ZONING BOARD OF APPEALSMINUTES - 3/26/2009
Z ONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES approved
CITY OF MUSKEGO
MARCH 26, 2009
Meeting was called to order at 7:04 P.M.
Those in attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Dr. Barb Blumenfield, Mr. William Le Doux, Mr. Richard
Ristow, Mr. Aaron Robertson, and Planner Adam Trzebiatowski.
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker and Dr. Russ Kashian
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The secretary stated the meeting was noticed on March
19, 2009 in accordance with open meeting laws.
NEW BUSINESS:
Appeal #01-2009 – Petitioner Justin and Jamie Arney, S70 W19079 Wentland Drive / Tax Key
No. 2180.955. REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section
3.02 Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioner seeks the following variance:
1. 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.
Based upon the average setbacks of the neighboring properties, a setback of 27.4 feet is
required from the right-of-way/front lot line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a
setback of 27.04 feet from the northern (front) right-of-way line to permit the construction of a
house addition, and is therefore requesting a 0.36-foot variance from the northern (front) right-
of-way line.
2. 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.
Due to the location of the existing non-conforming home, an offset of 10.01 feet is required from
the eastern (side) lot line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner is seeking an offset of 4.83
feet from the eastern (side) lot line to permit the construction of an attached garage, and is
therefore requesting a 5.18-foot variance from the eastern (side) lot line.
3. Chapter 17—Zoning Ordinance: Section 6.02 - Non-Conforming Parcels
(3) The open space requirements in the case of such lot may be reduced
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 6,237 square feet (75% of the 8,316
square foot lot). The appellant is proposing to construct a house and garage addition on to their
existing house and also the removal of a concrete patio and an asphalt driveway, resulting in
73-percent (6,077 square feet) of the lot area being preserved as open space, and is therefore
requesting a 2-percent (160 square foot) variance to the Code requirement.
Dr. Blumenfield swore in Justin and Jaime Arney, Ald. Bill Schneider, and Planner Adam
Trzebiatowski. Mr. Arney explained his family moved to Muskego in 2000 and likes the area
ZBA Minutes
3/26/2009
Page 2
they are living in; which is why they would prefer to stay in this house but make it more
accommodating to a family of five. The house is currently 1100 square feet and they are one of
three homes in the area that does not have a garage. Mr. Arney explained he would like to
work on his car and build things in a garage. Mr. Arney further explained to place the garage in
the backyard they would be over the open space requirement due to the length of the driveway
and it would obstruct the views of the neighbors to the lake. Mr. Arney stated they are restricted
with the size of the lot and the direction of the house on the lot being at an angle puts the house
within 3 inches of the setback. They have worked with an architect to preserve the majority of
the structure and have made several illustrations. Mrs. Arney added they considered adding a
second floor on to the house, but that might have put them in violation of the 50% rule for
materials. Mr. Arney stated the hardship is not having a garage for storage, the size of the lot,
the orientation of the house on the lot, and the green space rule. Mr. Arney stated they are
replacing the existing asphalt with brick pavers to come closer to the open space requirement.
Planner Trzebiatowski gave the City’s opinion based on the Zoning Code. Mr. Trzebiatowski
explained the petitioner is planning a large addition to the rear of their existing home, a small
front addition and the addition of a 1-car attached garage. The petitioner currently has a 1-story
home with no garage on the property. The house is non-conforming due to its distance from the
western side lot line. The 50% rule could be an issue when a house is nonconforming. The
cost of materials cannot exceed 50% of the assessed value of the house. The first appeal
relates to the foyer addition to the front lot line. 27.4–feet is required and the petitioner is
requesting a setback of 27.04 for a variance of .36-feet. Staff was unable to find a valid
hardship for this request. Because the area is being constructed new, it can be designed and
built in a way that is conforming. This could be modified by about less than 6 inches and be a
conforming distance from the lot line. Staff is recommending denial based on the addition being
built new and could be made to conform to the requirements.
The second request is for a variance to the offset from the eastern side lot line for the
construction of a 1-car attached garage. An offset of 10.01 feet is required from the eastern lot
line. The petitioner is requesting an offset of 4.83 feet and would require a 5.18-foot variance.
The petitioners have looked at different options such as placing the garage in the back, but due
to the open space rule and 50% rule staff agrees this is the best option. The garage is a
modest size and most properties are allowed garages. Staff is recommending approval based
on the existing location of the home, the size of the lot, and the need for a garage.
The third request is related to open space. The minimum open space required for the property
is 6,237 square feet. The proposed house and garage addition would result in 73-percent of the
lot preserved as open space and is requesting a 2-percent variance. Staff did find a valid
hardship because they do not currently have an excessive amount of impervious surface and
they will be removing all existing asphalt/concrete and replacing with brick pavers. Staff is
recommending approval based on the size of the lot and the request not being excessive and
showing they are trying to meet the intent of the Code.
Mr. Arney stated the neighbor to the east has signed a letter stating they have no problems with
the addition/garage. Mr. Trzebiatowski added the neighbor is familiar with the process and staff
has received no complaints. Ald. Schneider stated notices went out to 35 neighbors and he did
not receive any calls.
DELIBERATIONS
Appeal #01-2009 – Dr. Blumenfield moved to approve Appeal 01-2009 (1) as submitted.
Mr. Roberston seconded. Dr. Blumenfield stated this is a unique property with extenuating
circumstances and hardships such as the size of the lot, angle the house was built on, year the
ZBA Minutes
3/26/2009
Page 3
house was built, and no garage. The petitioners have tried everything and have worked the City
and have worked to come into as much compliance as possible. Chairman Schepp
commended the Anrey’s for working with the City on the open space requirement and tearing
out the existing asphalt and has no problems approving the request. Upon a roll call vote
Appeal #01-2009 (#1) is approved 5-0.
Mr. Robertson moved to approve Appeal #01-2009 (2) as submitted. Dr. Blumenfield
seconded. Chairman Schepp stated he approved of the appeal because the property currently
does not have a garage and the size of the garage proposed is a modest 1-car garage. The
hardship for the property is the size of lot and lack of storage with not having a garage. Upon a
roll call vote Appeal #01-2009 (#2) is approved 5-0.
Mr. Robertson moved to approve #01-2009 (3) as submitted. Dr. Blumenfield seconded.
Chairman Schepp noted the petitioners are removing the existing asphalt to meet the
requirement as much as possible. Upon a roll call vote Appeal #01-2009 (#3) is approved 5-
0.
OLD BUSINESS: none.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. LeDoux moved to approve the minutes of December 12,
2008. Mr. Robertson seconded. Minutes were approved unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS – none.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this Board, Dr. Blumenfield moved
to adjourn. Mr. Robertson seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 7:48PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kellie McMullen
Recording Secretary