Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals - MINUTES - 3/23/2006 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES APPROVED 4/27/06 CITY OF MUSKEGO MARCH 23, 2006 Meeting was called to order at 7:01 P.M PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker, Dr. Barb Blumenfield, Dr. Russ Kashian, Mr. William Le Doux, Mr. Richard Ristow and Associate Planner Adam Trzebiatowski. EXCUSED: Mr. Horst Schmidt STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The Secretary stated the meeting was noticed on March 17, 2006, in accordance with Open Meeting Laws. NEW BUSINESS: APPEAL #03-2006 Petitioner: Mark and Debra Golla, W180 S8091 Pioneer Drive / Tax Key No. 2222.986. 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 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 location regulations as hereinafter specified for the district in which it is located. A setback of 40-feet is required from the front property line on the above-mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 23.11-feet from the front lot line to permit the reconstruction of a front deck/porch, and is therefore requesting a 16.89-foot variance from the front property line. Vice Chairman Schneiker swore in Mark and Debra Golla and Adam Trzebiatowski. Mrs. Golla explained they would like to replace the existing concrete porch and steps with new composite materials. The porch and steps are in poor condition and create a safety hazard. The existing porch and steps are two separate slabs and the porch has sunk. Mrs. Golla stated there is no walkway from the porch to the driveway. The Golla’s live next door and want to rent out this house. Mrs. Golla stated the hardship for the property is the safety of the porch/steps in the existing condition. Dr. Blumenfield questioned moving the steps to the north. Mrs. Golla explained there are trees nearby that would have to be cut down if the steps were turned to the north. Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City’s opinion based on the Zoning Code. The petitioner is proposing to reconstruct a deck/porch on the front of the house. The petitioner has stated the concrete porch/steps are in poor condition and a safety hazard. The existing concrete porch/stairs are currently non- conforming. In this district there is a 40-foot setback required from the right of way, which is the front lot line. The petitioner seeks a setback of 23.11-feet from the front lot line to permit the reconstruction of a front deck/porch, and is therefore requesting a 16.89-foot variance from the required front property line setback. The petitioner currently has an old concrete porch with steps and they would like to remove and replace them with a new deck/porch construction out of composite material that will be designed to meet current code requirements. The proposed deck/porch will have a 5-foot by 5-foot landing and a 4-foot long set of stairs. Mr. Trzebiatowski further explained there are two other options. There is the possibility to turn the deck/porch parallel (so the stairs would head to the north) to the house rather than perpendicular to the house and also reduce the landing to 3-feet in depth. The building code only required a 3-foot landing. This would not require a variance because the survey shows there is 3 feet of space between the front of the house and the front door. Even though it would still be non-conforming, it is still allowed since it will be no closer to the right-of-way line than the existing house. ZBA Minutes 3/23/2006 Page 2 The other option would be a 5-foot landing. It could also be parallel to the house. If this is done the setback could be increased to 27.11 feet from the right-of-way, which would only require a variance of 12.89 feet. This would require less of a variance than requested. With either option listed, the petitioner has stated there is a large tree that would be in the way if the stairs went to the north, but after reviewing the dimensions on the plans and on the survey, there would still be about 4.5 feet of space between the end of the stairs and the tree trunk. Based upon the information given staff is recommending for denial of appeal 03-2006, allowing the reconstruction of a front deck/porch with a 23.11–foot setback, a 16.89-foot variance, from the front right- of-way line; citing the variance does not preserve the intent of the Zoning Ordinance because there are not exceptional conditions applying to the parcel that do not apply to other properties. Also, a non-self imposed hardship is not found for the appeal. Mr. Schneiker questioned if there were plans to widen Pioneer Drive. Mr. Trzebiatowski stated there were none and that the ultimate right of way is already set at what it should be. Dr. Blumenfield stated staff did a good job presenting options, however, turning the porch and steps to the north will take them farther away from the driveway. Dr. Blumenfield also explained by turning the porch and stairs people will walk past the front window to approach the front door. This is a personal safety issue. The Golla’s agreed they would not like people looking in the front window. Mr. Schepp questioned if any other houses along Pioneer are closer to the setbacks. Mr. Trzebiatowski stated near Janesville Road there are houses closer to the setbacks. He also stated they vary up and down the road. 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 (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. DELIBERATIONS: APPEAL 03-2006 – Dr. Blumenfield moved to approve 03-2006 as submitted. Mr. Schneiker seconded. Dr. Blumenfield stated staff did a good job presenting the options for the Golla’s. However, Dr. Blumenfield stated, because of the personal safety issue of having the porch and the stairs extended past the front window, the stairs being farther away from the driveway and there being no continuity along Pioneer Road anyways this variance should be allowed. Mr. Schneiker stated the 3 x 3 landing would not be sufficient room to open the door and therefore also agrees with allowing the variance. Upon a roll call vote Appeal 03-2006 is approved 5-0. APPEAL 08-2005 – Mr. Trzebiatowski explained Mr. Birkley has an agreement with the City and has th been given until April 8 to come into compliance and pay the citation fees. If Mr. Birkley’s attorney submits a withdrawal letter the Board may not have to meet on this issue. The Board agreed to continue with the original deferral to the regular meeting in April. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Schepp moved to approve the minutes of February 23, 2006, with one correction. Seconded by Mr. Le Doux. Motion carried 6-0. MISCELLANEOUS: Mr. Trzebiatowski explained the Zoning Code changes were approved by the ZBA Minutes 3/23/2006 Page 3 Common Council on Tuesday February 28, 2006. The required votes to overturn staff recommendation is now majority and not super majority, as required in the past. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this Board, Dr. Blumenfield moved to adjourn. Mr. Le Doux seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 7:29 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Kellie Renk, Recording Secretary