Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES - 9/27/2012CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Approved September 27, 2012 7:00 PM Muskego City Hall, Muskego Room, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. Those in attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: Chairman Dr. Barbara Blumenfield, Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker, Mr. William LeDoux, Mr. Aaron Robertson, and Planner Adam Trzebiatowski. ABSENT: Dr. Russell Kashian, Mr. Jeremy Bartlett, Mr. Richard Ristow STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The secretary stated the meeting was noticed on September 21, 2012 in accordance with open meeting laws. NEW BUSINESS 1. APPEAL #02-2012 Petitioner: James & Anna Edlebeck Property: W180 S6835 Muskego Drive / Tax Key No. 2174.913 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.02 Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioner seeks the following variance: Chapter 17 - Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 - Building Location (1) Location Restricted: No building shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except in conformity with the following locational regulations as hereinafter specified for the district in which it is located. A setback of 15.5-feet is required from the right-of-way (front lot line) of Muskego Drive on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 8.4-feet from the right- of-way (front lot line) of Muskego Drive to permit the construction of an attached garage, and is therefore requesting a 7.1-foot variance from the right-of-way (front lot line) setback. Vice Chairman Schneiker swore in the following: Adam Trzebiatowski – City Staff James and Anna Edlebeck – Petitioners Ald. Neil Borgman - 3rd District Alderman Jim Foyer – S68 W18089 Island Drive John Gullo – S68 W18031 Island Drive Donald Hill – W180 S6827 Muskego Drive Ronald Wendt – W180 S6821 Muskego Drive Chairman Blumenfield noted a letter was received from Jean Helmle, W180 S6845 Muskego Drive with concerns related to water run-off. Chairman Blumenfield gave the background on the appeal. The petitioner is requesting to ZBA Minutes 9/27/2012 Page 2 remove the old detached garage and attach a new, larger garage onto the home. The garage includes space for two vehicles along with some storage space adjacent to the side of the house. The parcel is zoned RL-3, Lakeshore Residence District. The front of the property is located on Muskego Drive, just north of Island Drive with an additional access strip of land off of Island Drive that is perpendicular to the main portion of the lot. Dr. Blumenfield read the discussion from the staff supplement. The existing garage on the property is in poor condition and is small. It is located on the side of the home. The new garage would be in front of and on the side of the home. Most homes are afforded a two car garage. The proposed garage is 26’ wide and 24’ deep with a 7’4” x 12’ back storage area. The garage will be a similar distance from the road as the home/garage to the north. Mr. Trzebiatowski added there were several options that were explored and ruled out by the petitioner. The first option was to construct two separate detached garages towards the street side of the lot. One of the garages would face the street and would be located along the southern portion of the home. The other garage would face the south located along the eastern side of the home. This option may cover a few of the bedroom windows, which could then violate the natural light requirement and make the bedrooms unusable. It would also be difficult to turn into the southerly facing garage. The second option would be to construct a garage to the rear (west) of the home with a driveway off of Island Drive. There were concerns over blocking neighbor’s views of the lake, easement concerns, and existing trees that made this option not feasible by the owner. Letters were submitted by numerous neighbors stating they are against this option. Mr. Trzebiatowski added that based upon the submitted information, staff did find a valid hardship and is recommending approval. The location of the existing home and general lot layout, limit the options that are possible. The home is already set a certain distance from the road and that cannot be easily altered. The proposed garage is typical in size for a 2 car garage. Also taken into consideration were neighbor concerns relating to a garage to the rear of the home. Mr. Edlebeck explained he spent much time figuring out what is best for the neighbors. He added that he already removed the Rubbermaid type sheds that were unpermitted and existing on the property. Mr. LeDoux questioned if the old garage was closer to the lot line than the new proposed garage. Mr. Edlebeck stated that is correct the old garage is noncompliant. Mr. LeDoux added that the water run-off from the new garage will be farther from the lot line with the new building. Mr. Trzebiatowski explained that the Engineering Department reviews all addition permits for drainage. A grading plan will be required and run-off must remain on your own property till it reaches the drainage system or the lake. Ald. Borgman was present and read a copy of the letter he submitted and stated he is in favor of the appeal as requested. Jim Foyer, S68 W18089 Island Drive – In favor of appeal Does not want garage in back because it is a nice park-like area Along Muskego Drive all garages face the street John Golla, S68 W18031 Island Drive – Garage on lake side would block views of the lake and destroy a nice setting Everyone else has garages on Muskego Drive Ronald Wendt, W180 S6821 Muskego Drive – ZBA Minutes 9/27/2012 Page 3 Shares easement – could be future problems with parking cars Park-like setting in back All other garages are on Muskego Drive – no problems with garage on Muskego Drive Donald Hill – W180 S6827 Muskego Drive Referenced case numbers from Waukesha County Court prior litigations related to easements. Case numbers 38573 and 30544 - Judge ruled user of the easement may not overburden an easement Indenture of 1936 allowed drain tile to run along four properties that is still in use and a driveway would disrupt this. In favor of appeal With no other comments or questions the Board went into deliberations. DELIBERATIONS Appeal #02-2012 – Vice Chairman Schneiker made a motion to approve Appeal #02-2012 as submitted. Mr. Robertson seconded. Upon a roll call vote, Appeal #02-2012 is approved unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: None. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Schneiker moved to approve the minutes of June 23, 2011. Dr. Blumenfield seconded. Upon a voice vote, minutes were approved unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS: Mr. Trzebiatowski explained he had been to a conference where it was discussed that a new state law went into place that cities can put a sunset clause on variances that have been granted. Mr. Trzebiatowski noted that Common Council will make the final determination but gave an example of one year from date the variance was granted the permits must be applied for and then work be completed in one permit cycle. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this Board, Mr. Robertson moved to adjourn. Mr. LeDoux seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 7:32 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Kellie McMullen Recording Secretary