Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals Packet - 2/27/2014 CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA February 27, 2014 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 #02-2014 Petitioner: Daniel J. Hewitt Property: S66 W18543 Jewel Crest Drive / Tax Key No. 2174.069 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. A setback of 25-feet is required from the front lot line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 9.25-feet from the front lot line for the addition of an attached garage, and is therefore requesting a 15.75-foot variance from the required front setback. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM JANUARY 23, 2014. 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 # 02-2014 ZBA 2-27-2014 Page 1 of 2 City of Muskego City Representative Brief Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 02-2014 For the meeting of: February 27, 2014 REQUESTING: 1. Under the direction of 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. APPELLANT: Daniel J. Hewitt LOCATION: S66 W 18543 Jewel Crest Drive / Tax Key No. 2174.069 CITY’S POSITION PRESENTED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski AICP, City Representative BACKGROUND The petitioner is proposing to construct a two-car attached garage to the front of their existing home. There currently is not a garage on this property. It appears that there was a small attached garage on this home at one time, but that was converted to living space. The proposed garage area will encompass a portion of the existing home and the new garage size 22’ x 22’. The lot currently contains a home and no accessory structures. The lot also currently contains large amounts of concrete surfaces (driveway, patios, etc.). The parcel is zoned RL-3, Lakeshore Residence District. The property is located on Jewel Crest Drive on Little Muskego Lakes western shore. The petitioner is seeking the following variance: An exception to the required setback from the front lot line for allowance of an attached garage addition. A setback of 25-feet is required from the front lot line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 9.25-feet from the front lot line for the addition of an attached garage, and is therefore requesting a 15.75-foot variance from the required front setback. DISCUSSION Based upon the submitted information, staff believes there is a valid hardship in this petition. The existing property does not have any type of garage and the garage that is being proposed is of a typical size (not excessive in size). Homes are typically afforded a garage of some type. Additionally, the petitioner has worked to try to place the garage on the northwest front area of the lot, but due to the proximity to the well and due to some mature trees near the house in this area, this location does not work and it still may have required a variance. The petitioner has stated a few reasons for their variance request in their submittal. The reasons include the hardship of not having any indoor location for vehicle storage, having to work around existing well, and trying to maintain the mature trees near the northwest corner of the house. The owners have also Appeal # 02-2014 ZBA 2-27-2014 Page 2 of 2 submitted letters from their two adjoining neighbors stating that they do not have any problems with the proposed variance request. One other current issue with this lot is that it currently does not meet the required open space amount. This lot is required to keep at least 6,750 SF as open space. Without the proposed garage addition, the site only has 5,466 SF remaining as open space. This is 1,284 SF over the maximum allowed coverage. To address this, the petitioner is proposing to remove the existing back yard concrete patios and walkways, along with the existing front walkway. These surfaces are going to be replaced with pavers. Also, the front parking area is going to be reduced in size. With these removals/replacements, the site will have 6,763 SF of open space, which is within the allowed limit. As part of the removal and replacement of the existing surfaces, all new surfaces will need to be located at least 3 feet away from the side lot lines. 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 02-2014 as proposed, allowing an attached garage with a 9.25-foot setback, a 15.75-foot variance from the front lot/right-of-way line; citing that all other practical options have been explored and this option seems to be the most practical for this lot due to the large tree s and well on the northwestern front portion of the lot. The proposed garage is typical in si ze and most homes are typically afforded a garage of some type. MUSKE G Othe City of Ar ea o f I nter est 0 50 100 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 #0 2-2 014 Da niel H ew itt S6 6 W 185 43 Jew el C rest Dr ive 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 : 2 /2 2/2 0 14 Unapproved CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES January 23, 2014 6:00 PM Muskego City Hall, Muskego Room, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER Chairman Blumenfiled called the meeting to order at 6:03 PM. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Dr. Barbara Blumenfield (Chairman), Mr. Henry Schneiker (Vice Chairman), Mr. Blaise DiPronio, Dr. Russell Kashian, Mr. Aaron Roberston, Mr. Richard Ristow, and Planner Trzebiatowski. Absent: Mr. Butch LeDoux. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE The meeting was noticed in accordance with the open meeting laws. 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 APPEAL #01-2014 Petitioner: Phoenix of Milwaukee I (Kris Hanrahan) Property: W124 S8220 North Cape Road / Tax Key No. 2209.929 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. A setback of 40-feet is required from the front lot line (ultimate right-of-way) on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 29.21-feet from the front (western) ultimate right-of-way line for the placement of a deck/porch, and is therefore requesting a 10.79-foot variance from the required front setback. Vice Chairman Schnieker swore in Kris Hanrahan (petitioner) and Adam Trzebiatowski (staff). Planner Trzebiatowski gave background information and the city's statement based on the Zoning Code. Staff is recommending denial of appeal 01-2014 citing that a deck/porch can be built 3 feet deep, which meets the Building code requirements. The hardships stated are self- imposed/self-created. Since there is a need for ingress/egress to the home through the front door, staff is receptive to the least variance possible for access to this home. That option would be the removal or alteration of the existing deck/porch so that the only deck/porch remaining be a 3 foot deep landing, the width of the door, with the necessary stairs to grade. This meets the Zoning Case Law requirements of the least variance possible, while still providing proper access to the front door that meets the Building code requirements. The petitioner, Kris Hanrahan S90 W18920 Acorn Drive, explained between him and his partner the deck permit was missed because they were doing other properties with deck permits also. The ultimate right of way was not shown on the survey by the surveyor. All the other work that was done at the property was permitted and the footings were inspected by the city's inspectors. Mr. Hanrahan stated the hardship is someone is already living in the house and needs a landing coming out the front door and also the location of the ultimate right of way. Dr. Blumenfield stated the hardship for approving the variance is the homeowner does need ingress/egress for access to the outside. Aaron Robertson made a motion to approve APPEAL #01-2014 with the modification of the deck to a 6'x8' landing with necessary stairs and submit and receive permits and to have work completed by May 1, 2014. Richard Ristow seconded. Motion Passed 5 in favor. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 Dr. Barbara Blumenfield made a motion to APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 2013. Blaise Di Pronio seconded. Motion Passed 6 in favor. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ADJOURN Aaron Robertson made a motion to ADJOURN at 6:58 PM. Henry Schneiker seconded. Motion Passed 6 in favor. Respectfully submitted, Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary