View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: December 14, 2010
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 November 9, 2010
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Tabled Case 2010-007: Request for a variance from the minimum lot area
requirements in Section: 1100(11), to allow a residential use as part of a building
located on a parcel in a B-2 Convenience and Comparison Business District, at 1996
W. Sherman Blvd., by Stephan Holdeman.
V. Adjourn
AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT POLICY FOR ACCESS TO OPEN MEETINGS 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 Becker, City Clerk
933 Terrace Street
Muskegon, MI 49440
(231) 724-6705
O:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\Zoning Board of Appeals\ZBA Meeting Documents\ZBA 2010\2010 ZBA staff reports\ZBA 12 14 10\zba 12-
14.doc
Hearing Case 2010-007: Request for a variance from the minimum lot area requirements in
Section: 1100(11), to allow a residential use as part of a building located on a parcel in a B-2
Convenience & Comparison Business District.
BACKGROUND:
Applicant: Stephan Holdeman
Property Owner: Same
Property Address(location): 1996 W. Sherman Blvd.
Zoning: B-2 Convenience & Comparison Business
Current Land Use: Office & retail spaces
Request: A variance request to reduce the required lot size to allow the occupation of a portion of
the building at the above address for occupancy as a residential living unit.
.
STAFF OBSERVATIONS
1. Zoning of adjacent parcels are R-1 Single Family Residential to the east along W. Sherman,
B-1: Limited Business directly to the north and B-2 Convenience & Comparison Business
District to the West across McCracken.
2. This case is the result of ongoing discussions between the property owner and city staff
members and ultimately a court complaint filed by the city requesting injunctive relief.
3. On June 30th, 2010, I accompanied a city inspector investigating a tenant complaint and we
went into the residential living unit in the building, this unit is labeled 1984. Upon my return
to our office my research confirmed that there has never been a Certificate of Compliance
issued to this residential unit nor permits for the conversion from commercial use.
4. Because it has long been a source of continued problems and misunderstandings with this
property, it is very important to note that the applicant continues to refer to the building using
various postal addresses, instead of the single legal address for the property, which is 1996
W. Sherman Blvd. The application for the two variances incorrectly used the postal address
or unit number assigned to the portion of the building that has been converted to residential
use. The address on the application was corrected by staff and initialed.
5. The B-2 ordinance language allows for a residential use as part of a building in this zone, if it
has been issued a Certificate of Occupancy from the Inspections Department and meets the
minimum lot requirements for the RM-2 District.
6. This parcel of land is 10,625 square feet in size; the minimum lot size required for parcels in
the RM-2 District is 14,520 square feet in size. This lot is then 3895 square feet too small in
area to allow a residential unit to be part of this building.
7. The property owner claims that the residential unit had a permit for its conversion in
February 1994, city staff disagrees with this belief. Regardless of this disagreement, the
ordinance language regarding lot size was the same at that time, as it is now, and the parcel
has never met the two requirements which allow residential uses as part of a building in the
B-2 District. With that said, this property was formerly zoned B-1, until September 2003,
even when zoned B-1 it did not meet the minimum qualifications to allow a residential unit
as part of the building in a B-1 District. The B-1 District language requires that the
O:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\Zoning Board of Appeals\ZBA Meeting Documents\ZBA 2010\2010 ZBA staff reports\ZBA 12 14 10\zba 12-
14.doc
residential unit be issued a Certificate of Occupancy from the Inspections Department and
the parcel of land meets the minimum lot requirements for the RM-1 District. This minimum
lot size is 10,890 square feet. Since the current lot is 10,625 square feet, the parcel was 265
square feet too small to allow a residential use, even when it was previously zoned B-1.
8. Additionally, Mr. Holdeman owns 2572 McCracken, which is the property directly to the
north of this parcel. The McCracken parcel has a former dentist office located on it and a
gravel parking area, it is currently zoned B-1 Limited Business. Staff has repeatedly tried to
explain to Mr. Holdeman that he could split the McCracken parcel giving just enough land to
1996 W. Sherman to make it conforming and allow it to have a residential unit. Furthermore,
Mr. Holdeman’s attorney has informed us that Mr. Holdeman is in the process of converting
the former dentist office back into a residential unit. Since no permits have been applied for
we can’t verify these actions, but if it is in fact Mr. Holdeman’s course of action, it would be
an illegal conversion and then render the McCracken property legally unusable, either as a
residence or as a B-1 use, or even as a parking lot for overflow to 1996 W. Sherman.
9. The submitted site plan is incorrect in its depiction of parking spaces. When staff visited the
site on October 22nd. and inspected the exterior I found 13 parking spaces faintly outlined
with old striping. Each space is approximately 9 feet wide. Our ordinance only requires
parking spaces to be a minimum of 8 feet wide.
10. Without expansion of this property, by combining land from the adjacent parcel, it appears
the owner has not applied for all the variances that may ultimately be needed. Since there are
no dimensions on the site plan staff could not verify the maneuvering lane width and parking
space sizes but after my site visit, it appears the property will not have the required 22 feet of
lane width for two-way traffic and still have 8 x 18 foot parking spaces as required.
11. Staff has suggested that the proper course of action to resolve all current and probable new
issues with both of these properties, based upon the information staff now has, without any
variance requests or court actions, would be as follows:
a. Split the McCracken property and give approximately 4000 square feet to 1996
W. Sherman. The remaining McCracken lot would be 8825 Square feet which is
well above the required 6000 square feet for an R-1 zoned lot and above the
required 4,000 that is required for a B-1 zoned lot. This would give the Sherman
lot more than the 14,520 Square feet that is required and increase the parking area
to comply with the current parking needs along with some extra parking in case of
different uses in the 1996 W. Sherman Building. Changes in uses can increase the
parking that is required.
b. Request to rezone the small sliver of land that has been joined from the
McCracken property to the Sherman property from B-1 to B-2 so it is the same
zone as the building.
c. Request the rezoning of 2572 McCracken to R-1 Single Family residential if the
owner’s intent is for it to be a residential unit again. This would allow the
property owner to pursue the proper permits and it could eventually become
legally occupied as a residential unit and leave it with a place for a legal parking
area of two vehicles.
8. Mr. Holdeman has been resistive to this solution or any form of it in the past, and has
expressed his desire to seek a variance instead.
9. Staff has not received any public comments.
O:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\Zoning Board of Appeals\ZBA Meeting Documents\ZBA 2010\2010 ZBA staff reports\ZBA 12 14 10\zba 12-
14.doc
Application Page 1:
O:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\Zoning Board of Appeals\ZBA Meeting Documents\ZBA 2010\2010 ZBA staff reports\ZBA 12 14 10\zba 12-
14.doc
Explanation of Variance Request:
O:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\Zoning Board of Appeals\ZBA Meeting Documents\ZBA 2010\2010 ZBA staff reports\ZBA 12 14 10\zba 12-
14.doc
Page Two :
O:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\Zoning Board of Appeals\ZBA Meeting Documents\ZBA 2010\2010 ZBA staff reports\ZBA 12 14 10\zba 12-
14.doc
Notification Map:
O:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\Zoning Board of Appeals\ZBA Meeting Documents\ZBA 2010\2010 ZBA staff reports\ZBA 12 14 10\zba 12-
14.doc
Site Plan:
O:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\Zoning Board of Appeals\ZBA Meeting Documents\ZBA 2010\2010 ZBA staff reports\ZBA 12 14 10\zba 12-
14.doc
Marketing Brochure:
O:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\Zoning Board of Appeals\ZBA Meeting Documents\ZBA 2010\2010 ZBA staff reports\ZBA 12 14 10\zba 12-
14.doc
Building Photos:
O:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\Zoning Board of Appeals\ZBA Meeting Documents\ZBA 2010\2010 ZBA staff reports\ZBA 12 14 10\zba 12-
14.doc
O:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\Zoning Board of Appeals\ZBA Meeting Documents\ZBA 2010\2010 ZBA staff reports\ZBA 12 14 10\zba 12-
14.doc
Ordinance Excerpts (Emphasis Added):
ARTICLE XI - B-2 CONVENIENCE AND COMPARISON BUSINESS DISTRICTS
PREAMBLE
The B-2 Convenience and Comparison Business Districts are designed for the convenience and
community shopping needs of residents in the Muskegon Area, and they are intended to be
located in planned groups near the intersection of major thoroughfares. All business
establishments shall be retail or service establishments dealing directly with consumers, and all
goods produced on the premises shall be sold at retail on the premises where produced. All
business, servicing or processing, except off-street parking or loading, shall be conducted within
a completely enclosed building, unless otherwise provided by this Ordinance and specifically
approved by the City.
