View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer
CITY OF MUSKEGON
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
February 14, 2012
Vice-Chairman E. Fordham called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. and roll was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: E. Fordham, R. Hilt, S. Wisneski, S. Brock, B. Larson, T. Halterman
MEMBERS ABSENT: J. Clingman-Scott, excused; W. German Jr.
STAFF PRESENT: M. Franzak, H. Mitchell
OTHERS PRESENT: K. Newton, Executive Director of the Muskegon Rescue Mission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of December 13, 2011 be approved was made
by B. Larson, supported by S. Brock and unanimously approved.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A motion to retain R. Hilt as Chairman and E. Fordham as Vice-Chairman was made by B.
Larson, supported by S. Brock and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hearing Case 2012-001: Request for a variance from Section 2334: Signs, to allow a sign to be
erected, exceeding the allowed number of signs, at 400 W Laketon Ave, by the Muskegon
Rescue Mission. M. Franzak presented the staff report. The zoning ordinance only allows for one
freestanding sign per property, in any zoning district. A variance must be granted to allow the
additional sign. There is already a legally non-conforming sign on the property. The pole sign
currently on the property is considered legally non-conforming because the property is now
zoned RM-2 and pole signs are not allowed in residential districts. The zoning of the parcels to
the west is B-4, General Business District. Parcels to the east are zoned B-4, and I-2, General
Industrial District. Parcels to the north and south are zoned I-2, General Industrial District. The
property has 348 feet of frontage on Laketon Ave, 284 feet of frontage on Park St, and 61 feet of
frontage on Seventh St. A notice letter was sent to all properties within 300 feet of this property.
There were no inquiries or comments regarding the proposed sign. The commission members
were supplied with a site plan for pictures, measurements and placement of the proposed sign.
E. Fordham had asked if the sign that was on the site plan was for this case. M. Franzak stated
that it was for the next case. K. Newton gave an overview of the process the Rescue Mission had
gone through with the construction of the new facility and the demolition of the older structure.
This sign had been brought over from the Rescue Mission’s location when it was located
downtown on Pine Street. He stated that they do plan on fixing this sign if the new sign is
approved. E. Fordham asked if the sign would be lighted once it is fixed. K. Newton stated that
they didn’t plan on lighting it but they do plan on fixing the sign and painting the pole. R. Hilt
asked if the Rescue Mission had a sign on their former building before it was demolished. K.
Newton sated that they had a message sign before. S. Brock asked if there was a need for a
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 2/14/12 1
variance when the Rescue Mission had the message sign on the building. M. Franzak stated that
they didn’t need one for it because one was on the building and the other was a freestanding and
both were allowed based on the zoning ordinance. They could still have a wall sign even if the
variance is granted. E. Fordham asked if the applicant had plans for a different sign should the
variance not be granted. K. Newton stated that they weren’t sure. M. Franzak had brought up a
recent sign application for a bank that wanted to have another freestanding sign. The bank
already had one freestanding sign for the ATM and not the bank’s name. The ordinance says
their existing freestanding sign was still a sign when it was erected even if it didn’t have the
bank’s name on it. R. Hilt asked whey they wouldn’t want to have the existing sign lighted due
to the fact it is a neon sign and does need maintenance. He stated that if the sign wasn’t going to
be lighted that the glass be removed. K. Newton stated that they would fix the sign and pole but
and to not have it lighted unless it is required. E. Fordham thought it would be a shame to have
the applicant remove the sign. K. Newton stated that they didn’t want to remove it. The sign has
sentimental value to the Rescue Mission and their donors. S. Brock stated that he had never
noticed the sign in the past until this application was submitted. He noticed the sign was in
disrepair when he did look for it.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by S. Brock and
approved with R. Hilt abstaining.
A motion that the findings of fact determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals be adopted and
that the variance request to allow for an additional free standing sign at 400 W Laketon Avenue
be approved, based on the following review standards (found in Section 2502 of the Zoning
Ordinance) and subject to conditions: 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. 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. 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. 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. That the alleged difficulty is not founded
solely upon the opportunity to make the property more profitable or to reduce expense to the
owner. That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the difficulty,
with the following conditions: 1) That 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 the site plan provided for Case 2012-001. 3) The variance is recorded with the deed
to keep record of it in the future. 4) The owners make every conceivable effort to relight the
existing sign, was made by B. Larson supported by S. Brock and approved with R. Hilt
abstaining.
Hearing Case 2012-002: Request for a variance from Section 2334: Signs, to allow a pole sign
to be erected in a residential district, at 400 W Laketon Ave, by the Muskegon Rescue Mission.
M. Franzak presented the staff report. The only type of freestanding sign that the zoning ordinance
allows for in a residential district is a monument sign up to 32 sq. ft. and 8 feet in height. The
proposed sign is considered a pole sign. Monument sign: A sign affixed to the ground with a full
footing where the display surface is less than two (2) feet above the grade to the bottom of the
display area. Pole Sign: An advertising structure which is supported by one or more uprights in
permanent footings with all parts of the display surface of the sign eight (8) feet or more above
the grade at the base of the sign. There is already a legally non-conforming sign on the property.
The pole sign currently on the property is considered legally non-conforming because the
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 2/14/12 2
property is now zoned RM-2 and pole signs are not allowed in residential districts. The zoning of
the parcels to the west is B-4, General Business District. The parcels to the east are zoned B-4,
and I-2, General Industrial District. The parcels to the north and south are zoned I-2, General
Industrial. The property has 348 feet of frontage on Laketon Avenue, 284 feet of frontage on
Park St, and 61 feet of frontage on Seventh St. A notice letter was sent to all properties within
300 feet of this property. There were no inquiries or comments regarding the proposed sign.
Please see the attached site plan for pictures, measurements and placement of the proposed sign.
E. Fordham asked about the zoning. M. Franzak explained that in order for the applicant to
construct the building that is there now, the property needed to be rezoned to RM-2. E. Fordham
asked if the sign would be allowed if the property were zoned commercial. M. Franzak stated
that it would due to the amount of street frontage that is there. The board members discussed the
damage that would be done if this were to be a monument sign that was on the ground due to the
distance from the building to the road. The plows would end up plowing the snow into it causing
damage.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by R. Hilt and
unanimously approved.
A motion that the findings of fact determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals be adopted and
that the variance request to allow for a pole sign at 400 W Laketon Avenue be approved, based
on the following review standards (found in Section 2502 of the Zoning Ordinance) and subject
to conditions: 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. 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. 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. 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. That the alleged difficulty is not founded solely upon the
opportunity to make the property more profitable or to reduce expense to the owner. That the
requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the difficulty, with the following
conditions: 1) That the additions to the property must be complete within one year (Sec. 2504) or
the variance is void. 2) The signage is built and located as indicated in the site plan provided for
Case 2012-002. 3) The variance is recorded with the deed to keep record of it in the future, was
made by B. Larson, supported by S. Brock and approved with R. Hilt abstaining.
OLD BUSINESS
None
OTHER
The commission members discussed the findings of fact and how everything doesn’t fit equally
within each of them. E. Fordham gave an example of how some homes do not have a back yard
due to the home having a street running in front and behind the home so they wouldn’t fit in the
findings of fact either. M. Franzak stated that the findings of fact are what the Michigan Zoning
and Enabling Act had created.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:41 p.m.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes – 2/14/12 3
Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails