Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals - MINUTES - 2/23/2006 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES CITY OF MUSKEGO FEBRUARY 23, 2006 Meeting was called to order at 7:07 P.M PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Mr. Horst Schmidt, Mr. William Le Doux, Mr. Richard Ristow and Associate Planner Adam Trzebiatowski. EXCUSED: Dr. Barb Blumenfield, Mr. Henry Schneiker and Dr. Russ Kashian STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The Secretary stated the meeting was noticed on February 17, 2006, in accordance with Open Meeting Laws. NEW BUSINESS: APPEAL #02-2006 Petitioner: Randy Girard, S70 W18871 Gold Drive / Tax Key No. 2180.941. REQUESTING under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variance: A. Chapter 17 – Zoning Ordinance: Section 6.06 – Outdoor Recreational Facilities (7)A. Pumps and filter equipment shall in no case be closer than 20 feet to a property line and shall be adequately housed and muffled. Chapter 17:6.06(7)A. states that pool pumps and filters must be no closer than 20 feet to the lot line of a property. The appellant is requesting to install the required mechanicals (pumps, filter, etc.) for their in-ground pool and is proposing them with an offset of 12 feet from each side lot lines and is therefore requesting a 8-foot variance from the Code requirement from each of the side lot lines. B. Chapter 17 – Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.05 – Accessory Uses and Structures (2)G. Walks, drives, paved terraces, mechanical appurtenances for all single-family and two family structures (such as air conditioners, venting, and service panels), and purely decorative garden accessories (such as pools, fountains, statuary, flag, poles, etc.), where subject to “permanent structure” classification shall be permitted in setback and offset areas but not closer than 3-feet to an butting property line other than a street line. (Ord. #1100-04-18-02) Chapter 17:4.05(2)G. states that any walks must be no closer than 3 feet to the lot line of a property. The appellant is requesting to install a walkway along the eastern side of their property and is proposing it with an offset of 1-foot from the side lot line and is therefore requesting a 2-foot variance from the Code requirement. C. Chapter 17 – Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.07 0 Open Space (1) Minimum Required: No building shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot so as to reduce the usable open area of such lot to less than that hereinafter specified by the regulations for that district. The minimum open space required for the property is 6,666 square feet (64.2 percent) per the RS-3/OLS requirements. The current open space with just the house is 8,150 square feet, resulting in 78.5- percent of the lot area being preserved as open space, which is conforming. The Appellant is proposing to pave a 1,643 square foot driveway, pave a 18 square foot area for the pool mechanicals and pave 159 square foot decking around the proposed pool, totaling, 1,820 square feet. These items combined with the house (totaling 4,046 square feet) leave 6,330 square feet of open space, resulting in 61-percent of the lot area being preserved as open space, and is therefore requesting a 3.2-percent variance to the Code requirement. Chairman Schepp swore in Randy Girard and Adam Trzebiatowski. Mr. Girard stated he inherited this property from his grandfather. Mr. Girard explained it is a narrow lot and has worked with the Plan Department on the location of the house. Mr. Girard stated he is requesting three appeals. The first is for the pool pump. Mr. Girard stated the pump will be 51/2 feet below grade and surrounded by a retaining wall. The pump will also be under a deck. Mr. Girard further stated he will be purchasing a quieter pump. ZBA Minutes 2/23/2006 Page 2 The second appeal is to install a walkway one foot off of the house, 3.5 feet wide. Mr. Girard stated he is requesting to make the walkway 3.5 feet wide to accommodate a wheelchair. There will be no stairs, only a ramp. The third request is for a paved driveway. Mr. Girard stated he considered using brick pavers but would like to use asphalt for maintenance and durability. Mr. Le Doux questioned if there will be any doors from the house along the side walkway. Mr. Girard stated there will only be one door, but there will be windows that crank out along the walkway. Mr. Schmidt questioned if the neighbors objected. Mr. Girard stated the neighbors did not object. Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City’s opinion based on the Zoning Code. As noted the petitioner is requesting three different variances. They are organized by A, B C. A. The code state that any pool mechanicals must be located at least 20 feet away from all lot lines. Due to the narrowness of this lot, the petitioner is requesting to place the mechanicals in the middle of the lot, which is the best place under this circumstance. This will leave 12-feet on each side of the equipment. The petitioner has stated that the mechanicals will be enclosed on the side by two 5’8” high stone retaining walls. The petitioner also states there will be a deck above to help dampen the sound. Based upon the hardship relating to this property of the narrowness of the existing lot and the proposed placement of the mechanicals within the center of the lot, staff recommends approval of this portion of the variance with the condition that all mechanicals must be enclosed on all sides to ensure the dampening of the equipment noise. Mr. Trzebiatowski questioned what the motor housing area on the plans would be used for. Mr. Girard explained it is for a child safety cover for the pool. The motor is for an electric winch and will only run to open and close the cover on the pool. B. The code states any walks must remain at least 3-feet away from all lot lines. The petitioner would like to construct a 42-inch walkway 1 foot off of the eastern lot line. This will leave the walkway 1 foot away from the house, centered between the house and the lot line. Based upon the 3-foot code requirement staff recommends for denial of this portion of the variance. The walkway can be placed right next to the house and it can be reduced in size to 2.5 feet. This would not require a variance and preserve the integrity of the Zoning Code. Since there is no specific need/requirement for a 3.5-foot walkway, a 2.5-foot walkway should be more than sufficient to access the rear of the property. C. The Code states that this lot must maintain/preserve at least 6,666 square feet as open space. The approved house consumes 2,226 square feet of open space, which leaves 8,150 square feet as open space. This is within the code requirements. The petitioner is proposing three other asphalt/concrete areas that when combined with the house square footage, will require a variance. The petitioner is proposing to add 1,643 square foot concrete/asphalt driveway, a 159 square foot concrete pool deck, and an 18 square foot concrete pad for the pool mechanicals. The pool deck and sidewalk are under the limit and could be installed without a variance. The driveway puts the lot 336 square feet over the allowed limit, which is a 3 percent variance from the code requirement. Based upon the information given, staff is recommending approval citing the driveway should not hamper the surrounding neighborhood and in the past the Board has stated every property owner should be offered the opportunity for paved access to their home. A concrete/asphalt driveway also helps keep down on dust and reduces sedimentation run off. Mr. Trzebiatowski noted he checked with the Building Inspectors and there are no ADA requirements for single-family homes related to wheelchairs. APPEAL #08-2005 Petitioner: Michael Birkley, W144 S7931 Durham Dr/Tax Key No. 2213.984. REQUESTING under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variance: Chapter 17- Zoning Ordinance: Section 6.03 Conditional Uses ZBA Minutes 2/23/2006 Page 3 (1)A. Appeal Required: Uses listed as permitted by conditional grant may be permitted in the district in which listed upon petition for such grant to the Plan Commission and subject to the approval of the Plan Commission and to such other conditions as hereinafter designated. A conditional use grant was denied for the above-mentioned property on September 6, 2005, for the operation of a Tree Service/Landscape business. The petitioner is seeking an appeal regarding the Plan Commission denial of the Conditional Use Grant. Mr. Trzebiatowski explained the Planning Department has received new information that Mr. Birkley has a lease in another community that will be effective Saturday February 25, 2006. By the next meeting it may be possible to deny this appeal without prejudice. DELIBERATIONS: APPEAL 02-2006 A – Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the appeal as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Ristow. Mr. Schepp stated he agreed with approving this appeal based on the hardship of the narrowness of this 30-foot wide lot. Mr. Schepp also agreed with the staff recommendation of requiring the mechanicals to be being fully enclosed to dampen the noise. Upon a roll call vote appeal 02-2006 A is approved 4-0. (Mr. Schmidt requested taking the appeals out of order. There were no objections) APPEAL 02-2006 C – Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the appeal as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Le Doux. Mr. Schmidt stated he is in favor of the approval based on historically the Board has approved paved driveways to keep sediment from running into the lake. Mr. Schepp also added the hardship of the narrowness of lot again being 30 feet wide. Upon a roll call vote appeal 02-2006 C is approved 4-0. APPEAL 02-2006 B – Mr. Le Doux moved to approve the appeal as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Le Doux stated he is in favor of approving this appeal to allow for space between the house and the sidewalk. The sidewalk up against the house would be dangerous with crank out windows. Mr. Le Doux feels it is good to plan ahead to accommodate a wheelchair. Mr. Schepp agreed it would be a bad idea to place the sidewalk up against the house as it may begin to tilt in towards the house in time, and there could also be a safety issues for children with the sidewalk being too close to the crank out windows. Mr. Schepp stated the hardship is the narrowness of the lot only being 30 feet wide. Upon a roll call vote appeal 02-2006 B is approved 4-0. APPEAL 08-2005 – Mr. Schmidt moved to defer until the regular meeting of April 2006. Mr. Ristow seconded. Upon a roll call vote appeal 08-2005 is deferred 4-0. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the minutes of January 26, 2006. Seconded by Mr. Ristow. Motion carried 4-0. MISCELLANEOUS: Mr. Trzebiatowski explained the Zoning Code changes are on the Common Council agenda for Tuesday February 28, 2006. If approved the required votes to overturn staff recommendation will be majority and not super majority, as required in the past. The final Council resolution will be included in the packet for the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this Board, Mr. Schmidt moved to adjourn. Mr. Le Doux seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 7:43 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Kellie Renk, Recording Secretary