Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals - MINUTES - 5/28/1998 CITY OF MUSKEGO MINUTES OF MAY 28, 1998 PRESENT: Chairman O’Neil, Vice Chairman Schneiker, Dan Schepp, James Ross, David Conley, and William LeDoux. ABSSENT: Mike Brandt STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: Secretary reported notice was given May 15, 1998, in accordance with open meeting laws. MINUTES: Mr. Schneiker made a motion to approve the April 23, 1998, minutes as submitted. Mr. Schepp seconded, upon voice vote motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Signing of decision letters for the April 1998 meeting. Amended Appeal # 02-98,Thomas D. Reck,W180 S6701 Muskego Drive, Tax Key No. 2174.928 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following two (2) variances: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks an 14 foot variance to place a new accessory structure 11 feet from the Muskego Drive right-of-way. (zoning requirement is 25 feet) 2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) B Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot closer than 20 feet to the base setback line. Petitioner seeks a 9 foot variance to leave an existing carport 11 feet from the base setback line. Zoned: RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District in a Lake Shore Overlay Mr. Reck returned to the Board of Appeals with an amended appeal; he is still under oath. Mr. Reck stated three hardships for allowing a variance. 1.) The terrain causes rain water to flood his garage and basement. 2.) The inability to access the garage due to entrance being too small and too steep, the carport allows lighted access and security for his family. 3.) The structure is not closer to the road than four surrounding area garages. Mr. Reck supplied architectural plans for the construction of the carport along with a letter regarding rainfall and pictures showing the location of other garages along the Muskego Drive. A letter from Alderman Pionek was also submitted substantiating the unique character of the lot. Mr. Trejo stated this is a legal noncomforming property. Ordinance calls for 25 foot setback, with requirements that no structure be placed within 20 feet from a road right-of-way. This appeal has been amended removing the request for the two side decks and increasing the amount of the set back variance request from right-of-way. The house is setback within the required 25 feet, and there is a steep slope from the Muskego Drive, down into the existing driveway. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #04-98, David Love, W198 S11091 Racine Avenue, Tax Key No. 2287.998.005 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variance: Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (3) A.1 Building Location: Offsets. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a five (5) foot variance to place a new accessory five (5) feet from the south property line. (zoning requirement is 10 feet)Zoned: RS-2/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay Henry Schneiker administered an oath to David Love, homeowner, and Fred Arbenalla, contractor and neighbor. Mr. Love provided three hardships for allowing a variance: 1) Driveway is concrete and located in the center of a narrow lake lot, access to the garage would be on the side and turning around into the garage would be difficult. 2) Building and overhang being so close to driveway could hinder winter snowplowing, maintenance and delivery BOA 05/28/98 Page 2 trucks. 3) Concerns over the safety of children and pets playing in the area if the garage is placed close to the existing drive could hinder exiting in and out. Adjoining neighbors have no problem with proposed location of the structure as it would be abutting a natural buffer of trees. Mr. Arbenella stated if a variance is not granted, Mr. Love would be required to cut down trees to accommodate this structure. Mr. Trejo stated that the property and structures on the parcel grounds area all conforming with the designated zoning district. The may hinder to this request is the location of t he driveway, and a driveway location does not substantiate a hardship. The lot has no unique characteristics that would hinder the relocation of the driveway. To may alternatives still exist, that the appellant has not utilized, including switching the garage doors to the street side, increase the width of the driveway along the turn around area or placing fencing or buffering to avoid children playing in the turn around area. Appeal #05-98 Timothy and Julie Dunn, S67 W18775 Pearl Drive, Tax Key No. 2174.020REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following two (2) variances: Chapter 17-- Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a 16 foot variance to place an enclosed spa 24 feet from the Gold Drive right-of-way. (zoning requirement is 40 feet) Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a four (4) foot variance to place a new accessory structure 36 feet from the Pearl Drive right-of-way. (zoning requirement is 40 feet) Zoned: RS-2/OED, Suburban Residence District with an Existing Development Overlay Mr. Schneiker administered an oath to Tim and Julie Dunn. Mr. Dunn stated they are requesting to install an enclosed spa next to an existing deck that was there when they purchased this property and replace and increase the size of the existing covered patio on the north side. Their property is triangularly shaped and enclose by three right-of-ways. The house, taking up a majoring of the buildable area, has no space for expansion due to being surrounded by all the right-of-ways. The location of the spa blocked from view on all sides, the street grade is higher than the side yard areas. Mr. Dunn feels this is a severe hardship in preserving his property rights and the request would not infringe on adjacent properties. Also, the spa is not a permanent structure, with no long term repercussions. Mr. Trejo stated the house is a conforming structure. There is a detached garage located on the property that is closer to Gold Drive than is ordinarily permitted. The existing deck is nonconforming, located to close to Gold Drive. The spa would be located behind the existing deck, no closer to the road. This is a unique lot with three right-of-ways, however, that was taken into consideration when the house was built and a spa is not necessarily considered a permitted use by right. Mr. Dunn stated there are no home in the subdivision across the street and the tree line serves as a natural fence in back. The porch would be enclosed for safety reasons. The spa would enhance the landscaping. Appeal # 06-98 Debra Berens, Tax Key No. 2195.031.002 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following five (5) variances: ON THE ACCESSORY BUILDING Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a 14 foot variance to place a new accessory structure 11 feet from the Kingston Drive right-of-way. (zoning requirement is 25 feet) Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) B Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot closer than 20 feet to the base setback line. Petitioner seeks a 9 foot variance to place a new accessory structure 11 feet from the base setback line. Chapter 17- -Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (3) A.1 Building Location: Offsets. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a one (1) foot variance to place a new accessory structure four (4) feet from the west lot line. (zoning requirement is five (5) feet) BOA 05/28/98 Page 3 Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.05 (2) C.4, Accessory Uses and Structures, Permanent Structures. Said regulation states no detached private garage shall have a floor area greater than 60% of the floor area of the principal building on the lot. Petitioner seeks a 134 square foot variance to construct a 768 square foot accessory building. (zoning requirement is 634 s.f.) ON THE DECK Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (3) A.1 Building Location: Offsets. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a 1.5 foot variance to place an attached deck 3.5 feet from the west lot line. (zoning requirement is five (5) feet) Zoned: RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay. Mr. Schneiker administered an oath to Debra Berens, David Woida, Don Connor, Joe Fischer, Howard Gygax, Dave Taube and Mark Schmalz. Mr. Woida stated they reconsidered the excessiveness of their previous variance request and are now proposing to erect a garage 12 feet from the house, maintain an offset from the west lot line that would be equal with the house, and reduced the size of the proposed structure. The hardships stated were: 1) Property is bound on one side by water and the pre-existing location of house. 2) Safety, the ingress and egress from the existing residence and the location of the proposed structure. 3) Lack of storage. 4) Keep sideyards consistent. 4) Keep neighborhood beautiful.. The petitioners feel attaching the garage to the existing house would cause considerable hardship as the floor plan of the house does not make this addition feasible and the well would have to be relocated or placed within the structure. Mr. Trejo stated the existing structure is too close to the western lotline and adding a deck and a garage would only make this property more nonconforming. The alternatives are: 1) Attach garage to the house. 2) Construct a smaller garage. 3) Move the proposed location of the garage closer to the house with a firewall. Mr. Trejo also expressed that staff still considers this as a self imposed hardship. The owner sold off the neighboring lot, lot 39, and now has no adequate area for a structure of this size. Chairman O’Neil stated the lot was sold in 1996 and not relevant to the issue before the Board. Don Connor stateed he recently purchased a residence on Muskego Drive without a garage and would like to see this variance granted, since a home and vehicles are the largest purchases a person makes in their lifetime and they should be enclosed and safer. He too, plans to build a garage on his lot and would be requesting the same considerations. Howard Gygax, neighbor on the west, did not have a concern with the proposed deck. And if the proposed garage will keep storage inside, he has no problem with the size, as long as it is properly sided. Mark Schmalz spoke in protest of proposed garage structure, stating it would reduce property taxes and crowd an area even more. Mr. Schmalz feels that a request for five variances is excessive for any property. Dave Taube questioned which members viewed the site. Mr. Taube feels there is contradicting testimony regarding legal lot status, stating he was on the City Council when these lots were split. The garage should be attached to the house and even if the well is located inside the garage. Ms. Berens stated that property is unique in shape and can not be compared to new construction since the house was built in the 1940’s. The interior layout of the home would not be accommodating to an attached garage, the well location hinders placement further away from the street. Mr. Schepp made a motion for a 10 minute recess. Mr. Schneiker seconded. Motion carried. DELIBERATION APPEAL #2-98 Mr. Ross made a motion to approve the variance as submitted. Mr. Schneiker seconded. Discussion ensued over the topography of the site, location of existing house and the uniqueness of the lot. Upon BOA 05/28/98 Page 4 roll call vote, motion carried, 5-1, Mr. Schepp voting nay. APPEAL #4-98 Mr. Conley made a motion to approve as submitted. Mr. Schepp seconded. Discussion ensued regarding the placement of the garage, the possible relocation of the driveway and accessing the driveway from the street side. Upon roll call vote, the motion was denied due to lack of a hardship. APPEAL #5-98 Mr. Schneiker made a motion to approve Item #1 as submitted. Mr. Ross seconded. Discussion ensued over the unique shape of the lot, the existing location of the residence and the topology of the site off of Muskego Drive. Upon roll call vote, motion carried 6-0. Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve Item #2 as submitted. Mr. Ross seconded. Discussion ensued over the unique shape of the lot, the existing location of the residence and the topology of the site off of Muskego Drive. Upon roll call vote, motion carried 5-1, Mr. Schepp voting nay. APPEAL #5-98 Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve Item #5, as submitted . Mr. Conley seconded. Discussion ensued over the pre-existing location of the residence and the visual appearance of keeping the deck parallel with the home. Upon roll call vote, motion carried 5-1, Mr. Ross voting nay. Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve Item #4 as submitted. Mr. Ross seconded. Discussion ensued whether lack of storage substantiated a hardship and the City attorney’s presentation over substantiating a hardship. Upon roll call vote, motion was denied 4-2, Chairman O’Neil and Mr. Conley voting yes Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve Item #3 as submitted. Mr. Schneiker seconded. Discussion ensued over the garage being detached and whether the aesthetics of the lot would be effected. Upon roll call vote, motion denied 4-2, Chairman O’Neil and Mr. Le Doux voting yes. Mr. Ross made a motion to approve Item #1 and #2 as submitted. Mr. Schepp seconded. Discussion ensued over the location of the well and house on lot. Upon roll call vote, motion carried. 4-2, Mr. Conley and Mr. Le Doux voting nay. ADJOURN With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Schepp made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Ross seconded. Upon voice vote, motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Susan J. Schroeder