Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals - MINUTES - 4/23/1998 CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 1998 PRESENT: Chairman Terry O’Neil, Vice Chairman Mike Brandt, Henry Schneiker, Dan Schepp, James Ross, and Planning Assistant Carlos Trejo. ABSENT: Ed Herda and David Conley. MINUTES: Mr. Schepp made a motion to accept the minutes of December 11, 1997, as submitted. Mr. Brandt seconded, upon voice vote, motion carried. Mr. Schepp made a motion to accept minutes of February 26, 1998, as submitted, Mr. Brandt seconded, upon voice vote, motion carried. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: Secretary reported notice was given April 10, 1998, in accordance with the open meeting laws. OLD BUSINESS: Signing of decision letters for the December 1997 and February 1998 meetings. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal # 01-98, Kenneth and Christine Johnson, W181 S6415 Lentini Drive, Tax Key No. 2174.013 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 6.2 foot variance to place an addition to an existing residence 12 feet from the north property line. (zoning requirement is 18.2 feet) The property is zoned RS-2, Suburban Residence District. Mr. Brandt administered an oath to Chris and Ken Johnson. Ms. Johnson explained they are proposing taking down an old one car garage (attached) and replacing it with a 26’ x 32’ garage. They intend to add a new roof and siding. They submitted a letter from the neighbors stating they have no objections to this variance. Ken Johnson explained there is no storage area. Mr. Trejo explained the lot zoning and stated there were alternatives available, i.e. detaching the garage or having a turn around garage. The back of the property would allow for a detached structure. Ms. Johnson stated that the addition would improve the appearance of the residence, and that several buildings down the street have the garages less than the required 15 feet to the lot line. Mr. Brandt questioned why the garage couldn’t be moved back further. Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed location was done as an aesthetic concern. 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 three (3) 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 12 foot variance to place a new accessory structure 13 feet from the Muskego 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 7 foot variance to leave an existing carport 13 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 4 foot variance to place an addition to an existing residence 6 feet from the south property line. (zoning requirement is 10 feet): The property is zoned RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District in a Lake Shore Overlay BOA 04/23/98 Page 2 Mr. Brandt administered an oath to Tom Reck. Mr. Reck apologized to the Board members for his ignorance in doing work on his property without permits. He built a carport onto his garage to stop the flooding to his basement. There was a drainage grate previously in the driveway, however, it was always saturated Also, this is for the safety of his family to have the ability to park in a dry, cover and lighted spot. Mr. Reck is proposing a wooded walkway from the side of the north side of the house down to the lake, and on the other side of the house, a stairway coming down from the second story down to the a deck on the ground level. Mr. Trejo explained the zoning of the property and how the hardship is self created. If the owner would have consulted staff and pulled the proper permits, this would have not been an issue. Now the carport is built, serves a legitimate purpose, but requires a variance after the fact. Mr. Schneiker questioned whether the drainage problem was from the neighbor’s property or from the roof. Mr. Reck explained the drainage has stopped entering his basement since the carport was erected. This is the lowest lot along Muskego Drive before East Drive. The road is over six feet higher than the grade of the home. Water is coming down directly to his property, and the overhang over the drainage grate, help reduce additional flooding. Chairman O’Neil stated a wooden walkway was not necessary, that there are landscaping options for a stairway down to the lake, thus eliminating one of the variance requests. Also, the stairway from the second story could be designed so as not to be in the offset area. Mr. Reck stated his hardship is the extensive slope causing a safety issue for his family. Appeal # 03-98, Debra Berens, S75 W18650 Kingston Drive, Tax Key No. 2195.031.002 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following four (4) 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 23.5 foot variance to place a new accessory structure 1.5 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 18.5 foot variance to place a new accessory structure 1.5 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 1.5 foot variance to place a new accessory structure and a deck addition to the rear of the primary building, 3.5 feet from the west property line. (zoning requirement is 5 feet) 2. 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 186 square foot variance to construct a 820 square foot accessory building. (zoning requirement is 634 s.f.) The property is zoned RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay Mr. Brandt administered an oath to Debra Berens, David Woida, David Taube, Mark and Susan Schmalz. David Woida stated they are requesting a 820 square foot garage for their two cars and boat located 20 feet from the house to allow servicing to the well. The house was built in 1943 and never had a garage. He is proposing keeping the garage inline with the house. Ms. Berens stated the hardship is the location of the existing home. When building a new home people are able to place the house anywhere on the lot, this is an existing home. Mr. Trejo explained the legal nonconforming lot and exactly where the 25’ setback is located. Mr. Trejo stated the submittal as a joke, that the proposal completely neglects any consideration to the City of Muskego’s Zoning Ordinance. No attention has been shown to limit the offset from the west to five (5) feet, move the garage over 20 feet the road right-of-way, or even stay within the limited size permitted for accessory buildings. The area is becoming congested with new structures and the Board should not promote this further. Mr. Trejo also expressed this as self imposed hardship when the owners sold off the vacant lot under Ms. Berens ownership, thus not allowing adequate room for storage or expansion.. BOA 04/23/98 Page 3 Mr. Woida stated consideration was given to the building, that the structure would not be contrary to the existing neighborhood, and provided the Board with additional information showing over sized structures in the area and to close to the road. Mr. Taube as neighbor is opposed to variance stating for 29 years lots 39 and 40 were combined and just recently separated. Now the owners a requesting a variance. He feels the City improperly allowed for the legal lot status and did not look into records well enough to find that the lot did not have adequate sewer connections. He feels they have recreated their own hardship by creating two nonconforming lots. Ms. Schmalz a neighbor feels the variance request is extreme. Mr. Schmalz a neighbor stated in his opinion there is no reason to request a variance, there is enough room on the lot for a garage. The location of the well is not a hardship, it can be put inside the garage. Mr. Schmalz strongly objects to this request. David Woida stated moving the location to the road is caused due to the well being between the home and the proposed garage and keeping the offset of the garage in line with the residence was done for aesthetics. The Board took a five minute recess. DELIBERATIONS APPEAL # 1-98 Mr. Brandt made a motion to accept Appeal # 1-98-1 as submitted, Mr. Ross seconded. After some discussion the motion was amended to state the hardship being the pre-existing location of structure, since the house was placed in an angle fashion, rather than parallel with the street. Upon roll call vote, the motion carried 4-1. Mr. Schneiker voting nay. APPEAL #2-98 Mr. Ross made a motion to accept Appeal #2-98 as submitted and vote on each item individually, Mr. Schepp seconded. A motion was made by Mr. Schneiker to defer items 1 and 2, and that appropriate measurement form the road right-of-way. Mike Brandt seconded. Motion carried 3-2, Chairman O’Neil and Mr. Schepp voting nay. Item #3 was voted on and denied unanimously due to lack of hardship. APPEAL #3-98 Mr. Schepp made a motion to accept Appeal # 3-98 as submitted, Mr. Brandt seconded. Discussion ensued regarding the lack of hardship due to the fact the garage has not been built and if the petition could be allowed to adjust the plans and resubmit at a later date. Upon roll call vote, the motion to approve Appeal #3-989 was denied unanimously Mr. Ross made a motion to allow the Beren’s to return to Board of Appeals within 60 days with a new submittal and not be charged an additional submittal fee, Mr. Schneiker seconded, upon roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously. Miscellaneous Business: Elect a Vice Chairman for 1998. Mr. Schepp nominated Mr. Schneiker to be Vice Chairman for 1998, Mr. Ross seconded. Upon voice vote, the motion carried 4-1, Mr. Brandt voting nay. Respectfully submitted, Susan J. Schroeder Recording Secretary