Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals Packet - 1/26/2017 CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA January 26, 2017 6:00 PM Muskego City Hall, 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 # 01-2017 Petitioner: Ryan Sands of Bray Architects on behalf of the Muskego-Norway School District Property: W191 S6445 Hillendale Drive / Tax Key No. 2177.931 (Mill Valley Elementary School) 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(2)A. – Non-Conforming Structures No such structure shall be expanded or enlarged except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located, unless said expansions or enlargements do not get any closer than their existing distance from any lot line and shall not exceed 50% of the assessed value. The value of the non-conforming Mill Valley Elementary School building is $5,161,216 and the code limits the material costs of expansions to 50% of the current value when buildings that are non-conforming are expanding. The petitioner requests a material value not to exceed 70% of the current building value for expansions to the existing school building, and is therefore requesting a 20% variance over the code required 50% limit on material costs for building expansions. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM JULY 28, 2016. 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 # 01-2017 ZBA 1-26-2017 Page 1 of 4 City of Muskego City Representative Brief Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 01-2017 For the meeting of: January 26, 2017 REQUESTING: 1. Under the direction of Chapter 17 - Zoning Ordinance: Section 6.02(2)A. – Non-Conforming Structures No such structure shall be expanded or enlarged except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located, unless said expansions or enlargements do not get any closer than their existing distance from any lot line and shall not exceed 50% of the assessed value. APPELLANT: Ryan Sands of Bray Architects on behalf of the Muskego-Norway School District LOCATION: W191 S6445 Hillendale Drive / Tax Key No. 2177.931 (Mill Valley Elementary School) CITY’S POSITION PRESENTED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski AICP, City Representative BACKGROUND Over the past few years the Muskego-Norway School District (MNSD) has been evaluating and planning how to address the changing and growing needs of the district’s schools. They have undergone extensive studies and examination of what their needs are and will be and what options there may be to fulfill these needs. In the end, their plan is to close two existing schools, expand/alter others, and to build a new middle school. Mill Valley Elementary was one of the schools that they decided was to be altered and expanded. This plan was then presented to the voters via a public referendum, which was held in April 2016. The referendum passed and as such the district proceeded to develop their specific plans further. As part of their proposal they are demolishing the oldest part of the school, which is two-stories tall. This portion was built around the 1920’s. Due to its age and configuration this portion would be very difficult to remodel. There have been other additions over the years, with the most recent being around 1992. To be fiscally responsible to the taxpayers, the district is choosing to keep the one-story portions of the building as those still can continue to meet the needs to the school and its students with or without alterations. In addition to keeping these one-story portions of the building they are proposing significant additions to the school. The proposed additions total 44,500 SF and that combined with the remaining portion of the school brings the newly proposed total size to 71,800 SF. Early on the existing school building was found to be legal non-conforming due to its current location on the property. The existing building is only 3.1 feet from the side lot line and it should be 20 feet. Also, the front of the building is only 31.3 feet from the front lot line, and it should be at least 40 feet. These non - compliant setback/offsets are what cause the building to be non-conforming. The building is allowed to expand in the non-conforming areas as long as the additions do not get any closer than the existing closest point of the building on those respective sides. Since the building is non-conforming the code limits the total cost of materials that can go into additions/expansions to 50% of the assessed value of the current building. The school is a tax-exempt entity so there is no City assessment available to use as a base value. With that being the case, the district needed to determine an accurate value of the building so that we can then determine what 50% of that would be. That 50% value is then the allowed limit of material costs for any of the expansion areas. The district submitted the cash value determination from their insurance company Appeal # 01-2017 ZBA 1-26-2017 Page 2 of 4 for the purpose of establishing a value which is being used in place of the “assessed value”. This not to be confused with the insurance reconstruction cost, which is not being used. The cash value being used is $5,161,216, which then puts the 50% limit at $2,580,608. That is the maximum material cost allowed per code, without a variance. Once this material cost limit was known the district then started to analyze their possible material costs for their project. Since the project has not been bid out yet they worked with their project/construction manager, CG Schmidt, to determine a best estimate as to what the material costs for the expansions on this project would be. CG Schmidt examined six school projects that they were involved with over the past five years to get an average percentage of the total project costs that were for materials only. The average percentage for material costs was 27% throughout these other projects. The actual percentages of material cost varied between 20%-36% of the total project costs. With that being the case the district took the most recent cost estimate for the project, taking the new addition only into consideration, which is $8,834,000, and determined that 27% of that is $2,385,180. This number is $195,428 below the 50% material cost limit of $2,580,608. Even though this number is below the 50% limit, the district and their project manager are well aware that actual bids and material cost can vary depending on many factors within the construction market. Also, they are aware that they were basing their mater ial value estimates on an average percentage from other past projects. Those other projects have varying percentages which show there could be slightly different costs for their project. The district decided that it needed to take a more conservative approach when looking at estimated material costs to account for project variations and the volatility of the construction/bidding market. As such, the district decided to estimate material costs at 40% of the project total (for the total expansion cost), which comes to $3,533,600. This number is a little less than 70% of the existing structure value being used. As such, the petitioner is seeking the following variance: An exception to the 50% material value limit for expansions to non-conforming structures, more specifically for additions to the existing Mill Valley Elementary School. The value of the non-conforming Mill Valley Elementary School building is $5,161,216 and the code limits the material costs of expansions to 50% of the current value when b uildings that are non-conforming are expanding. The petitioner requests a material value not to exceed 70% of the current building value for expansions to the existing school building, and is therefore requesting a 20% variance over the code required 50% limit on material costs for building expansions. DISCUSSION First off, it is important to note that if this variance is granted, actual material costs must be provided at the time of Building Permit submittal so that staff can insure that the actual material costs will be within the variance that may be approved. If the material costs at that time exceed the allowed maximum, at whatever amount that may be, an additional variance would need to be applied for or the project would need to be adjusted to com ply with the approved material cost limit. Due to the uniqueness of the specifics of this request/project, there are numerous variables that may or may not figure into the variance request. Given these variables we have to use the best information available for the request to determine if a hardship exists in this case. Upon staff review of the file for this property, it appears that there was a previous variance granted in the 1960’s that allowed some of the existing non-conformities to be allowed on the north side of the building, but the file is not very clear as to the merits behind that case. In any case, there are still non-conforming portions of the building that were clearly built before this past variance was granted meaning that the past variance does not have a direct bearing on this variance request. The applicant has stated various reasons for their variance request as follows: Appeal # 01-2017 ZBA 1-26-2017 Page 3 of 4 1. The applicant has stated that the code is unnecessarily burdensome by significantly reducing the ability of the district to utilize their property for the permitted use by expanding their school building because they do not want to abandon the parts of their building that still serve the needs of the students and taxpayers. 2. The applicant has stated that if they are not granted the variance and the material costs exceed the 50% allowance, then the expansion project would not be able to proceed as was approved as part of the public referendum in April 2016. 3. The applicant has stated that the non-conforming status and the 50% material cost limit imposed on this structure does not allow them to come anywhere close to the allowed maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR), which is a hardship based on the allowed size of the expansion within the code allowance. They also state on a smaller residential lot the 50% restriction may not be nearly as burdensome as on a large property such as the school district property. 4. The applicant has stated that due to the nature of an elementary school and our climate, expansions to school buildings need to be additions connected to the existing school building for circulation, limiting travel distances, shared use of common spaces, and the safety and security of the students and staff. Therefore, unlike other zoning uses, construction of separate buildings on the remaining portions of the property is not a viable option for expanding, thereby adding to the burden caused by the non-conforming restriction. 5. The applicant has stated that they considered pursuing a smaller addition but that then would not meet the educational needs of the district as was expected as part of the approval by the public of the referendum in April 2016. 6. The applicant has stated that there are unique physical property characteristics that prevent compliance with the ordinance in that the existing school building, built in the 1920’s, and the subsequent additions allowed the building to get built closer to the existing northern and eastern lot lines, causing the current non-conforming situation. 7. The applicant has stated that the granting of the variance would not be contrary to the public interest since this public project was approved by public vote through the April 2016 referendum. They also state that the northern property line is heavily wooded where the new addition will be located and the portion of the school adjacent to the existing house to the north will remain as is. Lastly, they state that the removal of the oldest part of the school along Hillendale Drive will actually make this side of the building more conforming, even thought it will still remain non- conforming. 8. The applicant has stated that this property and the existing buildings on it are specifically zoned and used as public education institutions. Conformity with the non-conforming 50% material cost restriction would be unnecessarily burdensome and would significantly reduce the ability to utilize their property for the permitted use to expand their existing school building to meet the needs of the students and taxpayers. Here is a summary of the variance standards that are applicable to this case: 1. Using the three-step test which looks at unnecessary hardship, unique property limitations, and no harm to public interest, it appears that these items can be met as follows: a. Unnecessary Hardship – Compliance with the code would render conformity unnecessarily burdensome due to the need for the proposed additions/improvements in their overall workings within the full plans of the school district to address current and future educational and student needs. Also, the removal of the portions of the current school that are still viable and functional is not necessary which would be a burden to require their removal. b. Unique Property Limitations – Portions of the existing building on site have existed and were previously allowed before our current codes were in place. These past decisions have left the current building where it sits today, which is something that is already establishing a location of construction on the site. c. No Harm to Public Interest – The proposal was approved as part of a public referendum in April 2016. That vote shows that the majority of the public is in favor of this project as a whole. This school expansion project helps ensure an efficient public facility and reusing Appeal # 01-2017 ZBA 1-26-2017 Page 4 of 4 portions of the existing school that are still functioning encourage efficient use of public funds, which all lend themselves to not harming the public interest. 2. The only item that staff sees could be a question in this request is that the Board may only grant the minimum variance needed, if they are going to grant a variance. In a case like this, the board should look at what is the least variance that would relieve unnecessary burdens. This is very difficult to examine in a project such as this since there are some variations in costs at this point due to averages having to be used to determine costs. This is something that the board can think about and discuss. In the end, since this is a taxpayer funded project, we’d expect that costs will be kept to a minimum since the taxpayers will be watching over the projects to help ensure their money is put to practical use. Please see the applicant’s full submittal for full details on their request. 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 App eals 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 01-2017, allowing the material costs for the expansions to the school to not exceed 70% of the current value, a 20% variance from the code required 50% material cost limit for non-conforming structures; citing that compliance with the 50% material cost limit is unnecessarily burdensome and creates an unnecessary hardship, there are unique property limitations due to existing building placement and trying to maximize efficient reuse of portions of the existing building, and there being no harm to public interest as the public voted for these improvements as a whole as part of the April 2016 referendum. Note – If a variance is granted, actual material costs must still be provided at the time of Building Permit submittal so that staff can insure that the actual material costs will be within the variance that may be approved. If the material costs at that time exceed the allowed maximum, at whatever amount that may be, an additional variance would need to be applied for or the project would need to be adjusted to comply with the approved material cost limit. MUSK EG Othe Ci ty of Ar ea o f Inte restI0410820 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 17 Muske go N or w ay Scho ol D istric t (Mill Valley Sch oo l)S8 7 W 187 63 W oo ds R o ad 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 : 1 /1 9/2 0 17 Unapproved CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES July 28, 2016 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 President Schneiker, Mr. LeDoux, Mr. Ristow, and Mr. Petfalski Absent: Dr. Kashian and Mr. Robertson STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE The meeting was noticed in accordance with the open meeting laws on July 25, 2016. 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 #03-2016 Petitioner: Renee Bowerman on behalf of Edith Koehn Property: S71 W19446 Hillview Drive / Tax Key No. 2189.996 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. A setback of 38.4-feet is required from the Hillview Drive right-of-way line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 36.2-feet from the right-of-way line for a new front porch with steps, and is therefore requesting a 2.2-foot variance from the required right- of -way setback. Vice Chairman Schneiker swore in the following: Adam Trzebiatowski - City Staff Renee Bowerman - 3961 Woodridge Court, Colgate – Ms. Bowerman explained that Edith Koehn is her grandmother. The front door was never put in when the house was built in the 1950s due to a need for space inside the home. A second access is needed now due to home insurance and for convenience and safety. While planning for the porch, they learned the porch would be located within the setback. They are requesting a 5’x8’ porch with the stairs going to the east towards the driveway. Ron Bohrer - W124 S3325 County E, Dousman - The second access is needed for safety because in winter the main access now gets frozen shut with snow and ice. Linda Boehm - S71 W19494 Hillview Drive - Good friend and neighbor and would love to Mrs. Koehn have a porch. Dennis Boehm - S71 W19494 Hillview Drive - Neighbor and would like to see Mrs. Koehn have a porch where she can sit outside. Gerogia Hainer - S71 W19483 Hillview Drive - Neighbor and would like to see Ms. Koehn have a porch. Mr. Trzebiatowski explained the petitioner is requesting to build a 5' x 8' front deck/porch with stairs. There is only one access to the building and was always the intent to have a second access as the door is framed in for it. The property is allowed a reduction in the setback because the neighbor's houses are closer to the setback also. They would need a variance of 2.2 feet from the right of way lot line. Staff does see that some type of access is necessary and two options for the least possible variance would be moving the stairs to the west and allowing a 3- foot landing. Mr. Trzebiatowski also noted that three emails were received. Two are from Mrs. Koehn's neighbors and one from the Alderman of the district. All saying they are in favor of the porch/deck being approved. Rick Petfalski made a motion to allow a variance of 3.2 feet. Butch Le Doux seconded. Mr. Trzebiatowski explained the Board cannot give more than the petitioner is requesting and what was noticed legally. They would need to resubmit the appeal. Rick Petfalski withdrew his motion. Butch Le Doux withdrew his seconded. The petitioners stated they would be happy with the appeal being approved for a 5' x 8' porch/deck as submitted. Chariman Blumenfield explained the hardship she is basing her approval on is the small lot size, the location of the house, and the need for ingress/egress especially for emergency equipment. Rick Petfalski made a motion to approve as submitted. Butch LeDoux seconded. Appeal 03-2016 was approved 5-0. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 27, 2015 AND MAY 26, 2016 MEETING. Henry Schneiker made a motion to approve the minutes from the August 27, 2015 and May 26, 2016 meeting. Rick Petfalski seconded. Motion Passed 5 in favor. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ADJOURN Rick Petfalski made a motion to adjourn at 6:45 PM. Butch Le Doux seconded. Motion Passed 5 in favor. Respectfully submitted, Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary