Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals - MINUTES - 12/7/2006 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES CITY OF MUSKEGO December 7, 2006 Meeting was called to order at 7:06 P.M Those in attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: Dr. Barb Blumenfield (7:15), Mr. Horst Schmidt, Dr. Russ Kashian, Mr. William Le Doux, Mr. Richard Ristow and Associate Planner Adam Trzebiatowski. ABSENT: Chairman Dan Schepp and Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The secretary stated the meeting was noticed on November 28, 2006 in accordance with open meeting laws. NEW BUSINESS: APPEAL #09-2006—Petitioner: Don Domuarat of Domurat Builders Inc. on behalf of Tony and Tricia La Licata, Muskego Dam Road (vacant)/Tax Key 2288.991. 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 8.01(B) Permitted Accessory Uses. 12. Mother-in-Law/Family Units: Any portion of a single family residence, intended to be occupied by a resident(s) related through blood, marriage or adoption to a host residence occupant, being no greater than 800 square feet in size, that has an independent wing or area that is self-supporting in terms of livable needs (i.e. unit includes a kitchen, bath, den and bedroom), but is dependent on utility infrastructure of the primary residence. Access to this wing or area may be obtained via one door to the outside and a second non-lockable door or passageway to the main portion of the host residence. Access is permitted to a garage area having no service door. All such requests are subject to building, site and operational plan approval of the Plan Commission following written notice being distributed by the Plan Commission to neighboring property owners within 100 feet of the subject property. (Ord.#947-10-02-97) An 800 square foot size limit is placed upon Mother-in-Law/Family Units. The petitioner seeks a Mother- in-Law/Family Unit up to 1,500 square feet in area within their proposed new home, and is therefore requesting a 700 square foot variance to allow for a larger Mother-in-Law/Family Unit. Dr. Kashian swore in Don Domurat, Tony and Tricia La Licata and Adam Trzebiatowski. Mr. La Licata explained he is proposing to build a 1500 square foot mother-in-law suite. Mr. La Licata stated the hardship is having a narrow property on the lake. Placing two homes on the property would lose the view of the lake for one of the homes. The proposed house does not resemble a duplex. The design of the home is a quality design. Mr. La Licata stated his mom has back problems and has to walk with a walker. Mr. La Licata’s mother has been under the care of a doctor and has been receiving Cortisone shots. Mrs. La Licata would be the primary care giver. They have four children that she would have to take with her to assist her mother in law. It would be easier to care for her if she lived in the same house. Mr. La Licata stated both neighbors approve of the proposed mother in law unit. Mr. Domurat stated the City does not like to approve flag lots. If they put a separate guesthouse on the property it would give the appearance of a flag lot. Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City’s opinion based on the Zoning Code. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 1500 sq foot mother in law unit attached to their proposed new home. The Code allows mother-in-law units up to 800 square feet with Plan Commission approval. The petitioner is asking for a 700 square foot variance. In the event something were to happen to his mother, the home would solely be used for the La Licata family. Mr. Trzebiatowski added the City must base their recommendation upon a valid hardship as defined by Sate Law and Zoning Case Law. Based upon the submitted information Staff has not been able to find a valid hardship. There are two options for this property that do not require a variance. ZBA Minutes 12/7/2006 Page 2 1. The mother-in-law unit can be reduced in size to 800 square feet. 2. A guesthouse could be built on the property. A guesthouse is allowed on a residential property with a conditional use grant and Planning Commission approval. A guesthouse must be at least 1200 square feet in size and has no specific size limit. It was the consensus of the Plan Commission not to change the Zoning Code and to allow the Zoning Board of Appeals to determine if there is a hardship present to warrant the increased size limit. Staff is respectfully requesting denial of appeal 09-2006, allowing a mother-in-law unit up to 1500 square feet in size, a 700 square foot variance; citing that 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. The Case Law explanation of a hardship does not appear to be met. There is the ability to construct an 800 square foot mother-in-law unit attached to the proposed house, as well as the option to construct a separate guesthouse on the property. Mr. Le Doux