Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals Packet - 4/24/2014 CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA April 24, 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 #03-2014 Petitioner: Marc & Teri Collins Property: S70 W18861 Gold Drive / Tax Key No. 2180.940 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 15.05 (9) Walks, drives, paved terraces, mechanical appurtenances for all single-family and two-family structures (such as air conditioners, venting, and service panels), and purely decorative garden accessories (such as pools, fountains, statuary, flag poles, etc.), where subject to “permanent structure” classification shall be permitted in setback and offset areas but not closer than 3 feet to an abutting property line other than a street line. An offset of 3-feet is required from the side lot line on the above mentioned lot for concrete stoops/paved terraces. The petitioner seeks an offset of 1.5-feet from the side lot line for the construction of a concrete stoop for access into their home, and is therefore requesting a 1.5-foot variance from the required 3-foot side offset. And, An offset of 3-feet is required from the side lot line on the above mentioned lot for walkways. The petitioner seeks an offset of 1.5-feet from the side lot line for the construction of a walkway along the side of their home, and is therefore requesting a 1.5-foot variance from the required 3-foot side offset. 2. APPEAL #04-2014 Petitioner: Joan Groh Property: S66 W18527 Jewel Crest Drive / Tax Key No. 2174.070 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 8.3-feet is required from the side (west) lot line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks an offset of 2.67-feet from the side lot line for an attached garage addition/expansion, and is therefore requesting a 5.63-foot variance from the required side offset. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 27, 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 # 03-2014 ZBA 4-24-2014 Page 1 of 2 City of Muskego City Representative Brief Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 03-2014 For the meeting of: April 24, 2014 REQUESTING: 1. Under the direction of Chapter 17 - Zoning Ordinance: Section 15.05 (9) Walks, drives, paved terraces, mechanical appurtenances for all single-family and two- family structures (such as air conditioners, venting, and service panels), and purely decorative garden accessories (such as pools, fountains, statuary, flag poles, etc.), where subject to “permanent structure” classification shall be permitted in setback and offset areas but not closer than 3 feet to an abutting property line other than a street line. APPELLANT: Marc & Teri Collins LOCATION: S70 W 18861 Gold Drive / Tax Key No. 2180.940 CITY’S POSITION PRESENTED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski AICP, City Representative BACKGROUND The petitioners recently had a new home built on Gold Drive on a 30 foot wide lot. As part of the home design and approval process, there was not a plan established on how the east side entry doors were going to be accessed. There is the main door into the house on this side, along with an access door to the garage. The petitioner is now proposing to add a concrete stoop/paved terrace along the east side of the home so that they can gain access into their home through their main exterior entrance and gain access into their side pedestrian garage door. The only current access into the home is through the garage itself or through the rear patio doors that face the lake, which is located behind their home. The lot currently contains a home and no accessory structures. The parcel is zoned RL-3, Lakeshore Residence District. The property is located on Gold Drive on Little Muskego Lake. The petitioner is seeking the following variances: 1. An exception to the required 3-foot offset from the east side lot line for allowance of a concrete stoop/paved terrace for access on the east side of the home. An offset of 3-feet is required from the side lot line on the above mentioned lot for concrete stoops/paved terraces. The petitioner seeks an offset of 1.5-feet from the side lot line for the construction of a concrete stoop for access into their home, and is therefore requesting a 1.5-foot variance from the required 3-foot side offset. AND, 2. An exception to the required 3-foot offset from the east side lot line for allowance of a walkway/sidewalk along the eastside of the home. An offset of 3-feet is required from the side lot line on the above mentioned lot for walkways. The petitioner seeks an offset of 1.5-feet from the side lot line for the construction of a walkway along the side of their home, and is therefore requesting a 1.5-foot variance from the required 3-foot side offset. Appeal # 03-2014 ZBA 4-24-2014 Page 2 of 2 DISCUSSION As is noted above there are two separate variances that are part of this request. No. 1 relates to the stoop and No. 2 relates to the walkway/sidewalk. Each of these is discussed separately below. 1. Based upon the submitted information, staff believes there is a valid hardship for the location of the concrete stoop along the east side of the home. There currently is no legal or safe access in and out of the home, other than through the garage or through the rear patio door. The Building Code requires a landing of at least 3 feet outside of this entry door. As such the proposed stoop will meet that code requirements. Since the designers of this home did not take access into the main entry into consideration, this is the best option that gains access to the home. The petitioner has stated a few reasons for their variance request in their submittal. The petitioner’s submitted hardships include not having access into their home and the narrowness of the lot. 2. Based upon the submitted information, staff believes there is a valid hardship for the walkway from the driveway to the stoop, but not from the stoop to the backyard. For access from the driveway to the stoop/main entry door, it is practical to have a hard surface for safe passage, especially in times of poor weather. This would be looked at as accesso ry to the stoop. Relating to a walkway from the stoop to the rear yard, there is no reason why this surface would be required. It is understandable that this may be preferred, but there is no requirement of such and there are homes all over that access their rear yard via the lawn surface. The petitioner has stated a few reasons for their variance request in their submittal. The petitioner’s submitted hardships include their concern of not having safe rear yard access without the walkway, the narrowness of the lot, and the unattractiveness of the walkway at a narrower width and snaking around the gas meter. The narrowness of the lot is something beyond the control of the owners, but the other items noted are the owner’s opinions. As was noted above, there are no requirements for walkways to rear yards of homes. 