Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals Packet - 5/26/2016 CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA May 26, 2016 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 #01-2016 Petitioner: Howard & Raemarie Schmidt Property: W187 S7160 Gold Drive / Tax Key No. 2175.996 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 50-feet is required from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of Little Muskego Lake on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks offsets of 28.37-feet (on the south) and 33.55-feet (on the north) from the OHWM of Little Muskego Lake for a new detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 21.63-foot variance (on the south) and a 16.45-foot variance (on the north) from the required OHWM offset. 2. APPEAL #02-2016 Petitioner: Tom & Jennifer Sauer Property: S70 W19053 Wetland Drive / Tax Key No. 2180.954 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 Wentland Drive right-of-way line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 19.6-feet from the right-of-way line for a new front porch with steps, and is therefore requesting a 20.4-foot variance from the required right-of-way setback. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 27, 2015 MEETING 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 # 01-2016 ZBA 5-26-2016 Page 1 of 2 City of Muskego City Representative Brief Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 01-2016 For the meeting of: May 26, 2016 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: Howard & Raemarie Schmidt LOCATION: W 187 S7160 Gold Drive / Tax Key No. 2175.996 CITY’S POSITION PRESENTED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski AICP, City Representative BACKGROUND The petitioner is proposing to construct a 22’ x 24’ detached garage on the property that they currently own. There currently is not a garage on this property. The property is located on an island on Little Muskego Lake. Access to the island is gained via Gold Drive and then a bridge. There currently is a home and a boathouse on the island. The boathouse previously received some variances. The property is zoned RL-3 Lakeshore Residence District and SW Shoreland Wetland District. The proposed garage location is within the RL-3 zoned portion of the lot. The petitioner is seeking the following variance: An exception to the required offset from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) for allowance of a detached garage. An offset of 50-feet is required from the OHWM of Little Muskego Lake on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks offsets of 28.37-feet (on the south) and 33.55-feet (on the north) from the OHWM of Little Muskego Lake for a new detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 21.63-foot variance (on the south) and a 16.45-foot variance (on the north) from the required OHWM offset. 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 boat house on the property is supposed to be used for boating and boating related uses. Also, the garage that is being proposed is of a typical size (not excessive in size) for most properties in Muskego. It is fairly rare to see a property in Muskego that does not have some type of garage. Homes are typically afforded a garage of some type. Additionally, the petitioner has worked to try to place the garage on other locations of the lot and even on the entry portion of the lot immediately off of Gold Drive, before the bridge to the island. The other parts of the island are even narrower and/or encumbered by wetland. The land portion of the lot, off Gold Drive, could possibly facilitate a smaller garage, but that would place the garage over 800 feet down the driveway from the actual house. Appeal # 01-2016 ZBA 5-26-2016 Page 2 of 2 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, their lot being an island with water on all sides (which has an increased offset requirement), the shape/narrowness of the lot, and the wetland locations on other locations of the lot. 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 01-2016 as proposed, allowing a 22’ x 24’ detached garage with a 28.37-foot offset (on the south), a 21.63-foot variance from the OHWM, and a 33.55-foot offset (on the north) a 16.45-foot variance from the OHWM ; citing that all other practical options have been explored and this option seems to be the most practical for this lot due to the lake offsets and the shape/narrowness of the lot. Also, a homeowner should not be expected to walk over 800 feet if the garage was located right off of Gold Drive. The proposed garage is typical in size and most homes are typically afforded a garage of some type. MUSK EG Othe City of Ar ea o f Inte restI0190380 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 01 -20 16 Ho wa rd a nd R ae mar ie Sch midt W1 87 S71 60 G old Dr 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 : 5 /2 0/2 0 16 Appeal # 02-2016 ZBA 5-26-2016 Page 1 of 3 City of Muskego City Representative Brief Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 02-2016 For the meeting of: May 26, 2016 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: Tom & Jennifer Sauer LOCATION: S70 W19053 Wentland Drive / Tax Key No. 2180.954 CITY’S POSITION PRESENTED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski AICP, City Representative BACKGROUND The petitioner recently received a permit to remodel their home. As part of the remodel the owners planned on removing a deck that existed by the front door. They believed there was an existing stoop under the deck that they were going to use for access. Once the deck was removed it was realized that there was not a stoop or a footing under the old deck. Once a structure, such as a deck or stoop, is removed it cannot be re-built unless it is compliant with the code requirements, including its location. The applicant started talking with staff about his options. It was determined that given the existing placement of the home that a variance would be necessary if they wanted to have access to the front door. The petitioner is now requesting a variance to be allowed to build a new deck/porch and stairs to access the front door. The porch is proposed to be 10-feet wide and 4-feet deep with stairs going straight off the front towards the street 2.17-feet. The lot currently contains a home, a shed, and a detached garage. The parcel is