questioned what the minimum square footage would be for the second house on the property. Mr. Trzebiatowski stated the minimum square footage would be 1200 square feet. Mr. Schmidt questioned the petitioner if they would consider redesigning the house to meet the requirements. Mr. Domurat stated the design they are coming forth with is what they want to do. Dr. Blumenfield questioned what is the main issue with a mother-in-law unit. Mr. Trzebiatowski stated maybe not in this situation, but there is the potential for the mother-in-law unit to become a rental. Mr. Schmidt questioned if the mother-in-law unit were split off from the main house could it be connected by a breezeway. Mr. Trzebiatowski stated that would then be considered one house. Ald. Buckmaster was present as a representative of the Plan Commission. Ald. Buckmaster stated while there was a positive recommendation from the Plan Commission on this issue it is not within the boundaries of the Plan Commission to waive. Ald. Buckmaster further stated to try and write in every situation or circumstance into Ordinance form would be impossible. The Board of Appeals does an excellent job addressing these types of unique issues. Dr. Kashian suggested a policy to allow the mother-in-law unit’s square footage to be increased per acre, because it fits into the land. APPEAL #10-2006—Petitioner: Don Connor, W179 S6887 Muskego Drive/Tax Key 2174.908. REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variance: Three variances are being requested within this appeal. A. 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 any right-of-way line on the above mentioned lake lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 11.03-feet from the front right-of-way/property line to permit the construction of an attached garage, and is therefore requesting a 13.97-foot variance from the front right-of-way/property line. B. Chapter17-Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.07- 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 6,055 square feet (75% of 8,073 square foot lot) per the RS-3/OLS requirements. The current open space amount is 6657 square feet, which is 602 square feet more than required, resulting in 82-percent of the lot area being preserved as open space. The ZBA Minutes 12/7/2006 Page 3 petitioner is proposing to construct a 528 SF attached garage and to pave a 342 SF driveway (totaling 870 additional square feet), resulting in 72-percent (5787 square feet) of the lot area being preserved as open space, and is therefore requesting a 3-percent (268 square foot) variance to the Code requirement. C. 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. In the case of the petitioned lot, an offset of 4.6-feet is required from the side (northern) lot line. The petitioner seeks an offset of 4.37-feet from the side (northern) lot line to permit the construction of an attached garage, and is therefore requesting a 0.23-foot (2.76 inches) variance from the side (northern) lot line. Dr. Blumenfield swore in Don Conner and Adam Trzebiatowski. Mr. Conner explained he purchased the house 10 years ago, prior to having children. The house is on the lake on a narrow lot. There is an attached garage on the property. The previous owners remodeled the living room and pushed it out into the garage. The garage cannot be used as a garage, but a shed for storing the snow blower and etc. Mr. Conner also noted the house does not have a basement. Mr. Conner stated he would like a garage for the cars. Two snowmobiles and a trailer were stolen from the property so there are safety concerns. The two-car garage is proposed to be placed on the north side of the house. It would be further away from the road than if it were on the south side. Mr. Conner stated because of the open space requirements he is only proposing to pave the apron to the garage. He does not want to bring gravel into the garage when he drives in and out, and the paved driveway will also help with snow removal. Dr. Blumenfield questioned if Mr. Conner considered moving the living room wall back. Mr. Conner stated he had not thought of that, but the size of the garage would not be big enough for his vehicles. Dr. Blumenfield questioned who owns the lot next door. Mr. Conner stated the lot is a lake lot deeded to 100 people. Dr. Blumenfield asked if Mr. Conner considered purchasing a portion of the neighboring lot. Mr. Conner said he checked into it and he would need 100 people to sign off. Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City’s opinion based on the Zoning Code. The petitioner is requesting to construct a new attached 22’ x 24’ garage. They currently have a small attached garage that cannot have a car parked within it because of a living room addition that a previous owner built into the garage area. There is also a 100 square foot shed present on site. The parcel is zoned RS-3/OLS which is the typical zoning for a property on Little Muskego Lake. The petitioner is requesting the following three variances: setback of 11.03 feet from the front right of way, a 0.23-foot variance from the side (northern) lot line and a 3-percent variance to the open space requirement. The City must base their recommendation upon a valid hardship as defined by State Law and Zoning Case Law. Based upon the submitted information staff has not been able to find a valid hardship. The Zoning Code does not state that garages are required for a property. If there is a need for storage on the property, a new accessory structure could possibly be built and/or an addition to the house for storage could be build in a conforming location. There is the option to modify the living room area to reclaim the lost garage space. The biggest concern on this property is the proposed location of the garage in relation to the roadway. The garage is being proposed to be located only 11.03 feet away from the front property line at the closest point, which is only about 18.5 feet away from the edge of the actual road. At the furthest corner the garage will only be about 20 feet away from the edge of the actual road. The visual impact of the garage appears to be a safety concern. Also, if vehicles will be parked in front of the garage this will make the visibility even more hazardous. Staff is respectfully requesting denial of appeal 10-2006, allowing an 11.03-foot setback from the Muskego Drive lot line and a 4.37-foot offset from the northern lot line for the construction of an attached garage, requiring a 13.97-foot variance from Muskego Drive and a 0.23-foot variance from the northern lot line and an open space variance of 268 square feet, citing that the variance does not preserve the intent of the Zoning Ordinance because there are not exceptional conditions applying to the parcel that do ZBA Minutes 12/7/2006 Page 4 not apply to other properties. There are safety concerns if the garage were to be place in the proposed location due to the close proximity to the roadway. Dr. Blumenfield questioned where the cars are currently being parked. Mr. Conner stated the cars are being parked in front of the house on the gravel. Mr. Conner added he will be using space saver trusses for storage. Mr. Schmidt questioned if the houses in the area were built about the same time. Mr. Conner stated there were. Mr. Le Doux explained the direction of the bend in the road opens the road up to see onto East Drive. Mr. Conner stated he does not plan on parking the cars in front of the garage, only in the garage or next to the garage. DELIBERATIONS: APPEAL 09-2006— Mr. Le Doux moved to approve as submitted. Seconded by Dr. Kashian. Mr. Le Doux stated the City does not like flag lots and one house would look more appealing than two. The hardship is having to follow the code while having a narrow lot is unnecessarily burdensome. Dr. Kashian feels the hardship is a medical condition. It would be unwarranted to make the owners go from house to house to take care of their family members. Dr. Kashian added he would be concerned with someone trying to split the second house off. Dr. Blumenfield noted the size of the lot is not the issue and one house in front of the other would be unequal and inequitable. The City wants quality construction not piecemeal. Upon a roll call vote Appeal 09-2006 is approved 5-0. APPEAL 10-2006— Mr. Le Doux moved to approve as submitted with the understanding that cars will not be parking in front of the garage to further reduce the visibility on Muskego Drive. Seconded by Dr. Kashian. Dr. Blumenfield stated she drove out to the property and looked at other properties in the area. Dr. Blumenfield does not see a visual problem where the garage would be located. Dr. Blumenfield stated no one would want to be without a garage. There is a unique situation with the older homes who do not have a garage or basement for storage. The City encourages a property owner to maintain their property and a garage would be beneficial to the property. There is a hardship to the property owner if he were to have to contact 100 property owners to purchase a piece of the lot next door. Dr. Kashian stated he agrees there should be a garage, but it should be moved back because this could be a potential site problem. Upon a roll call vote Appeal 10-2006 is approved 4-1, with Dr. Kashian voting no. OLD BUSINESS: none. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the minutes of August 24, 2006. Seconded by Dr. Kashian. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried. MISCELLANEOUS: ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this Board, Dr. Blumenfield moved to adjourn. Mr. Schmidt seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 8:27 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Kellie Renk Recording Secretary