CITY OF CHARLEVOIX

BOARD OF APPEALS


Minutes


December 19, 2001
City Hall - 1st Floor

7:00 P.M.


A) CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Withrow at 7:00 P.M.

B) ROLL CALL

Members present: Withrow, Horton, Anderson, Nuttle and Witthoeft

Members excused: Cross and Ostling


C) DESIGNATION OF ALTERNATES

Mr. Horton was designated as alternate

D) APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The following minutes were approved as presented:

1. Minutes of the meeting of October 17, 2001

1. Minutes of the meeting of September 19, 2001

2. Minutes of the meeting of August 15, 2001


E) APPROVAL OF AGENDA

The Agenda was approved as presented

F) INQUIRY INTO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

There were no potential conflicts of interest.



G) PUBLIC HEARING

Case #01-34ZBA - Hire - 105 E. Dixon

Mr. Hire, Applicant, Mr. Gibbs, Builder and Mr. Mark Hilal, Attorney were present.

Mr. Hilal stated that the Applicant is requesting these variances in order to build a garage on this small lot. He pointed out his written documentation plus an additional copy of the list of similar variances have been presented to the Board. This is one of the smaller sized lots in the area and does not meet the standards. There is no garage on this property. Due to the size of the lot and close proximity of the adjacent two garages, three variances are being requested.

He pointed out that the size of the lot (8,843 sq. ft.) would justify the granting of these variances, based on a practical difficulty. He reviewed the list of similar variances granted in the R-1 district, which he states is ample precedence for granting the requested variances. The Applicants is aware of the fire codes, the need for architectural drawings and any additional requirements that are needed to build a structure so close to the neighboring garages.

He pointed out that the size and shape of the lot makes it difficult to find an alternative location for this garage.

Mr. Nuttle pointed out that there have been discussions regarding the construction of a smaller garage. Mr. Nuttle asked why the Applicant is requesting a 24' x 26' garage. Mr. Hilal stated the Applicant would like a two (2) car garage. He pointed out that the Zoning Administrator and the Applicant have reviewed all possible alternatives.

Chairman Withrow and the Board reviewed the two alternative plans and the proposed plan. Photographs of the house and property were presented to the Board. Chairman Withrow noted that Chief Carver has reviewed the proposed plans and did not see any adverse effects, as long as the Applicant installed a fire wall.

Mr. Anderson asked if there was ever a garage on this property. Mr. Hire stated he did not know and that it would be difficult to tell.

Mr. Gibbs, Contractor, stated that one of the adjacent garages was constructed of block, and that both adjacent garages are detached.

Mr. Nuttle asked if an attached garage is a possibility. Mr. Hilal stated an attached garage has been considered, but would not be consistent with the lot size.

Dr. Hire stated this house was built around the turn of the century when attached garages were typically not built. Mr. Hilal stated the garage would be one story and would comply with the ordinance height requirements.

Chairman Withrow stated one letter was received from Mr. D.M. Harden of 103 W. Dixon, which is adjacent to this property. Mr. Harden indicated that he would be in favor of alternative #1.

Mr. Withrow asked Staff if a smaller garage could be built without any variances being granted. Staff pointed out that the construction of alternative #1 would need no variances and alternative #2 would require a variance of 5' between the existing house and proposed detached garage. Staff stated that during discussions with Mrs. Hire, her concern was that there would be a very tight turning area to enter the garage. It would also limit the size to a one car garage.

The Board discussed the possibility of the Applicant building a 24' x 24' garage (including eaves). Additional sizes and locations of the garage were also discussed. Mr. Harsch pointed out that the ordinance requires parking spaces that measure 9' x 20'. A smaller garage could be built that would accommodate two cars. Mr. Harsch pointed out that the other garages in the vicinity are smaller, which was the style at the turn of the century.

Mr. Hilal stated that there have been similar variances granted. Mr. Withrow stated that a one car garage could be placed on the property without the need for a variance. He pointed out that the Applicant has provided the Board with detailed answers to the general and special findings of fact (see file).

The Board reviewed the "general findings". Chairman Withrow read staff's response to item (a) of the general findings.

The majority of the Board members did not see this proposal as being contrary to item "(a)" of the general findings.

The Board agreed that the use requested is allowed in the R-1 district and that item "(b)" applies.

In addition, the Board discussed the facts relating to Cases 01- 09ZBA (Peterson) and 01-10ZBA (McKenna). These requests were denied on the basis that an accessory structure could be built on each site without the need for variances.

The Board reviewed the list of similar variances. They agreed that there are a number of approved variances for the side and rear yard setbacks. There are only a few that were granted multiple variances similar to this case.

Mr. Anderson stated the variances denied on Mason Street is a very different situation. Mr. Nuttle stated that a two-car garage is not an unreasonable request, based on the size of the house. Mr. Anderson agreed. Mr. Witthoeft expressed concern that this will set a precedent for future requests.

Chairman Withrow stated that while this may not represent a fire hazard with the construction of a fire wall, it may represent overcrowding with three garages being so close together. In addition, a useable single car garage could be built.

Mr. Nuttle stated that if there were an alternative location for a two-car garage, this request should be denied. However, there does not appear to be an alternative other than a one car garage.

Chairman Withrow stated the question is whether there is any guarantee that the Applicant can have a two-car garage, especially if an applicant purchases a parcel knowing what the regulations are. It should be incumbent upon the buyer to know what the regulations are.

Mr. Harsch stated Staff was not overly concerned with a two-car garage being proposed. The concern was that the Applicant is proposing a very large two-car garage. A standard parking space is 9' x 20'. The additional 6' in depth that is being requested is substantial.

Mr. Nuttle stated that other things are stored in garages. Mr. Harsch stated the Applicant is asking for the privilege to break the law, and the theory is that this is done to the minimum amount necessary. Mr. Harsch again pointed out that a smaller sized garage could accommodate two cars.

The Board reviewed item "(c)" and agreed that this is not a variance so commonly recurring as to make reasonably practical the formulation of a general regulation by the City Council.

Chairman Withrow pointed out that with regard to item "(d)", the Board has determined that this request will not cause a substantial adverse effect to properties in the immediate vicinity or in the zoning district (R-1) where the variance is located.

This request relates only to property that is described in the application for the variance. Item "(e)".

The Board reviewed the "special findings". They determined that item "(a)" did not apply since there does not appear to be any practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship in terms of the characteristics of the property.

Item "(b)" was addressed. The Board agreed that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions which apply to the property in question. Staff pointed out that the majority of the lots in the area are small.

Mr. Nuttle asked if all the other lots in the area conform to the R-1 requirements. It was determined that most of the surrounding lots are nonconforming, with some being smaller than the Applicant's lot. Staff pointed out that the garage to the rear is 12' wide and the garage to the east is 20' wide.

The Board addressed item "(c)" of the special findings.

Staff indicated that the adjacent property contains a two (2) car garage on a similar sized lot. He asked the Applicants if they would be willing to build a garage that would conform to the size of the adjacent (20' x 20')garage. This would minimize the number and amount of the requested variances. It was pointed out that the overhangs could also be reduced. The Board discussed the possibilities of reducing the overall size of the proposed garage.

Mr. Hilal stated the Applicant is ready to discuss alternatives with the Board that will meet their requirements for a two-car garage. He stated that the practical difficulty in this case is based on the fact that this is a legal nonconforming lot. He did not feel that the width of the adjacent garage (20') should dictate the size of the proposed garage. He suggested that the Board could find that there are practical difficulties which arise from the fact that this is a small lot. He stated that the substantial property right is not the right to a 20' x 20' garage, but a right to build a reasonable garage. If the Board cannot approve the proposed garage, the Applicant will work with the Board for a reasonable solution that will be reasonable and meet the requirements of the Applicant.

Chairman Withrow questioned that based on the size of the lots in the area and the size of the proposed garage, what point will overcrowding occur. In addition, what precedent will this set. The Board is getting very close to creating an overcrowding situation with these three garages.

Mr. Nuttle pointed out that there are three substantial variance requests. However, there does not appear the be an alternative location for a two car garage. He pointed out that a 24' x 24' sized garage would not be unreasonable and would meet the needs of the Applicant. This would eliminate the need for the rear yard setback variance. The Applicant agreed to a 24' x 24' garage.

Motion by Nuttle Supported by Witthoeft

to grant Case #01-34ZBA a side yard variance of eight (8') feet, and a variance of five (5') feet in distance between the principal and detached accessory building, to allow the construction of a detached garage measuring 24' x 24' (w/1' eaves).

These variances are granted on the basis that this request meets the general findings and that such variation is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same zoning district (R-1).

Ayes: Nuttle, Witthoeft, Withrow, Anderson and Horton

Nays: None

Motion Carried

H) OLD BUSINESS

None

I) OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

The Board received a letter of resignation from Mr. Richard M. Hodgson II. It was the Board's hope that when Mr. Hodgson returns to the U.S. that he will seek another term with the Board.

The Board agreed to review changing the meeting time once all members are present.

Mr. Harsch reviewed the decision regarding the Creswell law suit on Park Avenue. The City prevailed and the Court determined that the Board acted correctly. Because the record was clear and the Board debated all the issues with an adequate record of the findings, the Judge found in favor of the City. Mr. Harsch pointed out that when the Board reviews and discusses the general and special findings, this is what the courts look to. In addition, detailed Decision & Orders are also imperative.

J) NEW BUSINESS

None

K) PUBLIC INPUT, NOT RELATED TO OTHER AGENDA ITEMS

None

L) ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 P.M.