View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
August 8, 2006
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Hilt, S. Brock, K. Davis, E. Fordham, J. Clingman-Scott, C.
Kufta
MEMBERS ABSENT: L. Gomez-Payne
STAFF PRESENT: M. Cameron, L. Anguilm, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: J. Hughes, Hughes Builders, 3279 E. Laketon; B. Morin, Great
Lakes Naval Museum; C. Luders, 1250 Browne; B. Duff, 3541
Channel Dr; R. Osland, 1377 E. Harbour Towne Cir;
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of July 11, 2006 be approved was made by E.
Fordham, supported by S. Brock and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing Case 2006-013: Request for a variance from Section 1703: Area and Bulk
Requirements and Table I: Heights, Areas and Yards, to reduce the setback from the ordinary
high water mark or wetland from 75 feet for principal structures to a proposed 30 feet in the
OSR, Open Space Recreation District, for the property located at 3800 Bluff St. and 1260
Browne St., by Great Lakes Naval Museum. M. Cameron presented the staff report. The
applicant is Bob Morin of the Great Lakes Naval Museum, and the property is owned by the City
of Muskegon. It is zoned OSR, Open Space Recreation, and the current land use is a naval
museum. The variance request to allow the reduced setbacks is for the purpose of building a new
museum structure on the site. Zoning of adjacent parcels is R-1, Single-Family Residential to
the east, LR, Lakefront Recreation with the Harbour Towne P.U.D. to the south and OSR, Open
Space Recreation to the west. The zoning designations on the provided site plan are incorrect.
The museum is operating on the site under terms of a Special Use Permit granted in September
of 2005 and leases the property from the city. At the time of approval of the Special Use Permit,
a zoning change was approved to rezone the property from R-1, Single Family Residential to the
current OSR zoning. The proposed project will be built spanning both of the properties listed
above. The property has a hill sloping down onto the Browne Street property and the proposed
building would be located at the foot of this hill. The site is not in a critical dune area. The
Zoning Administrator has determined the high watermark to be the lakeward point of the channel
wall for setback purposes. The 30-foot setback is being measured to the proposed deck; the
actual building would be 45 feet from the channel wall. Because the deck is more than two feet
above grade it must meet the structure’s setbacks. Staff has received comments on this case
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –08/08/06 1
from Dan and Mary Doctor of 3532 Fulton, and Lloyd J. and Maureen E. Parenti of 3505
Channel Dr. The Doctors are not against the variance request but are concerned with the
building height. The Parenti's are opposed to the variance request and also concerned with
building height. D. Barns of 3509 Channel Dr. sent a letter explaining his concerns regarding
public access to the channel walkway and stating his opposition to the request.
E. Fordham asked if there were any DEQ concerns. M. Cameron stated there were not, since the
site was not in a critical dune area. E. Fordham asked where the 30 foot setback line was. M.
Cameron stated that it would be the deck overhang, because it was over 2 feet above grade. J.
Clingman-Scott asked how tall the building would be. E. Fordham read the dimensions off the
plans. J. Hughes stated that the building would have a single pitch roof with the high point to the
west, sloping to the east. The difficulty with the site was the channel and the large hill. With the
type of sand on the lot, it would be difficult to move the building back. They wanted to have a
nice building on the property that would be an asset to Muskegon. E. Fordham asked what the
deck size was. J. Hughes stated that it was 15 feet. E. Fordham asked what the setback was for
the building, not including the deck. M. Cameron stated that it was 45 feet, and the required
setback for OSR zoning was 75 feet. C. Kufta asked what the deck would be used for. J.
Hughes stated that it would be an observation deck. There would also be a conference room
available. He stated that the naval museum was a popular tourist draw to this area, second only
to Michigan Adventure, and that over 1 million dollars had been raised for the project so far. He
stated that they had been working with the Corp of Engineers, who had no problems with the
proposal. E. Fordham asked if there would be outside access to the deck. J. Hughes stated that
there would not be. R. Hilt asked about the statement in D. Barns’ letter regarding the gangway
being too long. B. Morin explained the set-up by the submarine, and stated that the gangway had
to be long enough to allow for movement of the ship. J. Clingman-Scott asked if there had been
any attempt to address the neighbors’ concerns. J. Hughes stated that they had already shortened
the length of the building by 50 feet and lowered the roof height, to obscure as little of the
neighbors’ view as possible. He stated that the deck would not interfere with the walkway, since
people would be able to walk underneath it. K. Davis asked about the comment in D. Barns’
letter about not having room for a child’s stroller. B. Morin stated that he had discussed these
concerns with D. Barns. They have gotten permission from the Corp for all work that has been
done, and they try to be good stewards of the property. They have made accommodations for
others with limited mobility that use the property. C. Kufta stated that it appeared from the
drawings that the area would be greatly improved under the proposed changes. J. Hughes stated
that the existing angle parking would be removed and there would be more open space and
barrier-free areas. E. Fordham asked about the snow storage area, and if the facility was open in
the winter. B. Morin stated that it was. J. Hughes stated that the new building would eliminate
the trailer and other miscellaneous buildings on the property, and other items currently outside
would be able to be housed indoors. K. Davis had concerns about overnight parking. J. Hughes
stated that there would not be. B. Morin stated that there may have been people who parked their
RV overnight there in the past, but they would agree not to allow overnight camping in the lot.
