View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
August 9, 2011
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: E. Fordham, R. Hilt, J. Clingman-Scott, S. Wisneski, S. Brock
MEMBERS ABSENT: B. Larson, T. Halterman
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger
OTHERS PRESENT: T. Witmer, 1201 Jefferson; J. Pratt, 1192 Jefferson; D. Wells, 1077
Jefferson; R. Campbell
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of December 14, 2010 be approved was made
by J. Clingman-Scott, supported by E. Fordham and unanimously approved.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A motion to retain R. Hilt as Chairman and E. Fordham as Vice-Chairman was made by S.
Brock, supported by J. Clingman-Scott and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing Case 2011-001: Request for a variance from Section 2334: Signs, to allow a sign to be
erected, exceeding the allowed number of signs at First Congregational Church, 1201 Jefferson
Street, by Tim VanDerHaar. Zoning of the subject parcel is R-1, Single Family Residential.
Zoning of adjacent parcels to the west is B-2, Convenience and Comparison Business, with R-1
zoning to the north, east and south. The Zoning Ordinance allows for one monument sign per
property in residential zoning districts. There are currently two signs on this property; however,
they were erected in the 1950s and have been maintained ever since. At that time, there were no
limits on the number of monument signs in residential zoning districts, so the additional sign is
considered to be legally non-conforming. To continue its grandfathered status, the signs may not
be replaced, but may be repaired. The applicant believes that the signs are too old and are
beyond repair, and is therefore requesting a variance to allow the two signs to be replaced. The
new signs would be placed in the same location as the current signs. Since both signs are larger
than the 32-square-foot size limit, they will also need a variance for the size, which is the subject
of the following case, 2011-002. The church property has 500 feet of frontage on Jefferson
Street, 307 feet of frontage on Third Street, 156 feet of frontage on First Street and 137 feet of
frontage on Monroe Avenue. Because the property is unusually large for a City residential
district and has frontage on several streets, having the two monument signs on opposite sides of
the building as proposed would make it much easier for people to find the church. C. Schilleman
owned the property at 1185 3rd Street and called to state that he had no objection to the request.
1
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 8/9/11
S. Brock asked how much bigger the new signs were than the old. M. Franzak provided the new
sign measurements and the ordinance sign size requirements. T. Witmer stated that the current
signs were old and needed to be replaced. He stated that the scope and design of the new signs
would complement the church and improve the looks of the property. J. Pratt owned property
across from the church and supported the request. J. Clingman-Scott agreed that the size of the
property and its placement made the two signs necessary. E. Fordham stated that the signs were
attractive in design and would not be a detriment to the neighborhood.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by J. Clingman-Scott, supported by S. Brock 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 be adopted and that the variance request to allow an additional
monument sign for this property be approved, subject to the conditions that 1) 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 Case 2011-001, and 3) the variance is
recorded with the deed to keep record of it in the future, was made by J. Clingman-Scott,
supported by S. Brock and unanimously approved.
Hearing Case 2011-002: Request for a variance from Section 2334: Signs, to allow a sign(s) to
be erected at 1201 Jefferson Street, exceeding the 32-foot allowed size limit, by Tim
VanDerHaar, First Congregational Church. M. Franzak presented the staff report. This property
is a church located on a large parcel in an R-1, Single Family Residential zoning district. Zoning
of properties to the north, east and south is also R-1, with B-2, Convenience and Comparison
Business to the west. The Zoning Ordinance allows monument signs with a maximum size of 32
square feet, with eight feet in height. The requested signs are each about 57 square feet and
seven feet in height. There are currently two signs on this property that are considered legally
non-conforming because they are pole signs, not monument signs. They were approved in the
1950’s before the zoning ordinance was changed to allow only monument signs. The proposed
new signs are monument signs, but larger than the allowed size. The signs would be visible from
both directions traveling on Jefferson Street and Third Street. The church property has 500 feet
of frontage on Jefferson Street, 307 feet of frontage on Third Street, 156 feet of frontage on First
Street and 137 feet of frontage on Monroe Avenue. C. Schilleman owned the property at 1185
3rd Street and called to state that he had no objection to the request.
