View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: January 14, 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 December 10, 2013
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Hearing; Case 2014-01: Request for a variance from Section 2331 (Fencing) of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow a seven-foot fence with barbed wire at 1133 West Western
Avenue
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
December 10, 2013
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Hilt, S. Warmington, B. Larson, W. German Jr., T. Halterman,
E. Fordham
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: D. Greve, 1433 Montgomery; G. Ishmael, 1418 Nolan; J. Frendt, St.
Clair Construction Co., Holland MI
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of October 8, 2013 be approved was made by
S. Warmington, supported by E. Fordham and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
W. German arrived at 4:06 p.m.
Hearing; Case 2013-06: Request for a variance from Section 404 (Area and Bulk Requirements)
of the zoning ordinance to construct a home on a lot smaller than 6,000 square feet in size and
also for a reduction in the minimum rear lot setback, at 1433 Montgomery Avenue by Daniel
Greve. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The parcel is located in a R-1, Single Family
Residential district, and was recently damaged beyond repair by a fire. The lot The parcel is a
corner lot measuring approximately 4,240 square feet, which does not meet the size requirements
(6,000 square feet) for a buildable lot. The lot is not considered a legal lot of record because it
was previously reduced in size. The subject lot is adjacent to another non-conforming lot to the
south, and a conforming lot to the east. Rear lot setbacks are 30 feet in this zoning district. The
current house sits back about 18 feet from the rear lot line. The applicant would like to be able to
build within the 18 feet and is asking for a variance to allow development up to an 18-foot rear
setback. S. Hollern, owner of a nearby property at 1832 Moore, contacted staff to say that she
was in favor of the request, as the house was a detriment to the neighborhood as it currently was.
E. Fordham asked if the house would be built on the same footprint. M. Franzak and D. Greve
stated that it would. W. German asked if the rebuilt house would be closer to the property line
than the original house was. M. Franzak stated that the original house was approximately 20 feet
from the rear property line, but they were requesting the variance for 18 feet to give the owner a
little flexibility in case of an error in measurements. G. Ishmael lived behind this property and
stated she preferred to maintain the 20-foot distance. S. Warmington asked if she had any
objection if the house was longer from side to side. G. Ishmael stated that if the length along
Montgomery were longer, she would not have an issue with that. M. Franzak pointed out that
the setbacks were measured from the drip edge, not the foundation, and the 18-foot measurement
was only suggested to allow for minor measuring errors.
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 findings of fact (found in Section 2502 of the Zoning Ordinance) be adopted,
and that the request to allow development on a parcel less than 6,000 square feet in size, and a
variance from the minimum rear lot setback of 30 feet to a minimum of 18 feet be approved, was
made by S. Warmington, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
Hearing, Case 2013-07: Request for a variance from Section 2331 (Fencing) of the Zoning
Ordinance to construct a six-foot fence in multiple front yards at 864 Spring Street. M. Franzak
presented the staff report. This parcel is the Bayview Towers apartment complex and is zoned
RM-3, High-Density Multiple Family Residential. The property is surrounded by streets on all
four sides, giving it four front yards. The zoning ordinance states that fences in front yards in
residential districts may not exceed four feet in height. The applicant is requesting a variance to
erect six-foot fencing around the property. Myrtle Avenue is generally considered the front of
the building, which is where the main entrance is located. The requested variance would allow
six-foot fencing on Yuba Street, Myrtle Avenue, Cedar Street. The applicant recently put in a
sidewalk along Yuba Street and is expecting more pedestrian traffic, which is why they would
like to fence off the area. Renderings of the type of fencing to be used were provided to board
members.
B. Larson asked if the top of the fence would have spears or be flat. J. Frendt stated that it would
have the spear-shaped top, and it would be black in color, made of steel. He stated that they
preferred to have the 6-foot fence around all four sides of the property, but it was not in the
budget at this time. M. Franzak requested that board members considered granting the variance
for all four sides of the property anyway, so that another variance would not be required if they
wanted to extend the fence in the future.
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) Having a property with 4 front yards is an
exceptional or extraordinary circumstance applying to the property in question that does 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 (found in Section 2502 of the Zoning Ordinance) be adopted,
and that the the variance request to allow a six-foot high fence to be constructed on the property
at 864 Spring Street along the frontages on Yuba, Cedar, Myrtle, and Spring Streets be approved,
was made by S. Warmington, supported by W. German and unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:22 p.m.
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
STAFF REVIEW
January 14, 2014
Hearing; Case 2014-01: Request for a variance from Section 2331 (fencing) of the zoning
ordinance to allow for a seven foot fence with barbed wire at 1133 W Western Ave.
BACKGROUND
1. The parcel is located in a I-2, General Industrial district.
2. Consumers Energy will be constructing a new temporary electric substation on the parcel.
3. The zoning ordinance only allows for 6-foot tall fences in front yards and does not allow for
barbed wire.
4. The National Electric Safety Code requires that fences around substations be a minimum of 7
feet tall.
5. Consumers has over 950 substations within the State of Michigan that employ barbed wire as
a security method.
Aerial Map
Zoning Map
Zoning Ordinance Excerpt:
12. Fencing, all Districts: The placement of a fence requires a development permit or site plan
approval. Fencing shall be properly maintained. Fencing materials used as screening shall
consist of the following:
a. Solid board fences of standard commercial construction. The finished side of the
wood shall face abutting properties.
b. Open mesh fencing with woven slats, provided that is of standard commercial
construction.
c. Masonry walls designed and constructed to facilitate maintenance and not modifying
natural drainage in such a way as to endanger adjacent property that is of standard
commercial construction.
13. Placement: A wall, fence or yard enclosure may be erected on the lot line.
14. Height limitations: [amended 10/02]
a. Side and rear yards: In residential districts a wall, fence or yard enclosure may be
up to six (6) feet in height behind any building line of a structure which abuts a
street (see Figure 2.9).
b. Front yards: In any residential front yard (in front of any building line of a
structure which abuts a street), the height of a fence shall not exceed three (3)
feet, unless an open fence is provided (e.g., chain link, picket) in which case it
may be a maximum height of four (4) feet when such fence does not reduce
visibility or interfere with clear vision at intersections, alleys and drives.
c. Commercial and industrial districts: A wall, fence or yard enclosure may be up to
eight (8) feet in height behind the front building line of a structure. In a front yard
(in front of any building line of a structure which abuts a street), the height shall
not exceed six (6) feet and shall not reduce visibility or interfere with clear vision
at intersections, alleys and drives.
15. 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 for a seven foot tall fence with barbed wire at 1133 W
Western 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.