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 03-2014, Variance #1 as proposed, allowing a concrete stoop along the side of the home with a 1.5-foot offset, a 1.5-foot variance from the east side lot 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 need to meet Building Code egress/access requirements and due to the limited space between this home and the side lot line. The proposal is minimal in size and it provides legal egress into the main entry of the home. Approval of Appeal 03-2014, Variance #2 with the modification that the walkway from the driveway to the stoop only be allowed, allowing a walkway with a 1.5 -foot offset, a 1.5-foot variance from the east side lot line; citing that access is needed to the main entrance, which is on the east side of their home, from their driveway. There are no other options that achieve this need. Relating to the walkway from the stoop to the rear yard, there is no re quirement that this area needs a walkways surface. There are homes that access their rear yard through the lawn, as cou ld be done in this case. MUSK EG Othe City of Ar ea o f Inte rest 0 90 180 Fee t Ag en da Item(s) Pr op er tie s Zon in g D istr ic ts Rig ht -o f-Way Hy dr og rap hy Supp lem ental MapAppeal #PC 00 3-201 4 Mar c & Ter i Co llin s S7 0 W 188 61 G old Drive 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 LL EG E Pre p ar ed b y C ity o f Mu ske g o P la n n in g D e p ar tm e nt Da te : 4 /1 7/2 0 14 Appeal # 04-2014 ZBA 4-24-2014 Page 1 of 2 City of Muskego City Representative Brief Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 04-2014 For the meeting of: April 24, 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: Joan Groh LOCATION: S66 W 18527 Jewel Crest Drive / Tax Key No. 2174.070 CITY’S POSITION PRESENTED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski AICP, City Representative BACKGROUND The petitioner is proposing to add-on to their existing one-car garage to make it a two-car garage. The addition is proposed to add about 5.13-feet onto the west side of the existing garage. The current garage is 14.89-feet wide, and with the proposed addition, the garage would then be 20-feet wide. The lot currently contains a home and a shed in the backyard. 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 offset from the side lot line for allowance of a 5.13-foot garage addition. An offset of 8.3-feet is required from the side (west) lot line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks an offset of 2.67-feet from the side lot line for an attached garage addition/expansion, and is therefore requesting a 5.63-foot variance from the required side offset. DISCUSSION As noted above, the petitioner would like to add onto their existing attached garage. Currently the garage can only hold one car and the owner would like to expand that so that it can hold two cars. Based upon the submitted information, staff did not find a valid hardship. The City has taken the stance that everyone should be afforded some type of garage, but the question remains at what size. Since there already is a garage on the property, the minimum standard of having some type of garage is currently met. The petitioner has stated that the hardship in this request is that cars are a big investment and they should be protected from bad weather and vandalism. It is also stated that since most people own at least two cars, that a two-car garage is helpful to have. Staff acknowledges that out of the other garage options that have been thought of for this property, this is the option that requires the least variance. This still leaves the question that the code does not require a garage of a certain size. There already is a garage on the property, even though it may be smaller than Appeal # 04-2014 ZBA 4-24-2014 Page 2 of 2 the owner would like. The desire of the owner to have a larger garage is self-created and not unique to this specific lot. One other current issue with this lot is that it currently does not meet the required open space amount with the proposal. This lot is required to keep at least 6,666 SF as open space. With the proposed garage addition, the site only has 6,300 SF remaining as open space. This is 366 SF over the maximum allowed coverage. To address this, the petitioner has stated that as part of the permitting process, if the variance is granted, they would remove the required amount of impervious surfaces to meet the required amount of open space. As part of the removal and/or replacement of the any 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 burdens ome. 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: Denial of Appeal 04-2014 as proposed, allowing a garage addition with a 2.67-foot offset, a 5.63- foot variance from the west side lot line; citing that the code does not require a certain sized garage and there is already a garage on the property. The hardships stated are self-imposed/self- created. MUSK EG Othe City of Ar ea o f Inte restI03060 Fee t Ag en da Item(s) Pr op er tie s Zon in g D istr ic ts Rig ht -o f-Way Hy dr og rap hy Supp lem ental MapAppeal #PC 00 4-201 4 Jo an G roh S6 6 W 185 27 Je we l C re st D r 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 LL EG E Pre p ar ed b y C ity o f Mu ske g o P la n n in g D e p ar tm e nt Da te : 4 /1 7/2 0 14 Unapproved CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES February 27, 2014 6:00 PM Muskego City Hall, Muskego Room, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER Chairman Blumenfield called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Blumenfield, Vice Chairman Schneiker, Mr. LeDoux, Mr. Di Pronio, Planner Trzebiatowski, and Recording Secretary McMullen. Absent: Dr. Kashian, Mr. Ristow, and Mr. Robertson STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE The meeting was noticed in accordance with the open meeting laws on February 24, 2014. 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 #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. Henry Schneiker made a motion to approve Appeal #02-2014 as submitted.Blaise Di Pronio seconded. Motion Passed 4 in favor. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM JANUARY 23, 2014. Henry Schneiker made a motion to approve the minutes of January 23, 2014. Blaise Di Pronio seconded. Motion Passed 4 in favor. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ADJOURN Butch LeDoux made a motion to adjourn at 6:13 pm. Henry Schneiker seconded. Motion Passed 4 in favor. Respectfully submitted, Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary