View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: April 10, 2012
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 February 14, 2012
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Hearing; Case 2012-003: Request for a variance from “Section 1103: Area and Bulk
Requirements,” to allow a building to be built closer to the front and side property lines
than allowed at 2020 Lakeshore Dr, by GNS Subway, Inc.
IV. Old Business
V. 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 a representative to dial 231-724-6705
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
February 14, 2012
Vice-Chairman E. Fordham called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: E. Fordham, R. Hilt, S. Wisneski, S. Brock, B. Larson, T. Halterman
MEMBERS ABSENT: J. Clingman-Scott, excused; W. German Jr.
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, H. Mitchell
OTHERS PRESENT: K. Newton, Executive Director of the Muskegon Rescue Mission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of December 13, 2011 be approved was made by B.
Larson, supported by S. Brock and unanimously approved.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A motion to retain R. Hilt as Chairman and E. Fordham as Vice-Chairman was made by B. Larson,
supported by S. Brock and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing Case 2012-001: Request for a variance from Section 2334: Signs, to allow a sign to be erected,
exceeding the allowed number of signs, at 400 W Laketon Ave, by the Muskegon Rescue Mission. M.
Franzak presented the staff report. The zoning ordinance only allows for one freestanding sign per
property, in any zoning district. A variance must be granted to allow the additional sign. There is already
a legally non-conforming sign on the property. The pole sign currently on the property is considered
legally non-conforming because the property is now zoned RM-2 and pole signs are not allowed in
residential districts. The zoning of the parcels to the west is B-4, General Business District. Parcels to the
east are zoned B-4, and I-2, General Industrial District. Parcels to the north and south are zoned I-2,
General Industrial District. The property has 348 feet of frontage on Laketon Ave, 284 feet of frontage on
Park St, and 61 feet of frontage on Seventh St. A notice letter was sent to all properties within 300 feet of
this property. There were no inquiries or comments regarding the proposed sign. The commission
members were supplied with a site plan for pictures, measurements and placement of the proposed sign.
E. Fordham had asked if the sign that was on the site plan was for this case. M. Franzak stated that it was
for the next case. K. Newton gave an overview of the process the Rescue Mission had gone through with
the construction of the new facility and the demolition of the older structure. This sign had been brought
over from the Rescue Mission’s location when it was located downtown on Pine Street. He stated that
they do plan on fixing this sign if the new sign is approved. E. Fordham asked if the sign would be lighted
once it is fixed. K. Newton stated that they didn’t plan on lighting it but they do plan on fixing the sign
and painting the pole. R. Hilt asked if the Rescue Mission had a sign on their former building before it
was demolished. K. Newton sated that they had a message sign before. S. Brock asked if there was a need
for a variance when the Rescue Mission had the message sign on the building. M. Franzak stated that they
didn’t need one for it because one was on the building and the other was a freestanding and both were
allowed based on the zoning ordinance. They could still have a wall sign even if the variance is granted.
E. Fordham asked if the applicant had plans for a different sign should the variance not be granted. K.
Newton stated that they weren’t sure. M. Franzak had brought up a recent sign application for a bank that
wanted to have another freestanding sign. The bank already had one freestanding sign for the ATM and
not the bank’s name. The ordinance says their existing freestanding sign was still a sign when it was
erected even if it didn’t have the bank’s name on it. R. Hilt asked whey they wouldn’t want to have the
existing sign lighted due to the fact it is a neon sign and does need maintenance. He stated that if the sign
wasn’t going to be lighted that the glass be removed. K. Newton stated that they would fix the sign and
pole but and to not have it lighted unless it is required. E. Fordham thought it would be a shame to have
the applicant remove the sign. K. Newton stated that they didn’t want to remove it. The sign has
sentimental value to the Rescue Mission and their donors. S. Brock stated that he had never noticed the
sign in the past until this application was submitted. He noticed the sign was in disrepair when he did look
for it.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by S. Brock and approved with
R. Hilt abstaining.
A motion that the findings of fact determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals be adopted and that the
variance request to allow for an additional free standing sign at 400 W Laketon Avenue be approved,
based on the following review standards (found in Section 2502 of the Zoning Ordinance) and subject to
conditions: 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. That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the difficulty, with the
following conditions: 1) That the additions to the property must be complete within one year (Sec. 2504)
or the variance is void. 2) The additional signage is built and located as indicated in the site plan provided
for Case 2012-001. 3) The variance is recorded with the deed to keep record of it in the future. 4) The
owners make every conceivable effort to relight the existing sign, was made by B. Larson supported by S.
Brock and approved with R. Hilt abstaining.
Hearing Case 2012-002: Request for a variance from Section 2334: Signs, to allow a pole sign to be
erected in a residential district, at 400 W Laketon Ave, by the Muskegon Rescue Mission. M. Franzak
presented the staff report. The only type of freestanding sign that the zoning ordinance allows for in a
residential district is a monument sign up to 32 sq. ft. and 8 feet in height. The proposed sign is
considered a pole sign. Monument sign: A sign affixed to the ground with a full footing where the
display surface is less than two (2) feet above the grade to the bottom of the display area. Pole Sign: An
advertising structure which is supported by one or more uprights in permanent footings with all parts of
the display surface of the sign eight (8) feet or more above the grade at the base of the sign. There is
already a legally non-conforming sign on the property. The pole sign currently on the property is
considered legally non-conforming because the property is now zoned RM-2 and pole signs are not
allowed in residential districts. The zoning of the parcels to the west is B-4, General Business District.
The parcels to the east are zoned B-4, and I-2, General Industrial District. The parcels to the north and
south are zoned I-2, General Industrial. The property has 348 feet of frontage on Laketon Avenue, 284
feet of frontage on Park St, and 61 feet of frontage on Seventh St. A notice letter was sent to all properties
within 300 feet of this property. There were no inquiries or comments regarding the proposed sign.
Please see the attached site plan for pictures, measurements and placement of the proposed sign.
E. Fordham asked about the zoning. M. Franzak explained that in order for the applicant to construct the
building that is there now, the property needed to be rezoned to RM-2. E. Fordham asked if the sign
would be allowed if the property were zoned commercial. M. Franzak stated that it would due to the
amount of street frontage that is there. The board members discussed the damage that would be done if
this were to be a monument sign that was on the ground due to the distance from the building to the road.
The plows would end up plowing the snow into it causing damage.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by R. Hilt and unanimously
approved.
A motion that the findings of fact determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals be adopted and that the
variance request to allow for a pole sign at 400 W Laketon Avenue be approved, based on the following
review standards (found in Section 2502 of the Zoning Ordinance) and subject to conditions: 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. That the requested
variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the difficulty, with the following conditions: 1) That
the additions to the property must be complete within one year (Sec. 2504) or the variance is void. 2) The
signage is built and located as indicated in the site plan provided for Case 2012-002. 3) The variance is
recorded with the deed to keep record of it in the future, was made by B. Larson, supported by S. Brock
and approved with R. Hilt abstaining.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
The commission members discussed the findings of fact and how everything doesn’t fit equally within
each of them. E. Fordham gave an example of how some homes do not have a back yard due to the home
having a street running in front and behind the home so they wouldn’t fit in the findings of fact either. M.
Franzak stated that the findings of fact are what the Michigan Zoning and Enabling Act had created.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:41 p.m.
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
STAFF REVIEW
April 10, 2012
Hearing; Case 2012-003: Request for a variance from “Section 1103: Area and Bulk
Requirements,” to allow a building to be built closer to the front and side property lines than
allowed at 2020 Lakeshore Dr, by GNS Subway, Inc.
BACKGROUND:
Applicant: GNS Subway, Inc.
Property Address (location): 2020 Lakeshore Dr.
Zoning: B-4, General Business District
Current Land Use: Vacant, previously a restaurant.
STAFF OBSERVATIONS
1. The owner plans on demolishing the current building and constructing new.
2. B-4, General Business Districts call for buildings to be setback at least 10 feet from the front
property line, 10 feet from the rear property line, and side setbacks of at least 8/20.
3. The proposed plans do not meet the front and side setback requirements. The proposed front
setback is 3 feet and the side setbacks are 15 feet on the west and 3 feet on the east.
4. The owner is seeking a variance from the front and side setback requirements.
5. The current building does not have a front setback, as it is built directly on the front property
line. It is considered legally non-conforming, but may not be rebuilt there without a
variance.
6. The owner has an easement in place with the parking lot to the east of the property for
ingress to the drive thru.
Front of 2020 Lakeshore Dr.
Current front setback
2020 Lakeshore Dr looking from the parking lot to the east.
Zoning Map
Ordinance Excerpt:
SECTION 1303: AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS [amended 4/00]
1. Minimum lot size: 10,890 sq. feet.
2. Maximum lot coverage:
Buildings: 70 %
Pavement: 25 %
3. Lot width: 100 feet (shall be measured at road frontage unless a cul-de-sac, then
measured from setback).
4. Width to depth ratios: The depth of any lot(s) or parcel(s) shall not be more than three
(3) times longer its width.
5. Height Limit:
Maximum height: 2 stories or 35 feet
Minimum height: 2 stories or 35 feet.
Minimum heights are in the form of an "overlay district" on the following street
corridors:
Western Avenue; from Ninth Street to Pine Street.
Clay Avenue; from Seventh Street to Fourth Street.
Pine Street; from Western Ave. to Apple Avenue.
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 2-4).
6. Front Setbacks: [amended 1/05]
Minimum:
Expressway or Arterial Street: 30 feet
Collector or Major Street: 20 feet
Minor Street: 10 feet
Maximum:
Expressway, Arterial Street or Major Street: 50 feet
Collector Street: 40 feet
Minor Street: 30 feet
7. Rear setback: 10 feet
8. Setback from the ordinary high water mark or wetland: 75 feet (principal structures
only).
9. Side setbacks:
1-story: 8 feet and 12 feet
2-story: 10 feet and 14 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]
10. 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.
11. All required side and rear setbacks shall be landscaped, greenbelt buffers, unless zero-lot-
line is employed for a structure or fire access. At least fifty percent of all required front
setbacks shall be landscaped and adjacent to the road right-of-way. An average minimum
greenbelt of 10 feet shall be maintained along each street frontage. [amended 12/01,
amended 10/02]
DETERMINATION:
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move that the findings of fact determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals be adopted and that
the variance request to allow for reduced front and side setbacks at 2020 Lakeshore Dr be
(approved/denied), based on the following review standards (found in Section 2502 of the
Zoning Ordinance) and subject to conditions:
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.
CONDITIONS
1. That the additions to the property must be complete within one year (Sec. 2504) or the
variance is void.
2. The variance is recorded with the deed to keep record of it in the future.
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails