View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
October 14, 2008
Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: E. Fordham S. Brock, B. Larson, L. Gomez-Payne, R. Hilt, J.
Clingman-Scott
MEMBERS ABSENT: S. Wisneski
STAFF PRESENT: M. Cameron, D. Leafers
OTHERS PRESENT: L. Page, 3305 Thompson
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of October 9, 2007 be approved was made by
B. Larson, supported by E. Fordham and unanimously approved.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A motion to nominate R. Hilt for Chairman and E. Fordham for Vice-Chairman was made by B.
Larson, supported by S. Brock and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing Case 2008-002: Request for a variance from Section 2316: Storage of Vehicles, to
allow the construction of a parking area and driveway for 2 cars, located in the front yard, at
3305 Thompson by Gretchen Page, 3328 Wilcox. M. Cameron presented the staff report.
Zoning of all parcels in the area is R-1, Single Family Residential. The principal structure on the
property is located to the rear of the property and over 70 feet back from the road, with no room
on either of the side setback areas for a parking area. Directly to the rear of the home is a steep
sloping dune. The property currently has a parking area that is nonconforming and runs
diagonally across the front yard of the property. Additionally, the preexisting parking area,
located in the front yard, does not have its own access to the city street, but uses a neighbor’s
narrow drive approach. The proposed driveway and parking area shown on the site plan are
located directly adjacent to a city-owned sidewalk easement which leads up the hill. While the
site plan shows the driveway directly adjacent to the city sidewalk, staff feels it is important that
the drive be located a distance of at least 3 feet from the city sidewalk. This would allow for a
clear demarcation area/green space between the driveway and walkway ensuring that pedestrians
would not encounter a car parked on the city sidewalk. Additionally, all accessory structures are
required to have a 3- foot setback from the property line; if a future garage was ever requested,
the parking pad would already be in conformance with the ordinance. While the homeowner
could pave their existing nonconforming driveway without a variance, the access to it could be
limited if the neighboring property owner restricted access across their property. To conform to
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –10/14/08
1
the Zoning Ordinance, the homeowner is required to provide enough space to park two vehicles
on the lot, if the driveway is relocated. A parking space is defined as an 8 x 18 foot area. While
this does not impact the current request, in June of 2003 this property was granted a front yard
variance for an accessory structure because of the demonstrated hardship that this property is
faced with. Staff has received one comment on this case from T. Blake who owns several
properties in the area. He is in favor of the request.
E. Fordham had questions about the site plan and layout. M. Cameron explained the locations of
the current and proposed parking areas. L. Page stated that he was selling the property and the
purchaser had requested the new driveway so that they would not have to use the neighbor’s
driveway to access their parking area. He stated that he had no problem with staff’s suggestion
of leaving a 3- foot wide grass area between the existing sidewalk and new driveway. E.
Fordham thought that an 8- foot driveway would be too narrow, especially in the winter months,
and suggested a 10- foot width. L. Page stated that he would widen the driveway to 10 feet if the
City didn’t have a problem with it. M. Cameron stated that 10 feet would be fine.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by J. Clingman-Scott, 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 findings of fact be adopted and that the variance request to allow construction
of a parking area and driveway for 2 cars in the front yard 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) an amended site plan with dimensions is submitted showing the driveway and parking
area located 3 feet from the city easement, 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.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:17 p.m.
dl
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes –10/14/08
2
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails