Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals - MINUTES - 5/27/2004 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES CITY OF MUSKEGO MAY 27, 2004 Meeting was called to order at 7:07 P.M. PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker, Dr. Barb Blumenfield, Mr. Horst Schmidt (7:13PM), Dr. Russ Kashian (7:07PM), Mr. Steve Whittow, Mr. William Le Doux, Plan Director Jeff Muenkel and Associate Planner Adam Trezbiatowski. ABSENT: None STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The Secretary stated the meeting was noticed on May 20, 2004, in accordance with Open Meeting Laws. NEW BUSINESS: APPEAL #01-2004 Petitioner: Roy Knickelbine, S66 W18477 Jewel Crest Drive / Tax Key 2174.141.002. 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 space is equal to at least 75% of the actual lot area. Minimum open space for the property is required in the amount of 5,403 square feet (75% of the 7,204 SF lot). The current open space is 65 square feet less than required, resulting in 76-percent of the lot area preserved as open space. The Appellant is proposing construction of an attached garage (672 SF) and to pave a 616 SF driveway, resulting in 58-percent of the lot area preserved as open space, and is therefore requesting a 17-percent variance to the Code requirement. Petitioner also 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 25-feet is required from the front (northwest) property line. The petitioner seeks an offset of 16.19-feet from the front property line to permit the construction of an attached garage, and is therefore requesting an 8.81-foot variance from the front property line. Mr. Schneiker administered the oath to Mr. Knickelbine. Mr. Knickelbine explained he is trying to build a 3-car garage that matches the roofline of the house. Both him and his wife are legally handicap, and his wife requires a wheelchair. A wheelchair lift will be installed in the garage. The 3-car garage would also provide storage for jet skis and snowmobiles. Mr. Schepp questioned how much room the wheelchair lift would take up in the garage. Mr. Knickelbine stated the lift is 3 1/2 feet. Mr. Schneiker asked if the neighbors were opposed to the garage. Mr. Knickelbine stated he asked the neighbors and they had no problems with it. Dr. Blumenfield asked if the building to the right has any other buildings on the property. Mr. Knickelbine stated the property has a new house and garage on the property. Dr. Kashian asked when the house was built. Mr. Knickelbine explained he built the house last year and at that time he planned to build a garage. He ran into some problems and an Alderman told him to build the house with the 25-foot setback and then request a variance from the Board of Appeals. ZBA Minutes 5/27/2004 Page 2 Dr. Kashian asked if there was an existing home on the lot at that time. Mr. Knickelbine explained there was not an existing house on the lot at that time. He owned both the vacant lot and the lot to the southwest where he previously lived. Mr. Le Doux stated the storage area is helpful to keep items inside and out of view of the neighbors, which is beneficial to the neighborhood. Mr. Muenkel gave the City’s opinion. This property does have a hardship being the setback requirements from the public right of way. Although the setbacks for lake properties are already 25 feet where most residential parcels are only allowed to be outside of 40 feet. However, many lake properties in the area do have detached garages located less than the required 25-feet from the right of way. The neighbor to the west has a garage only 13.83 feet from the front property line. Due to this, the addition to Mr. Knickelbine’s property up to 16.19 feet from the right of way will not adversely affect the neighboring properties and will still preserve the nature of the surrounding area. Secondly, the Board has taken the position that all properties should be afforded the opportunity to install paved driveways. Paved driveways enhance the property, reduce the effect of dust on surrounding properties and further the best practice and management practices and policies of the City by reducing sediment and run off. The only problem staff foresees is the amount of garage space and impervious surface proposed. Although property owners have been afforded the right to have an enclosed two-car garage, three is above the norm. Staff feels a two-car garage could fulfill the needs of the appellant and would also reduce the amount of open space used by 12%. APPEAL 02-2004 Petitioner: Randy Barant, S103 W20711 Kelsey Drive / Tax Key No. 2281-998. REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provision, Petitioner seeks the following variances: 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 16.8-feet is required from the west (side) property line. The petitioner seeks an offset of 10.29-feet from the west property line to permit the construction of a new attached garage, and is therefore requesting a 6.51-foot variance from the west property line. Mr. Schneiker administered the oath to Mr. Barant. Mr. Barant explained he bought the house without a garage. He would like to store his snowmobile, ATV and custom truck inside. The property is substantially wooded and if he were to build the garage in a different location on the property he would have to cut down large trees. The proposed garage is about 12-feet away from a large tree trunk. Mr. Le Doux questioned the staff supplement stating the property being omitted from a rezoning for all the properties in the surrounding area. Mr. Muenkel explained this parcel is zoned RCE and all the surrounding properties from Kelsey to Lake Denoon are zoned RS-2. The Appellant’s property and the property 1000 feet to the west were both omitted from the RS-2 zoning. When the supplement was originally written staff included this property in with the Lake Meadows subdivision where the zoning is RS-2. RS-2 zoning has an offset requirement of only 10 feet from the property line. Based on this zoning change from RS-2 to RCE and the hardship of the 40-foot offset of the RCE zoning district, the City is changing their recommendation to approval of the appeal as submitted. Staff does not feel the garage will affect the surrounding properties. Appeal 03-2004 – Petitioner Ronald and Suzanne Hammond, S76 W18130 Janesville Ct / Tax Key No. 2195.995.003. REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provision, Petitioner seeks the following variances: Chapter 17 – Zoning Ordinance: Section ZBA Minutes 5/27/2004 Page 3 9.04(7)(B) Lake Shore Overlay District. (1) No building shall be permitted closer than 50 feet to the shore line of a lake shore lot except that no offset shall be required for piers, boat ramps, terraces or similar use areas and a boat house as permitted by 17:9.04(7)B.3. (Ord. #1082- 10-18-2001). An offset of 50-feet is required from the OHWM (ordinary high water mark) of a lakeshore. In the case of the parcel in concern, Little Muskego Lake is to the north, which requires a 50-foot offset. The petitioner seeks an offset of 48- feet from the OHWM of Little Muskego Lake to the north to permit the construction of a new 3-Season Sunroom, and is therefore requesting a 2-foot variance from the OHWM. Mr. Schneiker administered the oath the Mrs. Sue Hammon. Mrs. Hammon explained the City is using the OHWM on the neighbor’s property to determine the offset of the screen porch. The screen porch will go over existing cement patio. Staff suggested angling the corner, but because these screen rooms are pre-built at the factory it would be difficult to match the roofline. There is a creek on one side of the property and easements on all sides of the property. Mr. Schneiker questioned if the roof overhang would be included in the offset. Mr. Muenkel explained a 2-foot overhang is allowed. Dr. Blumenfield questioned the setbacks for three houses to the east. Mr. Muenkel explained surveys are not available for these properties but any new structure would have to be 50 feet from the OHWM. Mr. Muenkel explained to measure OHWM the measurement is taken from the closest point. Therefore, measuring across the property line is valid. Mr. Muenkel gave the City’s opinion. This property is in the Lakeshore Overlay District (OLS) and all structures must be 50 feet away from the OHWM of the lake. The 50-foot offset only applies to the lakeshore; the creek would only need a 20-foot offset. There is not an exceptional circumstance that exists and all other parcels must also conform to this ordinance. Mr. Muenkel noted concrete must also be approved by the Planning Department and could be up to three feet off the property line and OHWM. Appeal 04-2004 – Petitioner Richard Knudsen, Janesville Road / Tax Key No. 2198.984.005. 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 6.01(2) Engineering Regulations. (C) Building Restricted Adjacent to Drainage Channels or Watercourses: No building other than a bridge, dam, boathouse or revetment subject to the aforesaid approval, shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated within 10 feet of the ordinary high water line of surface water, drainage channel or 20 feet of the ordinary high water line of a natural watercourse nor so that the lowest floor of said building is less than 3 feet above possible flood stage as determined by the City Engineer. An offset of 20-feet is required from the OHWM (ordinary high water mark) of any natural watercourse. In the case of the parcel in concern, there is a natural watercourse on the northwestern portion of the parcel, which requires a 20-foot offset. The petitioner seeks an offset of 15.5-feet from the OHWM of said natural watercourse to permit the construction of new commercial building, and is therefore requesting a 4.5-foot variance from the OHWM. Mr. Schneiker administered the oath to Mr. Richard Knudson. Mr. Knudson presented the history of this appeal. The Plan Commission approved the Building Site and Operation plans in 1989. Mr. Knudson purchased the land with the intention to build. In September 2001 the Zoning Director determined that the plans were invalid because they were not re-submitted to the Plan Commission. The Board of Appeals then overruled the administrative decision of staff citing the plans were approved before there were expirations on Building Site and Operation plans. ZBA Minutes 5/27/2004 Page 4 Mr. Schepp explained the appeal was approved in 2001 that the plans would not have to go through the Plan Commission again but they would have to meet all the requirement of the current building, zoning and engineering codes. Mr. Knudson explained he could meet every other engineering and building code but is requesting a variance to construct the building within the 20-foot setback from the natural watercourse. Mr. Schepp explained because this parcel does not have a structure on it he does not feel there is a hardship. Mr. Knudson explained he bought the property under the premise that he could build what he wanted on the site. When he purchased the property the 20-foot setback rule did not exist. Then he was told there was a 50-foot setback and recently staff informed him that it was not a 50-foot but a 20-foot setback. Mr. Knudson is concerned it will return to a 50-foot setback. Mr. Muenkel stated it is possible. Mr. Knudson stated he will be building the entire plan in one phase instead of the future additions and that he would like to begin building within six months. Mr. Muenkel gave the City’s opinion. Overall, Staff cannot find why an appeal should be granted for this property. Although the watercourse consumes a substantial area on the parcel, creating an exceptional circumstance, there is still sufficient area to construct a building of the same size proposed. The future additions may be affected by this decision, but the intent of this ordinance should be upheld. The appellant notes a hardship for time and money, although hardships are not warranted for financial reasoning. The other hardship noted by the appellant is in regards to the BSO being previously approved without the offset requirement, however, even the Findings of Fact for appeal #06-2001 states that “all Building, Site, and Operation Plans must still comply with all current zoning codes, building codes and engineering requirements. The City recommends denial of the appeal. DELIBERATIONS: APPEAL 01-2004 – Dr. Blumenfield moved to approve the appeal as submitted for a three-car garage. Mr. Schmidt seconded. Dr. Blumenfield stated the circumstances of limited mobility and storage concerns and the difference of a two-car garage to a three-car garage of 3-feet and 5% for the open space was not significant compared to the hardships. Chairman Schepp agreed on the hardships and the open space of 5% not being significant and noted the other properties on Jewel Crest are close to the road and this property would not be any closer. Upon a roll call vote Appeal 01-2004 was approved 5-0. APPEAL 02-2004 – Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the appeal as submitted. Seconded by Dr. Blumenfield. Dr. Blumenfield felt because staff has revised their recommendation and the configuration of the lot and the location of the well and the trees there is no other location for the garage. Mr. Schmidt noted other properties near the appellants have structures within the 10-foot offsets by code. Upon roll call vote appeal 02-2004 was approved 5-0. APPEAL 03-2004 – Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the appeal as submitted. Seconded by Dr. Blumenfield. Mr. Schepp noted the concrete is already there and would not be extended. Dr. Blumenfield noted the neighbors did not have a problem with the three-season room. Mr. Schneiker stated the structure could be altered to conform to the two feet. Mr. Schmidt was concerned with the aesthetics if the structure was altered. Upon roll call vote appeal 03-2004 was approved 4-1 with Mr. Schneiker voting no. APPEAL 04-2004 - Dr. Kashian moved to approve the appeal as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Schneiker. Dr. Kashian stated he would rather have a structure closer to the waterways than a parking lot. Mr. Muenkel stated he would still possibly have to go through the Building Site and Operation process. ZBA Minutes 5/27/2004 Page 5 The Board discussed moving the building to fit within the setbacks. Dr. Kashian stated soil borings would be necessary to determine if the new location would be suitable to build on. Mr. Le Doux stated because there is not an existing building he does not see the hardship. Dr. Blumenfield questioned the lot sitting vacant since 1989 stating the building could have been built in the past with a zero setback. Mr. Schepp stated since there is not a building on the lot, now is the time to change the plans and make it correct and conforming to the code. Mr. Muenkel stated if there was substantial change to the Building Site and Operation plan then it would have to go before the Plan Commission for approval. Common Council may have to decide what is considered substantial change. Dr. Kashian stated the hardship would then be the value of the Building Site and Operation Plan being valid. Dr. Kashian moved to withdraw his motion. Mr. Schneiker withdrew his second. Dr. Kashian moved to table to the next regular scheduled meeting and the fees to appear at the Board of Appeals meeting will be waived for the petitioner. Upon a roll call vote appeal 04-2004 is deferred. Staff will meet with Mr. Knudson to discuss options before the next meeting. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the minutes from December 4, 2003. Seconded by Mr. Schneiker. Upon voice vote, motion carried. MISCELLANEOUS: None. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this board, Mr. Schmidt moved to adjourn. Mr. Schneiker seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 9:50 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Kellie Renk, Recording Secretary