Zoning Board of Appeals - MINUTES - 7/27/2006
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
CITY OF MUSKEGO
July 27, 2006
Meeting was called to order at 7:07 P.M
Those in attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker, Mr. Horst Schmidt, Mr. Richard
Ristow and Associate Planner Adam Trzebiatowski.
ABSENT: Dr. Barb Blumenfield, Dr. Russ Kashian and Mr. William Le Doux
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The secretary stated the meeting was noticed on July 21, 2006 in
accordance with open meeting laws.
NEW BUSINESS:
APPEAL #05-2006—Petitioner: David & Debra Woida, S75 W18650 Kingston Drive/ Tax Key
2195.031.002. 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 5.08 Existing Substandard Lots. The open space requirements
in the case of such lot may be reduces without appeal provided the open area is equal to at least 75% of
the actual lot area.
The minimum open space required for the property is 6,427 square feet (75% of the 8,570 SF lot). The
current open space is 5,802 square feet, resulting in 67.7-percent of the lot area being preserved as open
space, which is non-conforming. The Appellant is proposing to construct an addition connecting the
existing detached garage to the existing house and also the removal of two concrete areas, resulting in
67.2-percent of the lot area being preserved as open space, and is therefore requesting a 7.8-percent
variance to the Code requirement.
Vice Chairman Schneiker swore in David Woida and Adam Trzebiatowski. Mr. Woida explained he
bought the house in 1996. The house has a small kitchen and is not large enough for his family. Mr.
Woida is requesting to add about 250 square feet to double the size of the kitchen and connect the house
to the garage. Due to the location of the stairway to the second floor, they are unable to add onto another
wall. Mr. Woida explained there is a 75% green space requirement that the property currently does not
meet even without the addition. Mr. Woida has proposed to take out an existing parking slab and replace
with brick pavers or grass and cut out an existing area of the driveway for landscaping. With the
proposed addition and removing existing concrete Mr. Woida stated he will only be a half of percent over
what he currently has for open space. Mr. Woida feels removing all of the driveway to be in compliance
with the open space requirement would be dangerous to his young children who ride skateboards and
roller blades on the driveway if it were pavers.
Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City’s opinion based on the Zoning Code. In reviewing the permit request, it
was discovered that the petitioner is over the allowed amount of open space with their proposed plan.
When the garage was originally approved the contractor installed a driveway without permits. The
driveway puts the property over the open space requirements. In the petitioner’s submittal they stated
they would be willing to remove the section of concrete that is currently in front of the garage measuring
180 square feet and a section of concrete 16-square feet for landscaping. With the removal of 196
square feet of concrete, the open space total would be 5,761 square feet, which is still 666 square feet
over the open space limit and would require a 7.8 percent variance. With the removal of the concrete
areas the site would be 51 square feet over the current amount of open space on the site.
Mr. Trzebiatowski noted there is an option to replace concrete/asphalt with brick pavers, grass, gravel or
woodchips. Staff does not feel that a decrease in the amount of open space for this site is appropriate.
The site is already over the 75-percent open space limit. If this project/permit were to proceed, and a
variance would not be granted, the petitioner would need to bring the site into the 75-percent open space
compliance.
Mr. Trzebiatowski also noted since these structures are already non-conforming, the typical 50% rule that
ZBA Minutes
7/27/2006
Page 2
applies to the total cost of materials for the addition still applies for this proposal. The total cost of the
materials is not to exceed 50% of the current value of the house and garage.
Staff is respectfully requesting denial of Appeal 05-2006 as submitted, allowing the proposed addition
which will consume additional open space on the property, requiring a 666 square foot variance (taking
into consideration the removal of 196 square feet of concrete/asphalt).
Staff does recommend approval of a variance that does maintain the current amount of open space,
which is 5,802 square feet (67.7 percent open space). This would require an open space variance of 625
square feet (7.3 percent). Since there are options present to bring the open space into compliance, no
additional open space beyond the current amount should be consumed.
Chairman Schepp questioned if the garage needed a variance. Mr. Woida stated a variance was granted
to build the garage closer to the road.
Appeal 06-2006 – Petitioner: C.I. Banker Wire & Iron Works, S84 W19120 Enterprise Drive/ Tax Key No.
2228.999.005. 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 6.04 Off-Street Parking. (4)D. Setback: In any off-street parking
area no vehicle shall be parked closer than 10 feet to the existing street line.
A setback of 10-feet is required from the right-of-way line (lot line) on the above-mentioned lot. The
petitioner seeks a setback of 5-feet from the right-of-way (southern lot line) to permit the relocation of a
parking lot, and is therefore requesting a 5-foot variance from the right-of-way (southern lot line).
Vice Chairman Schneiker swore in John and George Boxhorn, co-owners of C.I Banker Wire and Adam
Trzebiatowski. John Boxhorn explained the plans were originally approved with the fire street located on
the west end of the building. The owners and the fire department would prefer the fire street at the front
(south end) of the building for safety reasons. The proposed fire lane and the parking lot in the front of
the building would be located 5-feet within the 10-foot required setback. Mr. Boxhorn stated they need
another five feet closer to the street for the fire lane.
Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City’s opinion based on the Zoning Code. The petitioner received Planning
Commission and Building Permit approvals to construct a 12,000 square foot addition onto their existing
industrial building. The location of the fire lane was not the ideal location per the Fire Department. Phil
Dibb of the Fire Department sent an email to the Planning Department stating his opinion on the matter.
Mr. Dibb stated they are in favor of the fire street relocation for the following reasons:
This is the safest area having dual access and direct city street access
This area has multiple access points to the building
This area will not have snow issues to deal with
It is the most logical area – matches all other buildings
Mr. Trzebiatowski also noted there is no ability to shrink down this fire street.
A variance from Plan Commission and Board of Appeals would be required to allow the 5-foot setback.
Plan Commission did approve the variance from the General Design Guide requirement under Resolution
PC 09-2006 at the July 18, 2006 meeting. Their approval also recommends approval of the variance
from the Board of Appeals.
Staff representative respectfully requests approval of appeal 06-2006, allowing a 5-foot setback from the
right-of-way for a parking lot, requiring a 5-foot variance, citing there are safety concerns relating to the
placement of the fire street and that the placement along the front of the building is the safest option and
this should not hamper the surrounding properties.
ZBA Minutes
7/27/2006
Page 3
Appeal 07-2006 – Petitioner: Phillips, Milewski & Associates, Inc. and Mickey Ripp, Willow Pond
Apartment/ Tax Key Nos. 2195.981.005 & 2195.981.004. 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 5.02 Building Location. (1) Location Restricted: No building shall
be hereinafter 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.
The following are the two variance are being requested within the appeal:
A. 2195.981.006 (Parcel 6) – An offset of 20-feet is required from the side property lines on the
above-mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks an offset of 7-feet from the southeastern lot lie to
permit the construction of an additional detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 13-foot
variance from the southeastern property line.
B. 2195.981.004 (Parcel 3) – A setback of 40-feet is required from the font property lines (right-of-
way) on the above-mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 30-feet from the southern lot
line (right-of-way) to permit the construction of an additional detached garage, and is therefore
requesting a 10-foot variance from the southern property line (right-of-way).
The petitioner was not present as staff is recommending deferral.
Mr. Trzebiatowski explained this item is also up for discussion at Plan Commission. This item was
deferred at Plan Commission on July 18, 2006. At the Plan Commission meeting the Commissioners had
questions for the petitioners. The petitioners were not present to answer their questions. The item was
deferred to allow the petitioners to answer the questions. The outcome at Plan Commission will
determine how this appeal will go forward. Staff representative respectfully requests deferral of appeal
07-2006.
DELIBERATIONS:
APPEAL 05-2006— Mr. Schneiker moved to approve appeal 05-2006 as submitted. Seconded by
Mr. Ristow. Mr. Schneiker stated because the driveway is already not in compliance there will not be a
substantial change once the project is complete. By replacing the concrete driveway with brick pavers
there would not be much gain and there would be maintenance and up-keep for the property owner and
future property owners. There is also a safety issue for the children with brick pavers for the driveway.
Chairman Schepp stated the hardship is the location of the garage in relation to the house and the need
for a larger kitchen to facilitate the petitioner’s growing family. Chairman Schepp noted the other houses
on the street appear to over the open space requirement also, and the proposed project will only be a half
of percent over what already exists. Upon a roll call vote Appeal 05-2006 is approved 4-0.
APPEAL 06-2006— Mr. Schmidt moved to approve appeal 06-2006 as submitted, allowing a 5ft
setback. Seconded by Mr. Ristow. The Board agreed there is a safety issue with the fire street being
on one end of the building. The best location for the fire street is along the front (south end) of the
building. Upon a roll call vote Appeal 06-2006 is approved 4-0.
APPEAL 07-2006— Mr. Schmidt moved to defer appeal 07-2006 until Plan Commission makes a
determination. Seconded by Mr. Schneiker. Upon voice vote appeal 07-2007 is deferred 4-0.
OLD BUSINESS: None
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the minutes of May 25, 2006.
Seconded by Chairman Schepp. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried.
MISCELLANEOUS:
New Zoning Code Information – Mr. Trzebiatowski explained staff has been working on a re-write of the
ZBA Minutes
7/27/2006
Page 4
Zoning Code. The current code was originally adopted in 1963 and revisions to it have been made from
time to time. One of the biggest changes will be the creation of new zoning districts. Included in the
packet is the re-write of the Board of Appeals section of the Code. If any members have questions or
concerns, they should contact staff as soon as possible for clarification. Once the Zoning Code is
completed and approved by Council, a copy will be distributed to the Board members.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this Board, Mr. Schmidt moved to adjourn.
Mr. Schneiker seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 8:12 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kellie Renk
Recording Secretary