variance request to allow a zero lot line setback in an R-1, Single Family
Residential District at 1595 Lakeshore Drive on the Vanderlinde Street side of the building be
approved, based on the review standards listed above (found in Section 2502 of the Zoning
Ordinance), and subject to the condition that an encroachment agreement is approved by the
City, was made by S. Warmington, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
Hearing; Case 2014-04: Request for a variance from Section 2331 of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow a fence with barbed wire at 1875 Roberts Street, by Newkirk Electric. M. Franzak
presented the staff report. The parcel is located in an I-2, General Industrial District. The City
recently vacated Nims and Vulcan Streets in this area so that the company could connect their
property at 1975 Vulcan Street. The company would like to fence in the entire new parcel and
would like to include barbed wire on top of the fence for security reasons. Notice was sent to
property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. One person, M. Peliotes, owner of 1838
Valley, called to say she had no objection to the request. Staff also received letters from John
Hughes and Ronald Hughes, and neither had an objection to the request.
B. Larson asked staff if the existing fence already had barbed wire. M. Franzak stated that it did.
E. Wilgenberg spoke for Newkirk Electric and explained the need for the fence.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by S. Warmington, 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 variance request to allow a barbed wire fence as proposed in an I-2, General
Industrial District at 1875 Roberts Street be approved, based on the review standards listed above
(found in Section 2502 of the Zoning Ordinance), was made by B. Larson, supported by W.
German and unanimously approved.
M. Franzak stated that E. Wilgenberg should first verify that the street had been replatted. E.
Wilgenberg stated that their attorney had told them they did not need to pursue a replatting.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
STAFF REPORT
January 13, 2015
Hearing; Case 2015-01: Request for a use variance from Section 400 of the zoning ordinance to
allow two boats and a trailer to be stored in the front yard without being screened at 889
Washington Ave, by Steven White.
BACKGROUND
1. The zoning ordinance allows for only one recreational or utility vehicle to be stored on this
property and they must be screened from the road and adjacent residential uses. The
applicant it seeking a variance to allow three recreational or utility vehicles and to not have
to screen them.
2. The property is located in an R-1, Single Family Residential District. It has been zoned for
residential for many years. The 1986 zoning map shows that it was zoned RT, Two Family
Residential.
3. There is a commercial building on the property that is considered legally non-conforming.
4. The zoning ordinance allows previous existing commercial buildings not already converted
into residential to be utilized for certain limited uses (please see the enclosed excerpt of
Section 401 #6 for list of uses). Outdoor storage is not allowed in any capacity other than
what is allowed in R-1 districts, which includes:
“SECTION 2316: STORAGE OF VEHICLES
1. Location: Residential parking areas for boats, trailers, motor vehicles, and recreation
equipment shall not be located in any front yard. This section shall not prohibit direct
access drive parking of automobiles on paved, established driveways. [amended 10/02]
2. Size limit, screening: Recreational equipment, trailers, motor vehicles, boats, and other
equipment or materials, stored for more than forty-eight (48) hours outside of a garage,
shall be placed behind the front building line of any main structure on the lot. No more
than one recreational or utility vehicle under twenty five (25') feet in length may be
stored outside a garage on a residential lot. Stored recreational vehicles must be
screened for side and rear property owners with a screen of at least five feet in
height.”
5. Although there is a commercial building on site that is considered legally non-conforming
and a case could be made that this is a commercial property, there are no zoning districts
within the city where outdoor storage is allowed without screening from residential
properties:
“SECTION 2331: LANDSCAPING, FENCING, WALLS, SCREENS AND LIGHTING
11. Outdoor Storage Screening: Outdoor open storage of any equipment, vehicles and
materials, including waste and waste receptacles, shall be screened from public right-
of-way and residential uses or districts. Such storage shall not be located in the
required front setback. Commercial and industrial uses do not have to screen from one
another. Front yard fencing over 4 feet in height in commercial and industrial zones shall
adhere to the required front setback. A screen of up to six (6) feet but not less than four
feet may be required as part of a site plan review approval.”
889 Washington Ave looking south from Washington Ave
889 Washington Ave looking west from Division St
(please note that the boats have recently been moved behind the front building line and are
not considered to be in the front yard at this time)
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
Section 401: Special Land Uses Permitted in R-1 Districts:
6. Previously existing or established commercial uses not already converted to a residential
use may be authorized under Special Use Permit for the following [amended 12/99]:
a. Retail and/or service establishments meeting the intent of the neighborhood Limited
Business Zone (B-1) dealing directly with consumers including:
1) Any generally recognized retail business which supplies new commodities
on the premises for persons residing in adjacent residential areas such as:
groceries, meats, dairy products, baked goods or other foods, drugs,
drygoods, and notions or hardware.
2) Any personal service establishment which performs services on the
premises for persons residing in adjacent residential areas, such as: shoe
repair, drop-off dry cleaning shops, tailor shops, beauty parlors, barber
shops, dressmaker, tailor, pharmacist, or an establishment doing radio,
television, or home appliance repair, and similar establishments that
require a retail character no more objectionable than the aforementioned,
subject to the provision that no more than five (5) persons shall be
employed at any time in the sale, repair, or other processing of goods.
3) Professional offices of doctors, lawyers, dentists, chiropractors,
osteopaths, architects, engineers, accountants, and similar or allied
professions.
4) Restaurants, or other places serving food, except drive-in or drive-through
restaurants.
b. Prohibited uses: Activities specifically prohibited include repair or service of
motor vehicles and other large equipment; manufacturing processes which would
normally require industrial zoning; any activity which may become a nuisance
due to noise, unsightliness or odor; and any activity which may adversely affect
surrounding property.
DETERMINATION:
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move that the variance request to allow two boats and a trailer to be stored in the front yard
without being screened in an R-1, Single Family Residential District at 889 Washington Ave 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.