R. Hilt asked if the signs would be lighted. M. Franzak stated they would not. Board members
discussed the uniqueness of this property, as discussed in the previous case. They concurred that
2
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 8/9/11
larger signs were a reasonable request, considering the size and location (multiple street
frontages) of the property.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by J. Clingman-Scott, supported by S. Brock 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 as determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals be adopted, and
the variance request to allow construction of two monuments signs that are each 57 square feet in
size be approved, with the conditions that 1) the additions to the property must be complete
within one year (Sec. 2504) or the variance is void, 2) the signs are built as shown on the
included drawings, with staff being allowed to approve minor changes that do not enlarge the
overall size of the sign, and 3) the variance is recorded with the deed to keep record of it in the
future, was made by S. Brock, supported by E. Fordham and unanimously approved.
Hearing Case 2011-003: Request for a variance from Section 2311: Accessory Structures, to
allow a gazebo to be placed in a front yard at 1077 Jefferson Street by Deborah Wells of
Jefferson Towers. M. Franzak presented the staff report. Jefferson Towers is a senior living
complex zoned RM-3, High Density Multiple Family District. They would like to erect a gazebo
on the grounds for their residents’ use. A gazebo is considered an accessory structure and as
such, they are not allowed in front yards. The zoning ordinance defines a front yard as the space
between the road and the front of the principal structure. Principal structures on corner lots will
have multiple front yards. Jefferson Towers has road frontage on all four sides of the building;
therefore, according to the ordinance, they have four front yards and no side or back yards. They
would like to place the gazebo on the Hamilton Ave. side of the building. It would be located 12
feet, 1 inch from the property line on Hamilton and 23 feet from the principal structure, which is
well within the ordinance setback requirement of at least three feet from the property line. The
gazebo measures 8 feet,11 inches at it longest point and is 12 feet tall. The zoning ordinance
states that structures can only cover up to 50% of the lot in residential districts. Currently,
structures take up about 30% of the property, and the addition of the gazebo will not significantly
change that amount. Properties to the north of the proposed gazebo location are zoned B-1,
Limited Business District and are currently used as parking lots. Properties to the west are zoned
R-1, Single Family Residential. Adjacent properties in other directions would not be negatively
affected by a gazebo.
D. Wells stated that an Eagle Scout had approached them about doing the gazebo project, and
they were very excited about the possibility of an outdoor seating area for their residents. If they
were to follow the ordinance, there would be nowhere on the property where the gazebo would
3
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 8/9/11
be allowed, due to the four “front yards” they have. There is a City parking lot taking up the
entire block across the street from the proposed gazebo location, so no neighbors would be
negatively affected. D. Wells stated that the gazebo would beautify the property and would be
handicap-accessible. E. Fordham asked if the gazebo would be open or enclosed, and if there
would be lighting. D. Wells stated that it would be open, with no lighting. She stated that the
City Inspection Department had already reviewed and approved the plans. R. Campbell lived
near Jefferson Towers and was in favor of the request.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by J. Clingman-Scott, supported by S. Wisneski
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 as determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals be adopted, and
the variance request to allow construction of a gazebo in the front yard on the Hamilton Avenue
side of the property at 1077 Jefferson Street be approved, subject to the conditions that 1) the
additions to the property must be complete within one year (Sec. 2504) or the variance is void, 2)
the gazebo is built as shown on the included drawings, with staff being allowed to approve minor
changes that do not enlarge the overall size of the structure, and 3) the variance is recorded with
the deed to keep record of it in the future, was made by J. Clingman-Scott, supported by S.
Wisneski and unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:27 p.m.
4
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 8/9/11