zoned ERS-3, Existing Suburban Residence District. The property is located on Wentland Drive. The petitioner is seeking the following variance: An exception to the required setback from the front right-of-way line for allowance of a front deck/porch. A setback of 29.4-feet is required from the Wentland Drive right-of-way line on the above mentioned lot. This setback is based on the average setback of the two adjacent properties. The petitioner seeks a setback of 19.6-feet from the right-of-way line for a new front porch with steps, and is therefore requesting a 9.8-foot variance from the required right-of-way setback. Note – The public hearing notice and agenda lists the required setback as 40-feet, which would require a variance of 20.4-feet. The average setback of the neighboring properties has since been provided. Thus, the average neighboring setback of 29.4-feet is now allowed to be used as the front setback. This still requires a variance, but it is less of a variance. Appeal # 02-2016 ZBA 5-26-2016 Page 2 of 3 DISCUSSION It is understandable that access to the front door is necessary for it to be usable. The question lies with the size of the proposed deck/porch and the stair location. Per the City’s Building Inspector, the current codes require a 3 foot deep landing (in the direction of travel). The current proposed deck/porch is four- feet deep and 10-feet wide with stairs going straight off the front towards the street 2.17-feet. This proposed deck/porch is larger than is necessary for egress out of the home. A deck/porch of only 3-feet is required for egress. Per the Building Code, this is determined a safe minimal size. Also, the stairs could go off the side of the deck/porch towards the driveway. These two slight alterations would then be the least variance necessary while meeting the building code’s requirements. In any circumstance, some type of variance is needed due to the building code requirements and the need for ingress/egress in and out of the home. The question then is what is the “least variance possible”? The owner has stated that the reason that they are not pursuing a request for the least variance is due to them wanting more space to maneuver and so that it would work better with their future landscape plans . They stated that they feel it would be safer if it is larger. These are a “self-imposed hardship” and it is a “circumstances of the applicant”, which are not grounds for a variance per Zoning Case Law (see item #1 below). Only 3-feet of landing is required by code, which is based on safety. 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 wanting it a certain size for convenience or a certain configuration for landscaping ease. 2. Zoning Case Law states that “nearby violations”, even if similar to the request at hand, are not grounds for granting a variance. 3. Zoning Case Law states that “lack of objections from neighbors does not provide grounds for granting a variance.” 4. 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 that meet the Building Code requirements that do not require as large of a variance. This includes a 3 foot deep landing with side stairs leading to grade. This option still needs a variance, but the least variance possible. 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: Denial of Appeal 02-2016 as proposed, allowing a front deck/porch with a 19.6-foot setback, a 9.8- foot variance from the right-of-way line; citing that a deck/porch can be built with a three-foot landing with stairs to the side towards the driveway, which meets the Building Code requirements. The hardships stated are self-imposed/self-created and not the least variance necessary. 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 to build a three foot deck/porch (landing) with the necessary stairs to grade off the side of the deck/porch towards the driveway. This meets the Zoning Case Law requirements of the least variance possible, while still Appeal # 02-2016 ZBA 5-26-2016 Page 3 of 3 providing proper access to the front door that meets the Build ing Code requirements. This would then leave a setback of 22.8-feet, which is a 6.6-foot variance. MUSK EG Othe City of Ar ea o f Inte restI04080 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 02 -20 16 To m & Jen nifer Sa uer S7 0 W 190 53 W en tla nd 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 : 5 /2 0/2 0 16 Unapproved CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES August 27, 2015 6:00 PM Muskego City Hall, Muskego Room, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER Chairman Barb 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, Mr. Robertson, Mr. LeDoux, Mr. Ristow and Planner Trzebiatowski. Absent: Dr. Kashian, Vice Chairman Schneiker, and Mr. Petfalski 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 #02-2015 Petitioner: Bruce Lindl Property: W156 S7471 Martin Court / Tax Key No. 2197.197 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 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. The minimum open space allowed on this property is 13,783 square feet (75% of the 18,377 square foot lot). The appellant is proposing to remove and replace an existing rear patio, which results in the minimum open space regulation on the property being exceeded which requires a variance to the Code requirement. Butch LeDoux made a motion to approve Appeal #02-2015 as submitted. Aaron Robertson seconded. Motion Failed 2 in favor 2 opposed. Butch LeDoux made a motion to bring Appeal #02-2015 back for further discussion. Richard Ristow seconded. Motion Passed 4 in favor. Butch LeDoux made a motion to Approve Appeal #02-2015 with an amendment to allow the patio to remain the same size as the existing patio with the outermost foot be pavers or open space. Richard Ristow seconded. Motion Passed 4 in favor. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM JUNE 26, 2014 AND JULY 23, 2015 Aaron Robertson made a motion to approve the minutes of June 26, 2014. Richard Ristow seconded. Motion Passed 4 in favor. Dr. Barbara Blumenfield made a motion to approve the minutes of July 23, 2015. Butch LeDoux seconded. Motion Passed 4 in favor. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ADJOURN Butch LeDoux made a motion to adjourn at 7:22 PM. Aaron Robertson seconded. Motion Passed 4 in favor. Respectfully submitted, Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary