April 17, 2002
City Hall - 1st Floor
7:00 P.M.
A) CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by
Acting Chairman Witthoeft at 7:00 P.M.
B) ROLL CALL
Members Present: Witthoeft, Horton,
Anderson, Cross and Nuttle
Members Excused: Withrow, Ostling
C) DESIGNATION OF ALTERNATES
Mr. Horton were designated as alternate
D) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of March 20, 2002 were approved as presented.
E) APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The Agenda was approved as presented
F) INQUIRY INTO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
No conflicts of interest were identified
G) PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM #1 PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #02-04ZBA-1006 ST. JOHN'S -
WOLLAM
Mr. Witthoeft introduced the case stating that the request is
for a variance of two (2') side yard setback.
Mr. & Mrs. Wollam were present to present their case and answer
any questions. Mr. Wollam explained that the variance is for the
overhang on the garage. The current garage is not functional due
to the layout. Building the garage forward was a better solution
than expanding further into the side yard setback. The two foot
overhangs are proposed to match the style of the rest of the house.
Staff stated that there has been no correspondence regarding this
case. The Applicant pointed out to Staff that there is a stairway
on the interior of the garage that reduces the useable space to
about 17'. Mr. Wollam pointed out that there is also a window
to the utility room, so the garage could not be moved to the right.
Mrs. Cross pointed out that there does not appear to be a hardship
involved in this case.
Mr. Horton asked if an additional driveway will be added. Mr.
Wollam stated the original driveway will be used.
Staff reminded the Board that they considered the intrusion of
the interior stairs in a prior case. Staff pointed out that this
is a conforming lot and that there have been two cases that were
granted similar variances.
Mrs. Wollam stated that they cannot open the car doors with two
vehicles parked in the garage.
Mr. Nuttle pointed out that the building is not set straight on
the lot. If the building was straight, a variance would not be
needed.
The Board reviewed the general and special findings. The Board
agreed with Staff's recommendations for the general findings.
VARIANCE CONDITIONS.
All of the following conditions, in the judgement of the Board,
shall exist before any variance from this Chapter shall be granted.
Any variance granted shall:
The Board agreed with staff's recommendations outlined in the
general findings.
(a) Not be contrary to the public
interest or the general intent and purpose of this Chapter
(This Chapter is adopted pursuant
to the authority conferred by Public Act 285, P.A. 1931, as amended
of the State of Michigan, for the purpose of promoting and protecting
the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience and general
welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Charlevoix by protecting
and conserving the character and social and economic stability
of the residential, commercial, industrial and other use areas,
by securing the most appropriate use of land; preventing overcrowding
of the land and undue congestion of population; providing adequate
light, air and reasonable access;
and facilitating adequate and economical provision of transportation,
water, sewers, schools, recreation and other public requirements.)
The proposed attached garage is
an appropriate use of the land and is in line with the existing
structure and does not create a situation where the intent and
purpose of the Ordinance will be compromised.
(b) Not permit the establishment
of a use within a given district which is prohibited therein.
The use requested is allowed in the R-1 district.
(c) Not be a variance so commonly
recurring as to make reasonably practical the formulation of
a general regulation by the City Council
There have been only two (2) similar
variances granted for conforming lots in the R-1 district.
(d) Not cause substantial adverse
effect to properties in the immediate vicinity or in the zoning
district where the variance is located.
(e) Relate only to property that
is described in the application for the variance.
The request only relates to the
property described in the application.
Staff stated that there have been variances granted for other
properties where the house is not set squarely with the building
envelope.
SPECIAL FINDINGS. If all the foregoing variance conditions
can be satisfied, a variance may be granted when the Board determines
that any one of the following special findings can be clearly
demonstrated:
(a) That there are practical difficulties
or unnecessary hardships resulting from the physical characteristics
of the property in question which make it unfeasible to carry
out the strict letter of this Chapter. Increased financial return
to the applicant shall not be considered just cause for a variance
based upon hardship.
(b) That there are exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances or conditions which apply to the
property in question that do not apply to other properties in
the vicinity within the same zoning district and which have not
resulted from any act of the applicant subsequent to the adoption
of this Chapter.
The Board agreed that there is
an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance which applies to
this property. If the house had been positioned squarely on the
lot, this addition (and 2' eaves) would fit within the building
envelope and meet the required setbacks.
(c) That such variation is necessary
for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed
by other properties within the same zoning district.
Motion by Nuttle Supported by Anderson
to grant a two (2') foot side yard setback variance for Case #02-
04ZBA to allow the Applicant to add 21' x 18.83' to the existing
garage (w/ 2' eaves). This variance is granted on the basis that
extraordinary circumstances exist. The house does not fit within
the allowable building envelope since it was not built squarely
on the lot.
Ayes: Nuttle, Witthoeft, Anderson, Horton and Cross
Nays: None
Motion Carried
ITEM #2 PUBLIC HEARING FOR -CASE #02-05ZBA- 104 E. HURLBUT
- WERTZ
Mr. Witthoeft introduced Case #02-05ZBA, stating that the request
is for a ten (10') foot side yard setback variance and 2.85' between
the principal and accessory buildings.
He also reviewed the following past history:
1. Four foot (4') rear yard setback variance for a garage entered
at a right angle to the alley - Sec. 5.176 (4)
2. Variance to allow second floor in a detached garage - Sec.
5.32(8)
3. 3% lot coverage variance - Sec. 5.33(1)
Mr. Wertz asked Staff if he had needed the 3% lot coverage that
was previously granted. Staff stated that once the survey was
done and with Staff's graphic, it was determined that the correct
lot coverage should be 30%.
The Board agreed that the 3% lot coverage should be rescinded
by motion.
Motion by Nuttle Supported by Horton
to rescind the lot coverage variance of 3% granted for Case #97-
11 on May 5, 1997, on the basis that the survey and staff graphic
indicate that the correct lot coverage is at 30%.
Ayes: Nuttle, Witthoeft, Anderson, Horton and Cross
Nays: None
Motion Carried
Mr. Witthoeft pointed out that the staff report contained three
similar variances that have been granted in the R-1 zoning district.
The staff report was read into the record.
Staff indicated that no correspondence has been received on this
case.
Mr. Wertz stated that they need more closet space. With this addition,
the house will have three bedrooms and 2 ½ baths, which
will make it more marketable. Mrs. Cross pointed out that a lack
of closet space is not a hardship.
Staff stated that since the addition will replace the existing
deck, the square footage will not change.
The Board reviewed the general findings, agreeing with Staff's
recommendations.
VARIANCE CONDITIONS. All of the following conditions, in
the judgement of the Board, shall exist before any variance from
this Chapter shall be granted. Any variance granted shall:
(a) Not be contrary to the public
interest or the general intent and purpose of this Chapter
(This Chapter is adopted pursuant
to the authority conferred by Public Act 285, P.A. 1931, as amended
of the State of Michigan, for the purpose of promoting and protecting
the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience and general
welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Charlevoix by protecting
and conserving the character and social and economic stability
of the residential, commercial, industrial and other use areas,
by securing the most appropriate use of land; preventing overcrowding
of the land and undue congestion of population; providing adequate
light, air and reasonable access; and facilitating adequate and
economical provision of transportation, water, sewers, schools,
recreation and other public requirements.)
The proposed addition is an appropriate
use of the land and is in line with the existing structure, and
does not create a situation where the intent and purpose of the
Ordinance will be compromised since it is replacing and existing
deck.
(b) Not permit the establishment
of a use within a given district which is prohibited therein.
The use requested is allowed in the R-2 district.
(c) Not be a variance so commonly
recurring as to make reasonably practical the formulation of
a general regulation by the City Council
The frequency of such requests
having similar circumstances is minimal. In recent history, there
have been only three cases where variances were granted for the
distance between structures.
(d) Not cause substantial adverse
effect to properties in the immediate vicinity or in the zoning
district where the variance is located.
The potential for adverse impact
is minimum since the addition represents approximately the same
square footage and location as the existing deck.
(e) Relate only to property that
is described in the application for the variance.
The request only relates to the
property described in the application.
SPECIAL FINDINGS. If all the foregoing variance conditions can
be satisfied, a variance may be granted when the Board determines
that any one of the following special findings can be clearly
demonstrated:
(a) That there are practical difficulties
or unnecessary hardships resulting from the physical characteristics
of the property in question which make it unfeasible to carry
out the strict letter of this Chapter. Increased financial return
to the applicant shall not be considered just cause for a variance
based upon hardship.
(b) That there are exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances or conditions which apply to the
property in question that do not apply to other properties in
the vicinity within the same zoning district and which have not
resulted from any act of the applicant subsequent to the adoption
of this Chapter.
(c) That such variation is necessary
for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed
by other properties within the same zoning district.
The Board agreed that based on
the list of similar variances that have been granted, this case
would meet the requirements of "c" of the special findings.
Mr. Wertz pointed out that the house is 107 year old. Staff stated
that the adjacent house, while close, stops at the corner of the
Applicant's existing footprint.
The Board requested that in the future, Staff include the reasons
variances were granted for each case. Staff agreed. Page 22 of
the staff report lists 11 similar variances that were granted
in R-2 zoning districts.
Motion by Horton Supported by Anderson
to grant Case # 02-05 ZEA a ten (10') foot side yard setback variance
and 2.85' between the principal and accessory structures, to allow
the Applicant to remove an existing deck and replace it with a
two story addition. These variances are granted based on special
finding "c" and that 11 similar variances have been
granted in the R-2 zoning district.
Ayes: Witthoeft, Anderson, Horton, Cross and Nuttle
Nays: None
Motion Carried
H) OLD BUSINESS
The following Decisions & Orders were approved as presented:
1. Decision & Order for Case #02-02ZBA - Decker
2. Decision & Order for Case
#02-03ZBA - Polakowski
I) OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
None
J) NEW BUSINESS
Election of Officers was adjourned
to the next scheduled meeting.
K). PUBLIC INPUT, NOT RELATED TO OTHER AGENDA ITEMS
None
L). ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 P.M.