SECTION 1100: PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED
11. Residential uses as part of a building in this business zone shall be allowed upon
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy from the Department of Inspections, but
provided that the minimum lot area requirements of the RM-2 District are met.
ARTICLE X - B-1 LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICTS
PREAMBLE
The B-1 Limited Business Districts are designed primarily for the convenience of persons
residing in adjacent residential areas or neighborhoods, and to permit only such uses as are
necessary to satisfy those limited basic, daily shopping and/or service needs, which by their very
nature are not similar to the shopping patterns of the B-2 convenience and Comparison, B-3
Central Business District, and B-4 General Business Districts. B-1 Districts are also intended to
be utilized at planned locations in the City as zones of transition between major thoroughfares
and residential areas, and between intensive nonresidential areas and residential areas. In the B-1
District all business establishments shall be retail and/or service establishments dealing directly
with consumers. All goods produced on the premises shall be sold at retail on the premises
where produced. All business, servicing or processing, except off-street parking or loading, shall
be conducted within a completely enclosed building, or in an area specifically approved by the
City.
SECTION 1000: PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED
In a B-1 Limited Business District no building or land shall be used and no building shall be
erected, structurally altered, or occupied except for one (1) or more of the following specified
uses, unless otherwise provided for in this Ordinance:
5. Residential uses as part of a building in this zone shall be allowed upon issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy from the Department of Inspections, provided that the
minimum lot area requirements of the RM-1 District are met.
O:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\Zoning Board of Appeals\ZBA Meeting Documents\ZBA 2010\2010 ZBA staff reports\ZBA 12 14 10\zba 12-
14.doc
Table 1:
O:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\Zoning Board of Appeals\ZBA Meeting Documents\ZBA 2010\2010 ZBA staff reports\ZBA 12 14 10\zba 12-
14.doc
DETERMINATION:
The following motion is offered for consideration:
I move that the variance request from Section 1100 (item 11) permitting a reduction in the
required lot size from the RM-2 District area of 14,520 square feet, to 10,625 square feet, be
(approved/denied), based on the following review standards (found in Section 2502 of the
Zoning Ordinance) subject to conditions (only if approved):
a. That the property (could not/could) be used (put to a reasonable use) for the purposes
permitted in that zone district.
b. That the plight (is/is not) due to unique circumstances peculiar to the property and
(not/instead) to general neighborhood conditions.
c. That the proposed use (would not/would) alter the essential character of the area and (will
not/will) materially impair the purposes of this ordinance or the public interest.
d. That the alleged hardship (is/is not) caused by the Ordinance and (has not/has) been
created by any person presently having an interest in the property, or by any previous owner.
e. That the alleged hardship (is not/is) founded solely upon the opportunity to make the
property more profitable or to reduce expense to the owner.
f. That the requested variance (is/is not) the minimum action required to eliminate the
hardship.
g. That the use variance (does not/does) permit a use specifically identified by this
Ordinance as a use excluded from the particular zone in which requested.
h. The use (does/does not) seriously threatens the health of future residents or neighbors.
i. The use (is/is not) a nuisance per se, or the use in that particular location (constitutes/does
not constitute) a nuisance.
CONDITIONS
1. The variance is recorded with the deed to keep record of it in the future.
2. A new site plan is provided to staff that meets ordinance requirements and becomes
approved, showing the required number of parking spaces with dimensions of the parking
spaces indicated and dimensions of the fire & maneuvering lanes.
3. This variance is valid for the final approved site plan and submitted floor plan on record with
this case.
4. That the additions to the property must be complete within one year (Sec. 2504) or the
variance is void.
O:\Planning\COMMON\Zoning\Zoning Board of Appeals\ZBA Meeting Documents\ZBA 2010\2010 ZBA staff reports\ZBA 12 14 10\zba 12-
14.doc
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails