Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals - Minutes - 8/15/2002 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES CITY OF MUSKEGO AUGUST 15, 2002 UNAPPROVED Meeting was called to order at 7:10 P.M. PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Mr. Horst Schmidt, Mr. Harvey Schweitzer, Mr. Russ Kashian and Assistant Plan Director Dustin Wolff. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Schneiker and Dr. Barbara Blumenfield STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The Secretary stated the meeting was noticed on August 9, 2002, in accordance with Open Meeting Laws. NEW BUSINESS: APPEAL #05-2002 Petitioner: Danny Case W174 S7078 Forest Drive/Tax Key No. 2176.150, 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 4.05(2)B.2 Accessory Structures Area: Subject to the open space requirements of the zoning district, the total square footage of all accessory structures subject to this Section are permitted as follows: Square footage permitted by right: The greater of 720 square feet, or 60% of the assessed floor area of the principal structure. Bonus square footage permitted for +10 square feet of floor area for each one foot of side yard offset above the district additional side yard offsets minimum, provided that no such bonus shall exceed 300 square feet. Bonus Square footage permitted for +10 square feet of floor area for every 1,000 large parcels square feet of parcel size in excess of 40,000 square feet, provided that no such bonus shall result in the total floor area of all accessory structures to exceed two percent (2%) of the total parcel area. The property is allowed a total of 720 square feet of accessory structure exclusive of the garden shed. The existing garage totals 684 square feet, which would allow 36 square feet of additional accessory structure. The petitioner is requesting a 155 square foot variance to the Code to allow the construction of an addition to the existing detached garage proposed to total 975 square feet. 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. An offset of 10-feet is required from the north property line. The petitioner seeks an offset of 6.5-feet from the north property line and will maintain the existing 5.2-foot offset from the east property line to permit the construction of an addition to the existing detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 3.5-foot variance from the north property line. 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. Minimum open space for the property is required in the amount of 7,487 square feet (75% of the 9,983 SF lot). The current open space is 1,272 square feet less than required, resulting in 62.3-percent of the lot area preserved as open space). The Appellant is proposing to construct an addition to the detached garage, resulting in 61.5-percent of the lot area preserved as open space, and is therefore requesting a 1.2-percent variance to the Code requirement. ZBA Minutes 8/15/02 Page 2 Mr. Schmidt administered the oath to the Appellant, Mr. Danny Case. Mr. Case explained he would like to construct an addition to his garage with a 9-foot garage door for storage of his snowmobile. He further explained that 25 years ago he gave a 20-foot strip of land at his north property line to the City to allow for a culvert to be installed to drain a new subdivision. He noted with this strip of land a variance to the offsets would not be required. Mr. Case stated he will be taking down the storage shed, and if the addition is approved he will be removing the existing garage roof and replacing with a new roof with storage trusses to match the cape cod style of the house. Mr. Case explained he did not want to attach the garage to the house due to the well being between the two, and he did not want the well inside the garage for safety reasons. Mr. Case furthered that he does not have adequate storage in the basement and no attic space for storage. Neighbors have signed a document regarding his proposal, and have no problems with Mr. Case putting an addition on to his garage. Mr. Wolff presented the City’s opinion. The Board has taken the position that all properties—regardless of size of lot or residence—should be afforded similar opportunities; this includes a paved driveway and a minimum two-car garage. Last fall, the Common Council approved a change to the accessory structure ordinance to increase the size of a detached garage each property is permitted by right. In addition, all properties are permitted a garden shed (<120 SF) by right. The petitioner currently has a 2.5 car garage and a garden shed on the property. The property currently has over 3,800 SF of impervious surface. This includes nearly 2,300 SF of pavement. In all, 38-percent of the parcel is impervious and the petitioner is requesting an exception to the Code to allow another 1.2-percent of the lot to be covered. Staff believes that in granting the variances, the Board will have strayed from its previous decisions and will not have preserved the intent of the Zoning Code or the property rights of the owner. The property currently enjoys the same opportunities of other properties. There is a 2.5 car garage and a shed. The petitioner can construct an addition to the south side of the garage and attach the structure to the home without needing the Board to grant exceptions to the Code. DELIBERATIONS: APPEAL #05-2002 Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the proposed exceptions to the Zoning Code as submitted. Mr. Kashian seconded. Due to the fact that this is not a typical offset situation there will be no structures within the City owned land, and Mr. Case provided the City the land to correct a drainage problem years ago, the Board is in favor of granting a variance to the offset from the north property line. The Board finds practical difficulty in complying with the Codes due the location of the well to the south of the existing garage. The Board is not in favor of granting a variance to the open space requirements because Mr. Case can remove a small portion of the cement to fall within the code. Mr. Schmidt withdrew his motion and Mr. Kashian withdrew the second. Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the exception to the square footage limitations subject to removal of the existing shed and prohibiting the construction of a garden shed on the property for as long as the nearest part of the detached garage is less than 10 feet from the north property line. Mr. Kashian seconded. Upon a roll call vote, motion carried 4-0. Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the offset exception as submitted. The Board cited that the offset is from vacant City owned land where no structure will be constructed, and the hardship being the location of the well to the south of the garage. Mr. Schweitzer seconded. Upon roll call vote, motion carried 4-0. Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the appeal to the open space requirements as submitted. Mr. Kashian seconded. Upon a roll call vote, motion was denied 4-0. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Schepp moved to approve the minutes from June 27, 2002 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Schmidt. Upon voice vote, motion carried. MISCELLANEOUS: None ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this board, Mr. Schmidt moved to adjourn. Mr. Schweitzer seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Kellie Renk, Recording Secretary