Zoning Board of Appeals - AGENDA - 4/25/2002
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
CITY OF MUSKEGO
April 25, 2002 APPROVED
Meeting was called to order at 7:06 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Vice Chairman Schneiker, Mr. Terry O’Neil, Mr. Mike Brandt, Mr. David Conley,
Dr. Barbara Blumenfield, Mr. Horst Schmidt and Assistant Plan Director Dustin Wolff.
ABSENT: None
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The Secretary stated the meeting was noticed on April 22, 2002 in
accordance with Open meeting Laws.
Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
NEW BUSINESS: APPEAL #01-2002 Petitioner: Chad Tisonik, W187 S7040 Gold R=Drive / Tax Key No.
2175.964 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17, Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provisions,
Petitioner seeks the following variances: 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 25-feet is required from the right-of-way line. The petitioner seeks a setback of 10.3-feet from the
right-of-way line to permit the reconstruction of an attached garage, and is therefore requesting a 14.7-foot variance
from the right-of-way line.
V
Vice-chairman Schneiker administered the oath to Chad Tsonik. Mr. Tsonik explained to the Board the existing
garage is sitting on a cement slab without a footing, and the garage floor has begun to heave and crack. He plans
on removing the existing garage up to the “good” footing that the house is sitting on. He would then construct a new
garage—with a footing—mimicking the size of the previous garage. He also stated that he would like to add
another bedroom over the garage. This addition will give him an additional 200 sq.ft. with an attic for storage.
Mr. Tsonik also explained that four years ago he came to the City to do an addition and was instructed by Staff that
if he wanted to make future additions he would have to go outside of his existing footprints and not up. Mr. Tsonik
at that time did put an addition on to his house. This addition includes cathedral ceilings and skylights. He does
not want to tear that apart and build over the addition. At this time Staff informed Mr. Tsonik that he would not be
able to go outside of the existing footprint of the house.
Mr. Tsonik stated there had been a shed on the property that he removed to allow for the addition onto the house.
Assistant Plan Director Wolff presented the City’s opinion: The City is in favor of property owners being able to
have an attached garage on their property. The petitioner does not have the ability to fix it according to the zoning
code; as soon as he tears it apart he will not be able to put it back up due to conformity issues outlined in Code.
Staff didn’t look at the second floor addition because it is included in the existing footprint. Staff is recommending
approval of the appellant’s appeal allowing the reconstruction of an attached garage with a 10.31-foot setback from
the public right-of-way.
APPEAL 02-2002, Petitioners: Kathleen Luckas Sommers and Leonard Sommers, W163 S7964 Bay Lane Place /
Tax Key No. 2217.963. REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17, Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1)
Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variances: Chapter 17 – Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.08 Existing
Substandard Lots. The open space requirements in the case of such lot may be reduced without appeal provided
the open area is equal to at least 75% of the actual lot area. Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.04(2)
Building Size. Maximum Permitted (F.A.R): The maximum total floor area of the buildings on a lot shall not exceed
that permitted under the floor area ratio (F.A.R) as hereinafter specified by the regulations for the district in which
such building is located.
ZBA Minutes
4/25/01
Page 2
The petitioner seeks an exception to the floor area ratio requirement to allow the construction of an addition to the
residence. In addition, the petitioner seeks an exception to the open space requirement for the district.
Minimum open space for the property is required in the amount of 6004.5 square feet (75% of the lot area). The
current open space is 678.5 square feet less than required, resulting in 67-percent of the lot area preserved as
open space), and is therefore requesting a 8-percent variance.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio for the property is 2,001.5 square feet (25% of the lot area). The current Floor Area is
130.5 square feet greater than the maximum permitted. Therefore, the Appellant is requesting a 130.5 square foot
variance to the maximum permitted Floor Area.
Vice Chairman Schneiker administered the oath to Kathleen Luckas Sommers and Leonard Sommers. The
Sommers explained to the Board the patio collapsed due to snow and ice. They went to the City to apply for a
permit to enclose the patio. They received the permit and passed inspections. At that time they discussed with the
inspector making it part of the house with a doorway through the kitchen. They had the furnace replaced to serve
the extra space. They went to the City to apply for a permit to finish off the inside of the room, and at that time staff
indicated the original permit was not valid.
Dr. Blumenfield asked if they would be willing to remove the sheds. Mrs. Sommers stated they would like to keep
them for storage as they were existing on the property before they bought the house.
Mr. Wolff presented the City’s opinion. There was an error in the routing of the previous permit and the permit did
not receive Planning Department approval. According to the state law permits issued in error are deemed invalid.
The petitioner is asking for a variance for open space requirements and also for the floor area ratio. Because, the
petitioner purchased the house with the existing cement areas staff recommends approval of open space exception
of 678.2 SF less than required, or 67% of the lot area.
In a rush to get on agenda, rough calculations for floor area ratio were used from the Assessor’s numbers, which
are not accurate by Planning Department guidelines. The Plan Department does not count storage and pantry
areas in the Floor Area calculation. Staff cannot recommend approval to the second part of the appeal for a
variance to the floor area ratio, as are other options available to the petitioner. If they can demonstrate to the
Planning Staff that there is at least 130.5 SF of storage area, removing a shed, or a combination of both it would be
possible to complete the addition without an exception to the Floor Area requirement.
DELIBERATIONS:
APPEAL #01-2002 Mr. O’Neil moved to approve appeal as submitted. Mr. Conley seconded. Upon roll
call vote the motion was approved 5-0. Chairman Schepp stated that because the Appellant was willing to
forego his four-foot addition towards Gold drive and keep within the existing footprint the Appellant is not
requesting more than currently exists on the property. If the Appellant does not make the proposed footing
repairs and the structure becomes unstable the Building Department will make an inspection and the
property owner will be forced to bring the structure up to code, regardless.
APPEAL #02-2002 Mr. Brandt moved to approve appeal as submitted. Mr. O’Neil seconded. Because
there are options for the petitioner to still do the addition without the Boards approval Mr. Brandt withdrew
his motion to approve appeal 02-2002 and Mr. O’Neil withdrew his second of the motion.
Mr. Brandt moved to approve appeal of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance, Section 5.08 Existing Substandard
Lots as submitted. Mr. O’Neil seconded. Upon roll call vote motion approved 5-0.
APPEAL #02-2002 Mr. Brandt moved to approve appeal of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance, Section 5.04(2)
Building Size as submitted. Mr. Conley seconded. The Board concurred with the Staff recommendation
that there are other options available to the petitioner in regards to complying with the Floor Area
requirement. Upon roll call vote motion failed 5-0.
ZBA Minutes
4/25/01
Page 3
Dr. Blumenfield stated in reference to the second part of appeal #02-2002 it does not make sense to deny that
which you support.
Amendment to the Board of Appeals policies and procedures – Dr. Blumenfield moved to accept amendments
to the Board of Appeals policies and procedures as submitted subject to further review. Mr. Schmidt seconded.
Upon voice vote, motion carried.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Dan Schepp moved to approve the minutes from March 14, 2001 as submitted.
Seconded by Dr. Blumenfield. Upon voice vote, motion carried.
MISCELLANEOUS: Mr. Wolff reported to the committee that Mr. Knudsen’s 30 days to appeal to circuit court
had expired.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this board, Mr. Schmidt moved to adjourn. Dr.
Blumenfield seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 8:32 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kellie Renk
Recording Secretary