Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals Packet - 6/26/2014 CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA June 26, 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 #05-2014 Petitioner: Glenn Byal & Connie Krickeberg Property: S79 W16061 Bay Lane Place / Tax Key No. 2217.989 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. A setback of 25-feet is required from the Bay Lane Place right-of-way line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 10.7-feet from the right-of-way line for a new detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 14.3 foot variance from the required right of way setback. And, An offset of 6.7-feet is required from the side (north) lot line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks an offset of 5-feet from the side lot line for a new detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 1.7-foot variance from the required side offset. And, An offset of 10-feet is required from the side (west) lot line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks an offset of 7-feet from the side lot line for a new detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 3-foot variance from the required side offset. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM APRIL 24, 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 # 05-2014 ZBA 6-26-2014 Page 1 of 3 City of Muskego City Representative Brief Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 05-2014 For the meeting of: June 26, 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: Glenn Byal & Connie Krickeberg LOCATION: S79 W16061 Bay Lane Place / Tax Key No. 2217.989 CITY’S POSITION PRESENTED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski AICP, City Representative BACKGROUND When the petitioners were looking at buying this home/property they talked with the City about the possibility of being able to build a garage on the lot. At that time the City showed the petitioners the FEMA floodplain maps, which showed that the entire lot was located within the floodway portion of the 100 year floodplain (also known as the 1% annual chance floodplain). The floodway is the most highly regulated portion of the floodplain since there is the highest risk to life and property in this area. The floodway portion of the floodplain could contain a rushing current of water in a flood event. Accessory str uctures are not allowed within the floodway. The owners were told that this meant that they may never be allowed an accessory structure on this property. The owners went forward with purchasing this home knowing this. After they purchased the home the petitioner hired a surveyor to look at the exact floodplain elevations/location more closely. These surveying efforts revealed that there were a few slightly higher areas on the lot that were not actually within the floodplain. With this discovery, the owners are now looking to try to build a detached garage on their property in one of the non-floodplain areas. The non- floodplain areas can be allowed accessory structures as long as they remain completely out of the floodplain. Currently their property contains a home with no basement. The property is located at the east end of Bay Lane Place along Quietwood Creek (to the east) and Bass Bay (to the south). The petitioner is seeking the following variances: 1. An exception to the required 25-foot setback from the right-of-way line of Bay Lane Place for construction of a detached garage on their property. A setback of 25-feet is required from the Bay Lane Place right-of-way line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 10.7-feet from the right-of-way line for a new detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 14.3-foot variance from the required right-of- way setback. And, 2. An exception to the required 6.7-foot offset from the north side lot line for construction of a detached garage on their property. Appeal # 05-2014 ZBA 6-26-2014 Page 2 of 3 An offset of 6.7-feet is required from the side (north) lot line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks an offset of 5-feet from the side lot line for a new detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 1.7-foot variance from the required side offset. And, 3. An exception to the required 10-foot offset from the west side lot line for construction of a detached garage on their property. An offset of 10-feet is required from the side (west) lot line on the above mentioned lot. T he petitioner seeks an offset of 7-feet from the side lot line for a new detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 3-foot variance from the required side offset. DISCUSSION In general, the City does agree there is a benefit for this lot to have an accessory structure of some type since there is no other enclosed storage on the lot and since the existing house does not have a basement for storage. This is something most properties in the City are aff orded. The questions that the City is raising, after looking at all available options, is whether the proposed detached garage is planned at a size that is useful, while requiring the least variance possible. The proposed garage measures 28’ x 22’ in size (616 SF). The proposal includes an 18’ wide overhead door. That leaves about 5 feet on each side of the door for storage. Also, this garage is proposed with a storage type truss that will allow for storage within the within roof area, above the main garage floor. Based on the all of the elements of this variance request, including zoning law and case law, the City is suggesting that the garage be reduced in size as to limit the number of required variances from three to one and to limit the amount of the one needed variance. The garage could be reduced in size to 20.3’ x 25’, which is within the range of two-car garage sizes. This still leaves at least 3.5 feet of storage on each side of the door for storage, plus the truss storage area above. As is noted above there are three separate variances that are part of this request. No. 1 relates to the setback from the Bay Lane Place right-of-way, No. 2 relates to the offset from the northern lot line, and No. 3 relates to the offset from the western lot line. Each of these is discussed separately below and each should be voted on separately. 1. Based upon the submitted information, the City believes there is a valid hardship for some type of variance from the required setback from the Bay Lane Place right-of-way, but not a hardship enough to warrant a 14.3-foot variance. Even with modifications to the size of the garage, there will always be a variance of some type required if a garage is to be built in this area of the lot. With this in mind, zoning law requires that only the least variance should be granted by the board, assuming a hardship can be found. In this case the garage could be modified in size as noted above. With these reductions in size the needed variance from the right-of-way would be reduced, which would make the proposal more compliant and would be the least variance possible, as required by zoning law. 2. Based upon the submitted information, the City does not believe there is a valid hardship for a variance from the northern lot line. The garage can easily be modified in size to a depth of 20.3’ (20’-3½”). With this modification, no variance would be required from the northern lot line. 3. Based upon the submitted information, the City does not believe there is a valid hardship for a variance from the western lot line. The garage can easily be modified in size to a width of 25’. With this modification, no variance would be required from the northern lot line. The petitioner has stated a few reasons for their variance request in their submittal. The petitioner’s submitted hardships include not having a basement or accessory structure for needed storage, constraints of the floodplain location and easement location, and their desire to house their lake use items. Appeal # 05-2014 ZBA 6-26-2014 Page 3 of 3 The City received one letter from the neighbor directly to the north of this property and the proposed garage. In the letter the neighbor states that they have some concerns with the garage relating to their view, the value of their home, and effects on drainage and lack of sun light towards their lot. The neighbor also states that while they are not opposed to a garage, they are asking for a smaller footprint and reduced height. The letter is included after this supplement for your review. Here is a summary of the variance standards that are applicable to this case (and noted above): 1. Zoning Case Law states that “self-imposed hardships” and “circumstances of the applicant” are not grounds for granting a variance, such as need space for their lake equipment, needing a certain amount of storage area, and/or the size of their current vehicles. All of these noted items can vary with different owners and different situations. With the suggested reduced garage size, the owner would still have storage space next to the vehicles and in the storage above. The question is what on the lot requires a garage to be 28’ x 22’ in size? 2. Zoning Case Law states that the Board may only grant the minimum variance needed, if they are even going to grant any variance. In a case like this, the board should look at what is the least variance that would relieve unnecessary burdens. There are other options, as noted above and suggested by the City, that do not require such a large variance or as many variances while still providing storage. The City’s recommendations will only need one variance (down from three) and will be the least variance possible. Lastly, upon a site inspection it was noticed that there were two temporary tent type accessory structures on this lot. These structures have not been approved by the City, which is required. They are also located within the floodway areas, which is not allowable per the Floodplain Zoning Ordinance. As such, these two temporary tent type structures need to be removed from the property. There may be the possibility that one of the temporary structures may be allowed temporarily on the property if it is relocated outside of any floodplain areas, with proper City permits. In either case, one of the above noted actions must be completed within ten (10) days from the date of the Zoning Boards decision in this case. 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 purpos e 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 05-2014, Variance #1 with the modification that the garage be reduced in size to 25’ x 20.3’, allowing a detached garage with a reduced right-of-way setback; citing that this option is the least variance possible while still meeting the storage needs of a typical property. Denial of Appeal 05-2014, Variance #2 as proposed, allowing a detached garage with a 5-foot offset, a 1.7-foot variance from the north lot line; citing that slight modifications to the garage size would not require any variance. A garage with a depth of 20.3 feet can be built without any variance while still meeting storage needs of a typical property. The hardships for a larger garage stated are self-imposed/self-created. Denial of Appeal 05-2014, Variance #3 as proposed, allowing a detached garage with a 7-foot offset, a 3-foot variance from the west lot line; citing that slight modifications to the garage size would not require any variance. A garage with a width of 25 feet can be built without any variance while still meeting storage needs of a typical property. The hardships for a larger garage stated are self-imposed/self-created. MUSK EG Othe City of Ar ea o f Inte restI0110220 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 05 -20 14 Bya l/Kr ick eb er g S7 9 W 160 61 Ba y L ane Pla ce 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 : 6 /2 0/2 0 14 Unapproved CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES April 24, 2014 6:00 PM Muskego City Hall, Muskego Room, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dr. Barb Blumenfield called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Dr. Barb Blumenfield, Dr. Russ Kashian, Butch LeDoux, Richard Ristow, and Planner Adam Trzebiatowski. Absent: Henry Schneiker, Aaron Robertson and Rick Petfalski STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE The meeting was noticed in accordance with the open meeting laws on April 17, 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 #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. Mr. LeDoux swore in Planner Adam Trzebiatowski (City Staff) and Marc and Terri Collins (S701 W18861 Gold Drive). Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City's opinion based on the Zoning Code and is recommending approval for the stoop and walkway from the driveway to the stoop and denial of the walkway to the backyard. The petitioner, Marc Collins, was present and explained the house was not designed with a stoop or walkway for access to the entry door or backyard. Mr. Collins added his neighbor has large trees planted along the lot line which will make it difficult to grow grass in this area, and he has concerns that mud will make it unsafe to walk to the backyard. A path on the other side of the house would not be possible due to the closeness to the lot line. Mr. Collins stated the narrowness of the lot and the safety concerns of no path to walk on are the hardships for this property. Deliberations:03-2014 #1- Stoop - Dr. Blumenfield stated she supports approving this appeal for the stoop giving the homeowners the ability to use the doors to the house and garage. Mr. LeDoux agreed and noted the hardship is the narrowness of the lot. Deliberations: 03-2014 #2 Walkway - Mr. LeDoux stated the owners should be able to walk to the doors and the backyard safely. The hardship is the narrowness of the lot and safely accessing the house and backyard. Dr. Blumenfield agreed and explained the walk from the front driveway to the house and garage doors should be allowed and because the lot is so narrow for safety reasons the walkway to the backyard should be allowed also. 03- 2014 #1 -Stoop Butch LeDoux made a motion to approve #1 -Stoop. Dr. Russ Kashian seconded. Motion Passed 4 in favor. 03- 2014 #2 - Walkway Butch LeDoux made a motion to approve #2 - Walkway. Dr. Barbara Blumenfield seconded. Motion Passed 4 in favor. 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. Planner Trzebiatowski game the City's opinion based on the zoning code. Staff is recommending denial of this appeal; citing that the code does not require a certain sized garage and there is already a garage on this property. The petitioner, Joan Groh, was present and explained there have been several incidents over the past two years such as damage from tree limbs, weather damage, and theft that is the reason for needing a two car garage. Ms. Groh added she has looked at several different options and this is the least invasive. Ms. Groh noted that she is currently over the open space requirement, but is willing to remove what is need to come into compliance. Deliberations: Mr. LeDoux stated the narrowness of the lot is a hardship. A two car garage is reasonable for storage and to enter and exit the house. Mr. LeDoux added it is more appealing for the neighborhood to have the cars parked in the garage instead of outside. Dr. Blumenfield explained this house was built in the 1940s and having only one car garage isn't relevant today for personal safety and weather conditions. Dr. Kashian added that garages are important and agrees with the concept a garage should be allowed, but questioned what size should be acceptable when there is already an existing garage. Butch LeDoux made a motion to approve Appeal #04-2014 as submitted. Richard Ristow seconded. Motion Passed 3 in favor 1 opposed. Dr. Kashian voted no. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 27, 2014. Dr. Barbara Blumenfield made a motion to approve the minutes of February 27, 2014. Butch LeDoux seconded. Motion Passed 4 in favor. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ADJOURN Dr. Russ Kashian made a motion to adjourn at 7:00 PM. Richard Ristow seconded. Motion Passed 4 in favor. Respectfully submitted, Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary