Zoning Board of Appeals Packet 06-09-2015

View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer

                                               CITY OF MUSKEGON
                                            ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
                                               REGULAR MEETING


DATE OF MEETING:                           June 9, 2015
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 February 10, 2015.

III.      PUBLIC HEARINGS

       A. Hearing; Case 2015-03: Request for a variance from Section 2311 of the zoning
          ordinance to allow a detached garage in a front yard in an R-1. Single Family Residential
          district at 1515 Henry St, by Mike Binger.

       B. Hearing; Case 2015-04: Request for a variance from Section 404 of the zoning
          ordinance to allow an addition to the principal structure with only a three foot side
          setback on the west side of the property at 2473 Crozier Ave, by John Reinecke.

IV.       New Business

          ZBA/Planning Commission training at 4pm on Thursday, June 11 at City Hall.

V.        Old Business

VI.       Adjourn




                          AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT POLICY FOR ACCESS TO OPEN MEETING 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 Cummings, City Clerk
                                                           933 Terrace Street
                                                         Muskegon, MI 49440
                                                            (231) 724-6705
                                  TTY/TDD: Dial 7-1-1 and request that a representative dial 231-724-6705
                                  CITY OF MUSKEGON
                               ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
                                   REGULAR MEETING
                                       MINUTES

                                        February 10, 2015

Chairman R. Hilt called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and roll was taken.

MEMBERS PRESENT:               R. Hilt, B. Larson, E. Carter, T. Halterman, E. Fordham

MEMBERS ABSENT:                W. German, excused; S. Warmington, excused

STAFF PRESENT:                 M. Franzak, D. Renkenberger

OTHERS PRESENT:                A. Chilcote, 227 E. Holbrook Avenue; M. Grasmeyer, Apple
                               Ridge Builders, 1456 Burton Road; J. Schrier, City Attorney

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A motion that the minutes of the regular meeting of January 14, 2015 be approved was made by
B. Larson, supported by E. Fordham and unanimously approved.

PUBLIC HEARING

Hearing; Case 2015-02: Request for a variance from Section 404 of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow a building addition with a rear yard setback of 24 feet in an R-1, Single Family Residential
District at 227 E. Holbrook Avenue, by Alexandria Chilcote. M. Franzak presented the staff
report. The property is located in an R-1, Single Family Residential district. The zoning
ordinance requires all buildings in R-1 districts be set back at least 30 feet from the rear property
line. The current rear setback is approximately 40 feet. The owner would like to put an addition
on the rear of the house. They are seeking a variance to allow the rear setback to be 24 feet
instead of thirty. The applicant states that there is a hardship because the homeowner is
handicapped and needs to utilize the hot tub for therapy, and there is not enough room on the
property to meet the ordinance. Notice was sent to all property owners within 300 feet. Staff has
not received any comments from the public. M. Franzak stated that the Michigan Planning and
Enabling Act states that the claimed hardship has to be with the land and not the property owner,
and reminded the board that the variance would stay with the property forever.

M. Grasmeyer of Apple Ridge Builders stated that he was the builder on the proposed
application and that the homeowner was seeking to put a 16 x 16 foot addition on the back of her
home for the purpose of enclosing a hot tub for therapeutic use. He stated that in order to fit the
hot tub in and be able to have the door open correctly, the lesser setback was needed. A.
Chilcote stated that her foot had been injured in a car accident and that the hot tub was needed
for rehabilitation. B. Larson asked if the proposed structure was going to be enclosed and out of
public view. M. Grasmeyer stated that the addition would be located in the back yard.

A motion to close the public hearing was made by B. Larson, supported by E. Fordham and
unanimously approved.
B. Larson stated that the variance made sense. He stated that the homeowner had invested in a
home in the City, desired to expand the living area for personal reasons, and came up six feet
short of the setback. He stated that after reviewing the findings of fact he was in favor of the
request. E. Fordham inquired as to whether the alley running adjacent to the property was City
owned and M. Franzak affirmed that it was. Discussion was held regarding side setbacks and M.
Franzak reminded M. Grasmeyer that the side setback requirement would have to be met as well.
B. Larson confirmed that a drawing was required prior to granting the building permit to insure
that the required setbacks were met. M. Franzak stated that the ZBA application was for the rear
setback, and did not include a setback for the side along the alley. M. Franzak clarified the
ordinance intent, defined hardship, and stated that the variance remained with the property
indefinitely. E. Fordham stated that he didn’t believe the variance would cause hardship to the
neighborhood. M. Franzak stated that the challenge in determining hardship was to define
unique characteristics within a parcel that prevented a homeowner from meeting the ordinance
requirement. R. Hilt stated that the hardship was created by the ordinance. Mr. Grasmeyer
provided a rough drawing of his plan to the board. B. Larson stated that the board was being
advised against the variance, but felt it was in the best interest of the City and the homeowner to
approve.

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 request for a use variance from Section 404 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a
building addition with a rear yard setback of 24 feet in an R-1, Single Family Residential District
at 227 E. Holbrook Avenue be approved was made by B. Larson, supported by R. Hilt(?), and
unanimously approved.

OLD BUSINESS

None

OTHER

Findings of Fact in ZBA cases - The city attorney discussed the findings of fact with board
members, and their responsibility to ensure the conditions of hardship are met when considering
Zoning Board of Appeal cases.


There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
                                 CITY OF MUSKEGON
                              ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
                                   STAFF REPORT

                                          June 9, 2015


Hearing; Case 2015-03: Request for a variance from Section 2311 of the zoning ordinance to
allow a detached garage in a front yard in an R-1. Single Family Residential district at 1515
Henry St, by Mike Binger.


BACKGROUND
 1. The property is located in an R-1, Single Family Residential district.
 2. The property is a corner lot, located at the southwest corner of Henry St and Grand Ave,
    which means that there are two front yards on this property.
 3. Garages are not allowed in front yards.
 4. This parcel is a double lot. A house used to sit on the northern most half of the current lot.
 5. There is a genuine hardship on this property, which caused by the ordinance. There is no
    other place on the lot that a detached garage could be built.
 6. Notice was sent to all property owners within 300 feet. At the time of this writing, staff
    had not received any comments from the public.

                                            1515 Henry St




           Looking east from Looking south from the corner of Henry St/Grand Ave
                              Aerial Photo (northernmost structure no longer there)




STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the variance because there is an actual hardship with the way the
lot is configured. Also, the zoning ordinance does not make exceptions for garages in front yards
on corner lots.
DETERMINATION:
The following motion is offered for consideration:

I move that the variance request to allow a detached garage in the front yard as proposed on the
site plan in an R-1, Single Family Residential District at 1515 Henry St be (approved/denied),
based on the following review standards listed below (found in Section 2502 of the Zoning
Ordinance) and subject to conditions (if any):

   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.
   f. That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the difficulty.
Hearing; Case 2015-04: Request for a variance from Section 404 of the zoning ordinance to
allow an addition to the principal structure with only a three foot side setback on the west side of
the property at 2473 Crozier Ave, by John Reinecke.

BACKGROUND
 1. The property is located in an R-1, Single Family Residential district.
 2. The applicant is proposing a new attached garage. Attached garages are considered part of
    the primary structure and must have a minimum side setback of six feet. The applicant is
    asking for a variance to place the garage only three feet from the side yard on the eastern
    side of the property.
 3. Notice was sent to all property owners within 300 feet. At the time of this writing, staff
    had not received any comments from the public.



                                        2473 Crozier Ave
                   East side of property where variance is being requested.




                                           Aerial Photo




STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the variance because there is not an actual hardship, which is
necessary for granting a variance. There is plenty of space on the lot to construct an addition.
DETERMINATION:
The following motion is offered for consideration:

I move that the variance request to allow an addition to the principal structure with an east side
yard setback of three feet in an R-1, Single Family Residential District at 2473 Crozier Ave be
(approved/denied), based on the following review standards listed below (found in Section 2502
of the Zoning Ordinance) and subject to conditions (if any):

    g. 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.
    h. 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.
    i. 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.
    j. 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.
    k. That the alleged difficulty is not founded solely upon the opportunity to make the
       property more profitable or to reduce expense to the owner.
    l. That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the difficulty.

Top of Page


Sign up for City of Muskegon Emails