View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: December 10, 2013
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 October 8, 2013
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
• 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 at 1433 Montgomery Avenue
• 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
(Bayview Towers)
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
October 8, 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: T. Vruggink, GMB Architects; H. Kaplan, County of Muskegon
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of September 12, 2013 be approved was made
by S. Warmington, supported by B. Larson and unanimously approved.
E. Fordham arrived at 4:04 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
R. Hilt disclosed that he was a board member of the Milwaukee Clipper, and had dealings with
the County of Muskegon in that capacity. However, he would not be personally or financially
affected by the outcome of this case.
Hearing; Case 2013-05: Case 2013-05: Request for a variance from Section 1309, Area and Bulk
Requirements, of the Zoning Ordinance to construct a building within the 10 foot minimum front
setback at 990 Terrace Street, by the County of Muskegon. M. Franzak presented the staff report.
The County of Muskegon will be constructing an addition to the jail, to be located on the same
parcel as their current facility at 990 Terrace Street (also known as 25 West Walton). This parcel
is unique because it is surrounded by streets on all four sides, which means that it has four front
yards according to the zoning ordinance. This presents a hardship, as the layout of the property
will cause the mechanical equipment and enclosure to be located in a front yard. This is not
allowed unless it is screened with part of the building. However, there is not enough room to fit
it in the current setback requirement of 10 feet. There are several other buildings in the area that
are located within the 10-foot setback, as well as some utilizing the zero lot line option, so
granting the variance would not be detrimental to adjoining properties. The applicant is asking
for a variance to be able to construct the mechanical equipment enclosure with a front setback of
2 feet, 6 inches on Pine Street.
S. Warmington asked if the 2–foot, 6-inch measurement was from the edge of the sidewalk. T.
Vruggink stated that it was from the right-of-way line inside the sidewalk, and it would not
impede the sidewalk. He described the screening to be used and why it was necessary.
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 findings of fact determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals be adopted and
that the variance request to allow for a front setback of no less than 2 feet, 6 inches on Pine
Street be approved, was made by S. Warmington, supported by B. Larson and unanimously
approved.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
Resignation – Board members were notified that S. Brock resigned his position with the ZBA
because he had moved out of the City.
2014 Meeting Dates – Board members were notified that the City Clerk wanted to change the
day of the ZBA meetings for 2014, to avoid conflict with City Commission meetings. Staff will
work with the Clerk to come up with an alternate day. Both the ZBA Chair and the Vice Chair
stated that they were not available on Thursdays.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:22 p.m.
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
STAFF REVIEW
December 10, 2013
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 Ave.
BACKGROUND
1. The parcel is located in a R-1, Single Family Residential district.
2. The house was recently damaged beyond repair by a fire.
3. The lot does not meet the size requirements (6,000 sqft) for a buildable lot.
4. The parcel is a corner lot and measures approximately 4,240 sqft.
5. The lot is not considered a legal lot of record because it was previously reduced in size,
including only a portion of lot 4 of block 539.
6. Lot is adjacent to another non-conforming lot (L shaped lot on map) to the south and a
conforming lot to the east.
7. 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.
1433 Montgomery Ave
View of back yard to 1433 Montgomery and 1418 Nolan Ave
Zoning Map
Aerial 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 development on a parcel smaller than the minimum
6,000 sqft and the variance of the minimum real lot setback to a minimum of 18 feet 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.
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 St.
BACKGROUND
1. The parcel is zoned RM-3, High-Density Multiple Family Residential district.
2. The parcel is surrounded by a road on all four sides, giving it four front yards.
3. Fences in front yards in residential districts may not exceed four feet in height.
4. The applicant would like a variance so that they may erect 6 foot fencing on Yuba St and
Cedar St. Myrtle Ave is generally considered the front of the building, which is where the
main entrance is located.
5. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow for 6 foot fencing on Yuba St. and Myrtle St.
6. The applicant recently put in a sidewalk along Yuba St and is expecting more pedestrian
traffic and would like to fence off the area.
7. Please see the enclosed materials on the type of fencing to be used.
Main entrance looking east on Spring St
Looking south on Yuba St.
Looking west on Cedar St.
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
Fencing type example
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.
DETERMINATION:
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move that the variance request to allow for a six foot tall fence to be constructed on Yuba St
and Cedar St 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.
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails