Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals Packet - 2/23/2017 CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA February 23, 2017 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 # 02-2017 Petitioner: Jay Bollman on behalf of Scott Bowser Property: W192 S7332 Bayshore Drive / Tax Key No. 2189.123 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 5.02 - 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 Bayshore Drive right-of-way line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 36-feet from the right-of-way line for a new detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 4-foot variance from the required right-of-way setback. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM JANUARY 26, 2017. 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 # 02-2017 ZBA 2-23-2017 Page 1 of 2 City of Muskego City Representative Brief Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 02-2017 For the meeting of: February 23, 2017 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: Jay Bollman/Jerry Kozy on behalf of Scott Bowser LOCATION: W192 S7332 Bayshore Drive / Tax Key No. 2189.123 CITY’S POSITION PRESENTED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski AICP, City Representative BACKGROUND The petitioner is proposing to construct a detached garage on their property. The home on the lot currently contains a small attached garage. Due to its small size it is not functional for a car and as such it is being used as a sewing room . This then leaves the property with no functional garage at this time. The newly proposed detached garage measures 22’ x 24’ (528 SF) in size. The parcel is zoned RS-2, Suburban Residence District. The property is located on Bayshore Drive. The petitioner is seeking the following variance: An exception to the required setback from the front right-of-way line for the construction of a new detached garage. A setback of 40-feet is required from the Bayshore Drive right-of-way line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 36-feet from the right-of-way line for a new detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 4-foot variance from the required right-of-way setback. DISCUSSION The Zoning Board of Appeals has taken the stance in the past that every single-family should be afforded some type of garage, but the questions typically relate to what size and location. The petitioner is proposing the garage on the south side of their house. The petitioner has stated that they have explored numerous options on how to get a garage on this site including attaching it to either side of the house, placing it in the backyard of the property, and trying to push it as far back on the property as possible between the house and sewer lateral. Examples of these other options are included in the submittal packet. The applicant believes that the proposed location they decided on is the least variance possible to get a functional garage on this property. The petitioner has stated that the hardships for this request are as follows: 1. The location of the sewer lateral and sewer clean-out. 2. The steep grade changes on this lot. Appeal # 02-2017 ZBA 2-23-2017 Page 2 of 2 3. The appearance of the garage setback seeming further from the road edge due to the curve of the road. Staff acknowledges that out of all of the other garage options that have been thought of for this property, this option seems to be the most practical and the proposed garage size is not excessive in nature. This location keeps an appropriate separation between the house and a safe distance from the sewer lateral for construction. 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 some type of enclosed garage space on a residential property in this climate. It would be unnecessarily burdensome to have an extremely steep driveway, an attached garage in an inappropriate location, and having to excavate too close to the sewer lateral and/or house foundation. b. Unique Property Limitations – Portions of the property contain existing steep slopes and the existing sewer lateral location limits the ability to build on other portions of the lot. c. No Harm to Public Interest – As of this time the City has not heard any opposition to this request from the public or neighbors. The proposed location is fairly close to the home so we do not expect there to be any neighbor impacts. 2. The only item that staff sees could be a question in this request is 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. While the question could come up if the building could be located closer to the house and/or closer to the sewer lateral, given the amount of excavation that already needs to occur due to the existing grade changes, pushing them any closer to these features could be very difficult and could have a potential impact on these other features. 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 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 02-2017 as proposed, allowing a detached garage with a 36-foot setback, a 4- foot variance from the right-of-way line, citing that compliance with the 40-foot setback on this lot is unnecessarily burdensome and creates an unnecessary hardship, there are unique property limitations due to existing topography, the house location, and sewer lateral location, and there being no harm to public interest as the location of the garage is not near any neighboring properties and the City has not heard of any issues/concerns from the public. MUSK EG Othe Ci ty of Ar ea o f Inte restI070140 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 #0 2-2 017 Sco tt Bow se r W1 92 S73 32 Ba ys h ore 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 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 : 2 /1 6/2 0 17 Unapproved CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES January 26, 2017 6:00 PM Muskego City Hall, 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, Dr. Kashian, Mr. Robertson, and Mr. Ristow. Excused: Mr. Petfalski and Mr. LeDoux. 