Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals Packet - 9/26/2013 CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA September 26, 2013 6:00 PM Muskego City Hall, Muskego Room, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF CLOSED SESSION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Board of Appeals of the City of Muskego may convene, upon passage of the proper motion, into closed session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(a) of the State Statutes for the purpose of deliberating concerning cases which were the subject of a quasi- judicial hearing; said cases being the appeals described below. The Board of Appeals will then reconvene into open session. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 1. APPEAL #03-2013 Petitioner: Dan Klappa on behlaf of Ross and Edie Pokora Property: S76 W18572 Kingston Drive / Tax Key No. 2195.018 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 6.02 - Non-Conforming Parcels (1) Minimum Required: No building, covered structure, or impervious surface shall be placed, erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot so as to reduce the usable open area of such lot to less than the minimum required amount as identified by the underlying zoning district or less than 75% of the total lot size The minimum open space allowed on this property is 6,437 square feet (75% of the 8,583 square foot lot). The appellant is proposing to reconstruct a portion of their home and add a small addition, resulting in 69% (5,914 square feet) of the lot area being preserved as open space, and is therefore requesting a 6% (523 square foot) variance to the Code requirement. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM AUGUST 29, 2013. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ADJOURN NOTICE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MEMBERS OF AND POSSIBLY A QUORUM OF MEMBERS OF OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BODIES OF THE MUNICIPALITY MAY BE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE ABOVE-STATED MEETING TO GATHER INFORMATION; NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL BODY AT THE ABOVE-STATED MEETING OTHER THAN THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO ABOVE IN THIS NOTICE. ALSO, UPON REASONABLE NOTICE, EFFORTS WILL BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF DISABLED INDIVIDUALS THROUGH APPROPRIATE AIDS AND SERVICES. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR TO REQUEST THIS SERVICE, CONTACT MUSKEGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, (262) 679-4100. Appeal # 03-2013 ZBA 9-26-2013 Page 1 of 2 City of Muskego City Representative Brief Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 03-2013 For the meeting of: September 26, 2013 REQUESTING: 1. Under the direction of Chapter 17 - Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.07 – Open Space (1) Minimum Required: No building, covered structure, or impervious surface shall be placed, erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot so as to reduce the usable open area of such lot to less than the minimum required amount as identified by the underlying zoning district or less than 75% of the total lot size. APPELLANT: Dan Klappa on behalf of Ross & Edie Pokora LOCATION: S76 W18572 Kingston Drive / Tax Key No. 2195.018 CITY’S POSITION PRESENTED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski AICP, City Representative BACKGROUND The property owners recently purchased their home on Little Muskego Lake. When the owners purchased the home they stated they were not aware of the numerous issues with this property, one of those being that the existing lot layout exceeded the required amount of open space by 1,011 SF. The previous owners appeared to have done work on the property without permits over the years. This included concrete projects without permits. The current owners plan was to add additional living and storage spaces between the home and garage, but after talking with the City they had to scale their plans back due to the discovered open space overage. With this being the case, the owners reconsidered their plans and are now proposing a plan that would meet their needs while still restoring some open space areas to bring the home further into compliance with the open space regulations. The owners are proposing to reconstruct an existing sun room into full living space with a basement underneath. Only a small portion of the existing home currently contains a basement. As part of this reconstruction the owners are also going to reconfigure portions of the interior of the home to make it more functional. Due to this, the owners want to add two (2) additional fe et to the lake side of the home to accommodate this. This addition would add about 29 SF of additional impervious surfaces to the lot. Since the lot is currently 1,011 SF over the allowed open space limit, the owners are proposing to remove some of the existing concrete areas to help bring the lot closer to compliance with the open space regulations. The owners are proposing to remove all concrete walkways and a concrete fire pit pad on the lot. This would then leave the property approximately 523 SF over the allowed open space amount, down from the existing 1,011 SF. This would then reclaim approximately 488 SF of open space. The lot currently contains a 1-bedroom/1-bath home and a detached garage. The parcel is zoned RL-3, Lakeshore Residence District. The property is located on Kingston Drive along the shore of Little Muskego Lake. The petitioner is seeking the following variance: An exception to the required open space on this property. Appeal # 03-2013 ZBA 9-26-2013 Page 2 of 2 The minimum open space allowed on this property is 6,437 square feet (75% of the 8,583 square foot lot). The appellant is proposing to reconstruct a portion of their home and add a small addition, resulting in 69% (5,914 square feet) of the lot area being preserved as open space, and is therefore requesting a 6% (523 square foot) variance to the Code requirement. DISCUSSION The petitioner stated that their hardship is based upon the small size of the lot and the past work that has been done on the property over the years that has made it non-compliant with the open space regulations. The owners have also stated that due to the lack of inside storage, since there is only a small basement and only one closet, the reconfiguration of the interior, with the addition, is necessary to create functional storage and living space. The items that the petitioner is mentioning are not self-created. These are items that were existent before they bought the property and they are proposing to bring the property closer to compliance with the open space regulations. The removal of any other concrete surfaces (driveway or stairs to the lake) could be unnecessarily burdensome since they serve a needed purpose. Lastly, the proposal meets all setback and offset regulations, so it appears they should not be a negative impact to the surrounding properties. The petitioner has included a signed letter from some of the surrounding owners stating that they do not object to the proposed project. NOTE: Please remember that the City must base their recommendation upon a valid hardship as defined by State Law and Zoning Case Law. Zoning Case Law states that a hardship must be unique to the property, it cannot be self-created, and must be based upon conditions unique to the property rather than conditions personal to the property owner(s). Case Law also states that a hardship should be something that would unreasonably prevent the owner from using their property for the permitted purpose or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome. The Zoning Board of Appeals needs to find a valid hardship in order to be able to approve a variance request. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, THE CITY RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS: Approval of Appeal 03-2013, allowing an exception to the required 75% open space (6,437 square feet) so that the resulting open space will be 69% (5,914 square feet) of the lot, which is a 6% (523 square feet) variance; citing the unique size of the lot and the existing open space overage that is going to be brought further into compliance as part of the proposed project. The hardship is not self-imposed since the owners are helping bring this existing property further into compliance and since it was purchased this way. MUSKE G Othe City of Ar ea o f I nter estI060120 Feet Ag en da I tem(s ) Pr op ertie s Zonin g D istrict s Righ t-of -Way Hy dr ogr ap hy Sup plemen tal MapAppeal #03-20 13 Ro ss & Edie Po k oraS6 W8 572 Kin gs to n D rive J A N E S V I L L E L O O M I S R D RA CIN E AV DURHAM W O O D S CO L L EG E Pre p are d by Ci ty o f M u ske g o P la n ni ng D e pa rtm en t Da te : 9 /1 9/2 0 13 unapproved CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES August 29, 2013 6:00 PM Muskego City Hall, Muskego Room, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:10 PM. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Dr. Barbara Blumenfield (Chairman), Henry Schneiker (Vice Chairman), Mr. Richard Ristow, Mr. Aaron Robertson, and Planner Trzebiatowski. Absent: Dr. Russell Kashian and Mr. Blaise Di Pronio NEW BUSINESS 1. APPEAL #02-2013 Petitioner: Arthur J. Takishian Property: W190 S7522 Richdorf Drive / Tax Key No. 2189.232 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.02 Zoning Board of Appeals, 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 locational regulations as hereinafter specified for the district in which it is located. An offset of 10-feet is required from one of the side lot lines on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks an offset of 3-feet from the side (southeastern) lot line for the placement of an accessory structure, and is therefore requesting a 7-foot variance from the required side offset. Vice Chairman Schneiker swore in the following: Adam Trzebiatowski – City Staff Arthur Takishian – Petitioner Elizabeth Biskobing, W190 S7544 Richdorf Drive Robert Biskobing, W190 S7544 Richdorf Drive Sandra Rohlinger, S75 W18970 Circle Drive James