E. Fordham asked about question #3 on the non-use variance application regarding the possible
detrimental effect on the neighbors. He stated that there were several who seemed to be
concerned about having their views blocked. J. Hughes stated that the hill on which those houses
sat was 35 feet tall, and the proposed building would only be 28 feet high. They have also
condensed the building’s size to help alleviate the neighbors’ concerns. B. Morin stated that
some of the neighbors had spoken to him and asked that he keep the building as far to the east as
possible, which is what they were trying to do.
C. Luders was opposed to the request, citing noise concerns and view obstruction. B. Duff was
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –08/08/06 2
concerned about crowding the channel walkway. R. Osland objected to the variance and was
concerned about encroaching on the hill, and erosion and drainage issues from roof runoff. S.
Brock asked who owned the hill. M. Cameron believed that the City owned at least part of it. R.
Osland brought up issues about the roof and dumpster. M. Cameron raised a point of order that
Mr. Osland was straying from the topic at hand, and stated that this case was only for the setback
variance, not site plan issues. J. Hughes stated that they had addressed drainage issues to prevent
erosion, and the dumpster would be fully screened.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by C. Kufta, supported by E. Fordham and
unanimously approved.
J. Clingman-Scott thought that the building was too large for the lot, and did not see a
compelling reason for the large structure. C. Kufta thought that the request was reasonable, and
stated that the new design improved parking as well as ingress and egress. R. Hilt stated that
having the museum building closer to the submarine would be a benefit to visitors. S. Brock felt
that item (e) in the findings of fact was not met. K. Davis didn’t think the required criteria for a
variance were met. E. Fordham stated that everything he saw in the plans was an improvement
over the current setup, and the museum people had hired professionals to ensure a quality
project.
A motion that the that the variance request to reduce the waterfront setback for the proposed
principal structure from seventy five (75) feet to thirty (30) feet be approved, subject to the
condition that the additions to the property must be complete within one year (Sec. 2504) or the
variance is void, was made by E. Fordham and supported by C. Kufta. The motion failed on a tie
vote, with S. Brock, J. Clingman-Scott, and K. Davis voting nay.
OLD BUSINESS
Case 2006-006: Request for a variance from Section 2003: Area and Bulk Requirements and
Table I: Heights, Areas and Yards, to reduce the minimum required square footage of a lot in the
H, Heritage District from 4,000 square feet to 2461 square feet. This request is for the parcel
located at the northeast corner of Eighth Street and W. Clay Avenue, parcel number 24-205-317-
0009-10, by Mill Street Group LLC. Tabled at the July 2006 meeting. T. Bailey was unable to
attend this meeting, but did send representatives in his place to answer any further questions. R.
Hilt stated that the board had heard discussions of the case at two previous meetings and felt that
the board was ready to decide the issue. K. Davis stated that he had spoken with other City
Commissioners and the consensus was that the original PUD agreement should be left as it was
originally negotiated and approved. E. Fordham asked if there were tax credits allowed as part
of the PUD. K. Davis stated that there were.
A motion that the request for a variance to reduce the minimum required square footage of a lot
in the H, Heritage District from 4,000 square feet to 2461 square feet for the parcel located at the
northeast corner of Eighth Street and W. Clay Avenue, parcel number 24-205-317-0009-10, be
denied based on the following review standards: that there are not 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 was not 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 alleged difficulty was not caused by the ordinance, and that the requested
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –08/08/06 3
variance was not the minimum action required to eliminate the difficulty, was made by S. Brock,
supported by K. Davis and unanimously approved.
Case 2006-008: Request for a variance from Section 2311: Accessory Structures & Buildings to
place an accessory structure (gazebo) on a property prior to the principal structure at 1426 Beach
St., by Russell & Barbara Reckell of 1430 Beach St. Tabled at the July 2006 meeting. M.
Cameron had not heard from the applicants regarding any further action on this request. R. Hilt
asked what the board’s options were. M. Cameron stated that he would send a letter to the
applicants, informing them that a decision would be made on their case at next month’s meeting.
E. Fordham asked for clarification on what constituted a “structure” per the zoning ordinance,
and M. Cameron read the definition.
A motion to table this case until the next meeting was made by E. Fordham, supported by J.
Clingman-Scott and unanimously approved.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
dml
8/08/06
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –08/08/06 4
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails