View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: May 13, 2014
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 April 8, 2014.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 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.
B. 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.
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
April 8, 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: D. Medendorp, ALT Property Management
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of January 14, 2014 be approved was made by
S. Warmington, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing; Case 2014-02: Request for a use variance from Section 400 of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow a two-unit home in an R-1, Single Family Residential district at 1430 Hoyt Street. M.
Franzak presented the staff report. The parcel is located in an R-1, Single Family Residential
District and measures approximately 7,800 square feet in size, with 58 feet of road frontage. The
lot contains two separate houses that were connected by a front porch sometime in the past. An
Assessors sketch of the property was provided, showing the front porch that linked the two
houses. The City’s Building Official, Kirk Briggs, also provided an assessment of the property,
noting that the houses were originally built as two separate residences. No permit was found
showing that the porch now linking the houses was legally constructed. Both residences have
been vacant for more than two years, so the property has lost its grandfathered rights and must
revert back to single family use. The lot cannot legally be split into two parcels, because each lot
would require 50 feet of street frontage, and the entire parcel is only 58 feet wide. There is a
garage in the back yard off of the alley for parking, but it is in poor condition. There are not any
legal paved parking spaces on site other than in the garage. Notice was sent to property owners
within 300 feet of this property. Bernadette Young of 1468 Terrace Street is opposed to the
variance because she would like to see the neighborhood return to single family use. Greg and
Wynne David at 1452 Hoyt stated that they are in favor of the variance because this had been
occupied as a duplex for years and there were no problems. Janet and Peter Johnson own seven
properties in the area and expressed concerns about parking. They stated that if parking was
provided for the occupants on their own property, they would not be opposed to the variance. J.
Westphal of 1442 Hoyt called to say that he was opposed to the request.
M. Franzak pointed out that the property owners were not requesting to divide one dwelling into
smaller apartments, which the City has been trying to discourage. In this case, the houses were
originally built as two separate buildings. The lack of parking was a concern, but the board
could add a condition to an approval, requiring the addition of parking spaces off the alley. R.
Hilt noted that the property was in bad shape, as were several others in this area. S. Warmington
asked if the board could add a condition of approval that the building be inspected and brought
up to code. M. Franzak stated that was possible, and suggested that they could require the work
to be completed in a reasonable amount of time, or the variance would expire. He added that the
owners would be required to get a Certificate of Occupancy (COO) before they were able to rent
the place out, which would ensure that the buildings were up to code. W. German asked the
applicant what the timeline for completion was. D. Medendorp was managing the property for
the owners. He stated that they would like to do the renovations quickly, and had already pulled
electrical and mechanical permits, as well as a permit for roof repairs. They expected to have a
COO for the unit on the right within 45 days, then would work on the other side. D. Medendorp
stated that they would like to save the garage if at all possible, and they would perform any
needed repairs. He stated they wanted to put in dolomite or gravel for parking spaces off the
alley. R. Hilt stated that the home’s roof was in bad shape. D. Medendorp stated that there was
only one leak, and the rest of the attic was dry when they blew in insulation. He would have
Safebuilt inspect it. R. Hilt asked about furnaces. D. Medendorp stated that the furnaces and
ductwork had been stolen, but one side now had a new furnace and the other side would also. M.
Franzak stated that parking spaces would have to be paved, as dolomite and gravel were not
allowed. He suggested that board members place another condition of approval, stating that the
variance would be void if the house was destroyed.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by E. Carter and
unanimously approved.
S. Warmington stated that there were a lot of non-conforming houses in the area, but this one
was a unique situation due to the way the houses were originally built. He stated that the garage
needed to be demolished and a parking pad installed there. D. Medendorp asked that they be
allowed to try and salvage the garage if possible. The owners were putting a substantial amount
of money into improving the property, and wanted to repair the garage if they could. B. Larson
stated that if the variance were denied, it was likely that the property would fall into further
disrepair. Allowing the owners to improve the properties would benefit the neighborhood rather
than having a negative effect.
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; that being that the houses were originally constructed as two completely separate
dwellings; 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 be adopted and the variance request to allow a two-unit
residence in an R-1, Single Family Residential District at 1430 Hoyt Street in its current
structured condition be approved, with the conditions that 1) four legal parking spaces be
provided on the property, 2) if either of the two units are destroyed beyond 75% the variance is
void, and 3) the variance is recorded with the deed to keep record of it in the future, was made by
S. Warmington, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:44 p.m.
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
STAFF REVIEW
May 13, 2014
Hearing; Case 2014-02: 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 Dr., by Wasserman’s Flowers and Gifts.
BACKGROUND
1. The parcel is located in a R-1, Single Family Residential District.
2. The applicant would like to attach a pergola to the front of the building, which will extend
outward five feet towards Vanderlinde St.
3. 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 be a zero line setback because it will go all the way to the property line.
4. Notice was sent to property owners within 300 feet of this property. At the time of this
writing, staff had not received any comments.
Aerial Map
Zoning Map
Zoning Ordinance Excerpt:
SECTION 404: AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS [amended 4/00]
1. Minimum lot size: 6,000 sq. feet
2. Density (see definition in Article II): 7 dwelling units per buildable acre.
3. Maximum lot coverage:
Buildings: 50%
Pavement: 10%
4. Lot width: 50 feet (shall be measured at road frontage unless a cul-de-sac, then measured
from setback).
5. Width to depth ratios: The depth of any lot(s) or parcel(s) shall not be more than three
(3) times longer its width.
6. Height limit: 2 stories or 35 feet. Exception: Homes located in an established Historic
District may be up to 3 stories or 45 feet, if found to be compatible with other homes
within 600 feet. [amended 9/08]
Height measurement: In the case of a principal building, the vertical distance measured
from the average finished grade to the highest point of the roof surface where the
building line abuts the front yard, except as follows: to the deck line of mansard roofs,
and the average height between eaves and the ridge of gable, hip, and gambrel roofs (see
Figure 2-2). If the ground is not entirely level, the grade shall be determined by
averaging the elevation of the ground for each face of the building (see Figure 2-3).
7. Front Setbacks: [amended 1/05]
Minimum:
Expressway or Arterial Street: 30 feet
Collector or Major Street: 25 feet
Minor Street: 15 feet
Note: For minimum front setbacks new principal structures on minor streets may align
with existing principal structures in the immediate area even if the front setback is below
the minimum required.
8. Rear setback: 30 feet
9. Setback from the ordinary high water mark or wetland: 30 feet (principal structures
only).
10. Side setbacks:
1-story: 6 feet and 10 feet
2-story: 8 feet and 12 feet
Note, setback measurement: All required setbacks shall be measured from the right-of-
way line to the nearest point of the determined drip line of buildings. [amended 10/02]
11. Zero lot line option: New principal buildings may be erected on the rear lot line and/or
one side lot line provided: [amended 10/02]
a. The building has an approved fire rating for zero-lot line development under the
building code.
b. The building has adequate fire access preserved pursuant to fire code
requirements.
c. The zero lot line side is not adjacent to a street.
d. A maintenance access easement is granted by the adjacent property owner and
recorded with the County Register of Deeds and provided to the zoning
administrator with the site plan or plot plan.
e. It is not adjacent to wetlands, or waterfront.
DETERMINATION:
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move that the variance request to allow for a zero lot line setback in an R-1, Single Family
Residential District at 1595 Lakeshore Drive be (approved/denied), based on the review
standards listed below (found in Section 2502 of the Zoning Ordinance) and subject to conditions
(list conditions, if there are any):
Review Standards (Findings of fact):
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 2014-04: Request for a variance from Section 2331 of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow a fence with barbed wire at 1875 Roberts St., by Newkirk Electric.
BACKGROUND
1. The parcel is located in an I-2, General Industrial District.
2. The City recently vacated the Nims St. and Vulcan St. so that the company can connect their
property at 1975 Vulcan St.
3. The company would like to fence in the entire new parcel and they would like to include
barbed wire for security reasons.
4. Notice was sent to property owners within 300 feet. At the time of this writing, one person
(Maxine Peliotes, owner of 1838 Valley) called to say she had no objection to the request.
Nims St looking south-east. Newkirk Electric to the left.
Vulcan St looking south
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
Zoning ordinance excerpt:
14. Barbed wire: No person shall place, string or maintain barbed wire as part of any fence,
other work or structure in any zoning district unless approved by the Planning
Commission as part of an authorized special use. No barbed wire shall be permitted in
any historic district.
DETERMINATION:
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move 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/denied), based on the review standards
listed below (found in Section 2502 of the Zoning Ordinance) and subject to conditions (list
conditions, if there are any):
Review Standards (Findings of fact):
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.