Mortle, W176 S7408 Lake Drive Daniel Richards, W190 S7558 Richdorf Drive Arthur Takishian explained he built his home in 1971 following the setbacks and placed the home between other homes that were built, and planted trees. There was a need for a shed to store a riding lawn mower, snow blower and outboard motors. The neighbor at the time bought a shed and asked Mr. Takishian if he could put the shed by the lot line. Mr. Takishian agreed and then also bought a shed and placed it behind the neighbors shed. In 2009 a tornado destroyed Mr. Takishian’s shed. He built a new 10 x 16 shed in 2010. The neighbors said it was ok in the same location. Mr. Takishian stated he didn't know he needed a permit. Mr. Takishian added there is no plumbing or electric to the shed and it sitting on a cement slab. Dr. Blumenfield questioned who poured the slab. Mr. Takishian stated a contractor who lives in Brookfield. Dr. Blumenfield questioned who took out the permit to build the new home. Mr. Takishian stated the builder took out the permits. Elizabeth Biskobing, W190 S7544 Richdorf Drive, stated she owns the property next door where the shed is located. She grew up in the house and then bought it. She has no problems with the shed being located where it is. Daniel Richards, W190 S7558 Richdorf Drive, stated he has lived in his home for 40 years and never knew there were restrictions on where sheds could be located. James Mortle, W176 S7408 Lake Drive, neighbor to the north. Mr. Mortle explained Mr. Takishian created this situation to expand the property and views to the lake. Mr. Mortle further explained that Mr. Takishian has a history of doing work without permits. Sandra R Rohlinger, S75 W18970 Circle Drive, stated Mr. Takishian will take out the proper permits and the neighbors don't mind the location of the shed. The neighbors would rather have the shed in its current location than obstructing the views of the lake. Mr. Takishian stated the hardship is the uniqueness of the pie shaped lot and the location of the mature trees. Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the city’s opinion. A 176 square foot accessory structure was built on this property to replace an older accessory structure. The City has no records of either shed being built. The current accessory building is located 0.9 feet over the south lot line. After checking with the City Attorney, it was determined that the petitioner cannot request a variance to be over the lot line. The petitioner is proposing to move the shed 3-feet away from the side lot line. An offset of 10-feet is required from one of the side lot lines, 13.3 feet from the other side lot line, 25 from the street setback and 50 feet from the lake. The petitioner seeks an offset of 3-feet from the side (southeastern) lot line and is requesting a 7-foot variance from the required side offset. Mr. Trzebiatowski noted that if the shed were 120 square feet or smaller with a height of 9 feet it could be as close as 3 feet to the lot line or 5 feet away from the lot line if it was 10 feet in height. Mr. Trzebiatowski explained there are other options on the property where the shed can be located. The building could be located as close as 5-feet away from the house with approved fire protection drywall. A variance would be needed to get closer than the 5 feet. Mr. Trzebiatowski requested a deadline of 2 months of the date of this meeting for the building to be moved. Staff is recommending denial of Appeal 02-2013 citing that there are other locations on the lot where the accessory structure can be built without a variance. The hardships stated are self-imposed, financial based and not unique to this property. With no other comments or questions Chairman Blumenfield closed public comment and the Board went into deliberations. DELIBRATON Mr. LeDoux stated he feels the current location of the shed is the best use of the space based on the existing heavy tree line and the shed is back to back with the neighbors shed. This also allows clear views to the lake. Mr. LeDoux added it would not be in the best interest of the property to move the shed closer to the well cap or to cut down trees. Mr. Schneiker explained he is not seeing a valid hardship. The shed is not taking away the use of the property and it could be moved to another location. The hardship is self-imposed. Mr. Ristow agreed there is not a valid hardship. Dr. Blumenfield explained a hardship cannot be financial. The shed looks nice and it would be nice to not have to move trees but these are not hardships. Mr. LeDoux made a motion to approve APPEAL #02-2013 as submitted. Mr. Robertson seconded. Motion Failed 1 in favor 4 opposed. OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM JUNE 27, 2013. Mr. Robertson made a motion to approve the minutes from June 27, 2013. Mr. Schneiker seconded. Motion Passed 5 in favor 0 opposed. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS None ADJOURN Mr. Robertson made a motion to adjourn at 7:02. Mr. Schneiker seconded. Motion Passed 5 in favor 0 opposed. Respectfully Submitted, Kellie McMullen Recording Secretary