Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals - MINUTES - 4/26/2007 Z ONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES approved CITY OF MUSKEGO April 26, 2007 Meeting was called to order at 7:10 P.M. Those in attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker, Dr. Russ Kashian, Mr. Richard Ristow and Planner Adam Trzebiatowski. ABSENT: Dr. Barb Blumenfield, Mr. Horst Schmidt, Mr. William Le Doux STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The secretary stated the meeting was noticed on April 19, 2007 in accordance with open meeting laws. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #01-2007 – Petitioner: John Skalla, W182 S6521 Garnet Drive / Tax Key No. 2174.185. REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.02 Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioner seeks the following variances: Two variances are being requested within this appeal. A. Chapter 17 – Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.03 – Building Height. (1) Maximum Height Restricted: In any district no building or structure shall be hereafter erected or structurally altered to a height in excess of that hereinafter specified by the regulations for that district, except as may be modified by this Code. A maximum height of 15-feet is allowed for accessory structures as measured from the average grade at the front of the building to the mid point of the highest gable. The petitioner seeks a nd height, as measured by code, of 20-feet for a 2 story addition to their existing detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 5-foot variance to the accessory structure height requirement. B. Chapter 17 – Zoning Ordinance: Section 6.02 – Non-Conformity. (2)C. Structure repairs and alterations to non-conforming structure housing shall not, as long as such use continues, exceed 50% of the assessed value of the structure at the time the use became nonconforming. The material costs for additions to non-conforming structures are limited to 50% of the assessed fair market value (FMV). The existing garage on the property has a FMV of $8,000, which allows $4,000 (50% of $8,000) to be put into materials for an addition. The petitioner seeks a garage addition with materials valued at $14,120, and is therefore requesting a $10,120 variance. Vice Chairman Schneiker swore in John Skalla and Adam Trzebiatowski. Mr. Skalla explained he would like to add a second story addition above the garage. The property is located in the floodway and because of the floodway the DNR will not allow the footprint of the building to be expanded. The property does not have a basement due to the floodway also. Mr. Skalla stated he does not have adequate storage or a safe place for his children to play. Mr. Skalla stated the garage will still be lower in height then the house and the neighbors have no issues with the addition. Mr. Skalla stated his hardship is having a legal non-conforming lot in a floodway that will not allow him to expand the footprint of the building. Mr. Skalla stated he needs an area for storage and a safe place for his children to play. ZBA Minutes 4/26/2007 Page 2 Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City’s opinion based on the Zoning Code. The petitioner is seeking approvals to construct a second story addition to an existing non-conforming detached garage. The petitioner currently has a 2-story home with a detached garage on their property. The entire property is shown within the 100-year floodplain. A small portion of the parcel near the road is within the floodfringe. Most of the parcel is within the floodway. Their house does not have a basement for storage or play due to the floodplain location and the water table. The petitioners first option was to add onto the existing house and/or to connect the house to the garage. The DNR typically does not allow any new structures/additions that could raise the regional flood elevation by more than .01-foot. Therefore, Mr. Skalla is requesting two variances the first one for an exception to the accessory structure height requirement for a second story garage addition. The maximum height of 15-feet is allowed for accessory structures as measured from the average grade at the front of the building to the mid point of nd the highest gable. The petitioner seeks a height of 20-feet for a 2 story addition to the existing detached garage, which a 5-foot variance to the accessory structure height requirement. The second is an exception to the 50% rule for a non-conforming accessory structure. The material costs for additions to non-conforming structures are limited to 50% of the assessed fair market value. The existing garage on the property has a fair market value of $8,000, which allows $4,000 to be put into materials. The petitioner seeks a garage addition valued at $14,120 and is requesting a $10,120 variance. Based upon the submitted information staff has found a valid hardship. The petitioner has researched all other possible options and the second story addition above the garage is the only one that could work. Staff respectfully requests approval allowing a 20-foot high accessory structure for the construction of a second story addition to an existing detached garage, requiring a 5-foot variance and a 50% rule variance of $10,120, citing the variances preserve the intent of the Zoning Ordinance because there are exceptional conditions applying to the parcel that do not apply to other properties. The floodplain and floodway on this property restricts new building footprints from being constructed, which eliminates other alternatives. Appeal #02-2007 – Petitioner: Curtis J. Callies, S76 W18384 Kingston Drive / Tax Key No. 2195.005. REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.02 Zoning Board of Appeals, 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. In the case of the petitioned lot, an offset of 8.5-feet is required from the side (western) lot line for any structure or deck. The petitioner seeks an offset of 5.7-feet from the side (western) lot line to permit the construction of a deck/stairs, and is therefore requesting a 2.8-foot variance from the side (western) lot line. Vice Chairman Schneiker swore in C.J. Callies and Adam Trzebiatowski. Mr. Callies explained he built his home in 2004. Drawings for deck permits were submitted at the same time as the new home for approval. The permit expired for the deck before it was completed. The City sent Mr. Callies a letter to renew and that is when it was discovered the deck was non-conforming. Mr. Callies stated he has a 9-foot basement and his house is higher than both his neighbors. He had planned on doing some type of stairs on this side but after discussing this with his neighbor they decided it is too steep to do anything. The west side will be the only access point to the front of the house. On the west side of the house is the proposed wood stairs that are not completed. Originally the stairs were going to be made of concrete or a retaining wall. Mr. Callies stated his hardship is safety. The concrete/retaining wall stairs would not be safe for ZBA Minutes 4/26/2007 Page 3 people to walk down. This wood stairs with a handrail would be much safer. Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City’s opinion based on the Zoning Code. The petitioner has already constructed a deck/stairs along the side of their house leading from the front yard to the side/rear of their house without proper permits being issued and does not meet the zoning requirements. 8.5-feet is required from the side (western) lot line, which is already reduced because the lot is narrow. The petitioner is seeking an offset of 5.7-feet from the side/western lot line and is therefore requesting a 2.8-foot variance. Based upon the submitted information staff has not been able to find a valid hardship that meets State Law and Zoning Code Law guidelines. When the new home permit for the house was approved, the plans showed that the side of the house in question was going to have a retaining wall staircase, which is allowed by code. It also showed a concrete pad/landing at the side of the garage where the side service door to the garage is located. If the original plans would have been followed, there would not be any zoning issues today. The majority of lake lots with exposures do not have access via a staircase they use the natural grade of the land as access. The grading plan submitted showed the current height above ground due to the 9-foot basement and the desire to have a full exposure. The Engineering regulations at the time required the rear yard grade elevation to be 3-feet above the 100-year floodplain elevation. This then forced the house to be at a higher grade if a full exposure was wanted by the owner. A full exposure was not required by the City. Mr. Trzebiatowski added one of the biggest principals relating to the variance request is the fact that the deck/stairs were almost completely finished before the variance request was submitted. Construction without a permit is not a hardship and not following the previously approved plans is not a hardship. Staff is respectfully requesting denial of appeal 02-2007, citing the variance does not preserve the intent of the Zoning Ordinance because there are not exceptional conditions applying to the parcel that do no apply to other properties. Also, a non-self imposed hardship is not found for the appeal. The placement of the house and its doors, the placement of the existing retaining walls, and the proposed grading of the site are self-imposed hardships. Dr. Kashian stated the only issue is the wrong materials were used and without the proper permits. Mr. Schneiker questioned the difference between wood or block stairs related to the stricter setbacks/offsets. Mr. Trzebiatowski stated the deck is considered a built structure connected to the house and tends to be more obtrusive. The retaining wall or blocks are built into the ground and are not as noticeable. Mr. Callies submitted a letter that the neighbor signed stating they would not be installing any kind of steps, stairs, paths or retaining walls on the eastern side of the property. DELIBERATIONS: Appeal #01-2007 – Vice Chairman Schneiker moved to approve as submitted. Seconded by Dr. Kashian. The hardship of having floodway and floodfringe over the entire parcel and the DNR restrictions of what you can do in a floodway gives the property owner no other options but to build a second story addition over the garage to allow for storage and a safe place for his children to play. Upon a roll call vote Appeal 01-2007 is approved 4-0. Appeal #02-2007 – Dr. Kashian moved to approve as submitted. Seconded by Vice Chairman Schneiker. Dr. Kashian stated the argument in this appeal is over building ZBA Minutes 4/26/2007 Page 4 materials. The house needs a set of stairs and the wood deck/stairs is a quality structure. Dr. Kashian added there needs to be a staircase as the service door would lead to nowhere. There would also be undue hardship for the property owner to pour cement to create a staircase. Vice Chairman Schneiker added this structure will be inspected to ensure safety as part of the building permit inspection process. A block staircase would not be inspected. Upon a roll call vote Appeal 02-2007 is approved 5-0. OLD BUSINESS: none. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Dr. Kashian moved to approve the minutes of December 7, 2006. Seconded by Mr. Ristow. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried. MISCELLANEOUS: ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this Board, Vice Chairman Schnieker moved to adjourn. Dr. Kashian seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 8:03 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Kellie Renk Recording Secretary