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 None. NEW BUSINESS 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. Mr. Schneiker swore in Ryan Sands, Bray Architects for the Muskego Norway School District, and Adam Trzebiatowski, City of Muskego. Mr. Sands explained the petition is to expand the Mill Valley school beyond the existing 50% value for non-conforming properties. The non-conforming areas are along the north lot line and the east lot lines. The building is too close to these property lines. The existing building was constructed before the current zoning code was established. Mr. Sands noted this project will eliminate a portion of the non-conforming area. To be responsible with tax payer money a portion of the school will remain, instead of tearing down and building new. The project was approved by public referendum in 2016. Mr. Sands further explained that by using the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculation the school district should be able to build up to 350,000 square feet on this lot, but is only requesting to build a 32,500 square feet addition which is only 17% of the allowable FAR, which is an unnecessarily burdensome restriction. Dr. Blumenfield questioned when they found out the property would be non-conforming. Mr. Sands stated he discussed this with the Planning Department in June. Mr. Sands added they could not have come to the Board before the referendum because they would not have had a clear estimate. Mr. Schneiker questioned if they have taken into consideration any overages so they don't exceed the 70%. Mr. Sands explained they have looked at other similar projects that have been done and what the material cost percentages have been. The average bid was 27%. A higher percentage was used for protection. Also, bids could come in under budget for materials. Dr. Kashian questioned why this wasn't known before the referendum. Mr. Sands explained they were not aware of the building being non-conforming. At the time of the referendum the budget is based on a large master plan. Even at the time of bidding contractors will not typically break out the materials, but with this project there is a requirement for the subcontractors to show the cost of materials. Mr. Trzebiatowski explained the 50% variance may or may not be needed depending on how the bids come in for materials. The overage will only be needed if the material costs are over 50% of the value of the new addition to the building. The school district wanted to come in now instead of waiting till it was bid and then finding out it is over and being in a bind with time. Also this property does not have an assessment value. The value being used is based on the cash out value of the insurance policy. The cash out value is $5,161,216. The 50% limit is $2,580,608, which is the maximum material cost allowed for the new addition per code, without a variance. The average material cost for other projects was 27%. The actual percentages of material cost varied between 20%-36% of the total project cost. The district took a more conservative approach and estimated material costs at 40% of the addition project total. Actual material costs must be provided at the time of building permit submittal so staff can ensure the actual material costs will be within the variance that may be approved. Mr. Trzebiatowski added in the 1960s an appeal was granted that allowed some of the existing non-conformities to be allowed on the north side of the building. However, there are still other portions of the building that are non-conforming. Deliberations: Dr. Blumenfield explained it’s difficult as a citizen of Muskego to approve something that could cost the citizens of Muskego more dollars. Dr. Kashian stated he is opposed to vetoing the will of the citizens because of information that was not known ahead of time. Mr. Schneiker stated he feels it should go through the bid process to know the actual cost, but overall this isn't a big percentage of the overall project. Don’t want to get into a situation where the building construction is delayed. Mr. Robertson noted this project was approved by a referendum and don't want to hold up construction, which could raise costs. Mr. Ristow stated this project has been talked about for years. Should have had more accurate numbers earlier. Mr. Schneiker made a motion to approve Appeal #01-2017 as submitted. Mr. Robertson seconded. Dr. Blumenfield stated the hardship is the uniqueness of the lot. Dr. Blumenfield stated she has confidence in city staff as a checks and balances to keep the cost as financially expedient as possible. Motion to Approve Appeal #01-2017 as submitted passed 4 in favor 1 opposed, with Mr. Ristow voting no. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM JULY 28, 2016. Mr. Robertson made a motion to approve the minutes from July 28, 2016. Mr. Schneiker seconded. Motion Passed 5 in favor. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ADJOURN Mr. Robertson made a motion to adjourn at 7:04 PM. Mr. Schneiker seconded. Motion Passed 5 in favor. Respectfully submitted, Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary