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.