View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: February 9, 2016
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 8, 2015.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Hearing; Case 2016-02: Request for a variance from Section 404 of the zoning ordinance
to allow a property to have 17% of the lot covered in pavement in a R-1, Single Family
Residential district at 1686 Beach St, by Jeff and Julie Lewis.
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 8, 2015
Vice Chairman E. Fordham called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Hilt, B. Larson, E. Carter, E. Fordham, S. Warmington, T.
Halterman
MEMBERS ABSENT: W. German, excused
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: R. Baglien, 1560 Nelson; T. Ghezzi, 2055 Lakeshore Dr., R.
Ghezzi, 2017 Lakeshore Dr.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of July 14, 2015 be approved was made by S.
Warmington, supported by E. Carter and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
Hearing; Case 2015-06: Request for a variance from Section 2311 of the zoning ordinance to
allow a shed to be constructed within 1.5 feet of the rear property line in an R-1, Single Family
Residential district at 1560 Nelson St, by Robert and Sue Baglien. M. Franzak presented the
staff report. This parcel measures 58 x 116 feet for a total of 6,728 square feet, making it a
buildable, legal conforming lot. The existing garage to the east of the home is currently
considered a legal conforming structure because it meets all applicable setback requirements.
The applicant would like to construct a shed that would be attached to the east side of the garage.
The requested shed is 8 feet wide, which would only leave an 18-inch setback from the rear
property line, measuring from the drip edge of the structure. The applicant claims that the
hardship is due to the ordinance requirements for corner lots, which limits the placement options
for an accessory structure. Staff agrees that the there are no other options for a shed on this
property due to the street corner and the placement of the home on the lot.
M. Franzak explained that, according to city ordinance, the property had two front yards because
it was on a corner lot. Since the house was set back away from the side street, any shed would
have to either be placed in a front yard, or in the location in question next to the garage, which
would face the rear of the property. The requested location is the least intrusive. The neighbors
at 1570 Nelson stated that they were not opposed to the request. The property behind the house
is a vacant lot owned by Harbour Towne Condominiums. The applicant provided a letter from
the condominium board indicating that they were not opposed to having the shed near their
property line. Board members concurred that this situation met the review standards for granting
a variance.
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 an accessory structure to be built within 18 inches of
the rear property line as proposed at 1560 Nelson Street be approved, with the condition that any
necessary permits are obtained was made by S. Warmington, supported by B. Larson and
unanimously approved, with R. Hilt, B. Larson, E. Carter, E. Fordham, S. Warmington, T.
Halterman voting aye.
Hearing; Case 2015-07: Request for a variance from section 1303 of the zoning ordinance to
allow a building addition all the way up to the front property line in a B-4, General Business
district at 1991 Lakeshore Dr, by BTBG Investments. M. Franzak presented the staff report.
The parcel measures 155 x 125 feet, for a total of 19,375 square feet, making it a buildable lot.
The building currently sits back only 7 feet from the front property line. The required minimum
setback is 10 feet, which makes the building legal, non-conforming. The applicant would like to
construct a patio with a canopy in the front. The patio addition would extend all the way to the
front property line, with no encroachment upon the city sidewalk. This variance would make
this building a conforming lot, even without the addition of the patio. Several businesses in
Lakeside were built with a zero-line front setback, while others are set back a few feet, with the
business actually owning a portion of sidewalk. This property owns 7 feet of sidewalk in front.
The adjacent property at 1983 Lakeside Drive was recently granted a variance for a patio in front
of their building. Letters were sent to property owners within 300 feet and no comments were
received.
S. Warmington asked if the patio would run along the entire front of the building. T. Ghezzi
stated that it would run along the two-story portion. Board members concurred that this area of
the city was unique in that several buildings were non-conforming and utilized the zero-lot-line
option, and that the request would not cause a hardship to any nearby property owners.
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 building addition with a zero-line front setback at
1991 Lakeshore Drive be approved, was made by B. Larson, supported by S. Warmington and
unanimously approved, with R. Hilt, B. Larson, E. Carter, E. Fordham, S. Warmington, T.
Halterman voting aye.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
STAFF REPORT
February 9, 2016
Hearing; Case 2016-02: Request for a variance from Section 404 of the zoning ordinance to
allow a property to have 17% of the lot covered in pavement in a R-1, Single Family Residential
district at 1686 Beach St, by Jeff and Julie Lewis.
BACKGROUND
1. The parcel measures 5,410 sf, which would make it an unbuildable lot by today’s
standards. However, it is considered a legal lot of record because it was a legal lot at the
time it was platted and no changes to the size of the lot have been made since then.
2. The applicants will be putting on an addition to the home. This will include a garage in the
front of the home. Currently, there is not a garage and the only parking pad is located
behind the house. This parking pad will be removed during the addition. They would like
to put a new driveway in front of the house that will lead to the garage.
3. The ordinance allows for residential properties to have a maximum pavement coverage of
10% of the property, allowing this property to have 541 sf of pavement. This property is
unique because there is an easement between five properties in this block that serves as an
access alley so that all of the homes can have ingress/egress. A portion of this paved alley
is located on the property at 1686 Beach St and cannot be removed. The pavement for this
alley that is located on 1686 Beach St totals 440 sqft, leaving only 101 sf of additional
pavement that can be added to the property.
4. In order to have a driveway that will reach their garage, they need an additional 440 sf of
pavement on the lot, which will bring their total pavement allotment up to 17% of the
property.
1686 Beach St
Access easement between 5 properties, located on 1686 Beach St.
Parking pad in back to be removed.
Zoning Map
Aerial Map
DETERMINATION:
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move that the variance request to allow 17% of the property to be covered in pavement at 1686
Beach St 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.
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails