Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals Packet - 5/25/2017 CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA May 25, 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 # 03-2017 Petitioner: Lawrence William Wiesner Property: S76 W18264 Janesville Road / Tax Key No. 2195.989 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 5.08(2) – Only One Principal Residence Building on a Lot (2) Except as specifically otherwise provided herein for attached single family dwellings, apartment, farms, or planned development projects only one principal residence building shall be permitted on a lot, provided however that the Board of Appeals may grant an exception to permit more than one principal building on a lot where such grant would not be contrary to the spirit or intent of the Ordinance or to the regulations applicable to the specific district, and provided that a sufficient lot area is provided and the buildings so located as to permit individual compliance in the case of future division with the lot size, density, building location, and open space requirements of the district in which located. There are currently two single-family homes on this property which were granted a variance in 2015 to deem them both as conforming uses so that future improvements could have possibly occurred to the existing home(s). The owner would now like to remove one of the homes and re-built it, which would require a variance to possibly be allowed two-homes on the lot, one an existing home and one a new home. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 23, 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 # 03-2017 ZBA 5-25-2017 Page 1 of 3 City of Muskego City Representative Brief Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 03-2017 For the meeting of: May 25, 2017 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 - Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.08(2) – Only One Principal Residence Building on a Lot (2) Except as specifically otherwise provided herein for attached single family dwellings, apartment, farms, or planned development projects only one principal residence building shall be permitted on a lot, provided however that the Board of Appeals may grant an exception to permit more than one principal building on a lot where such grant would not be contrary to the spirit or intent of the Ordinance or to the regulations applicable to the specific district, and provided that a sufficient lot area is provided and the buildings so located as to permit individual compliance in the case of future division with the lot size, density, building location, and open space requirements of the district in which located. APPELLANT: Lawrence William Wiesner LOCATION: S76 W18264 Janesville Road / Tax Key No. 2195.989 CITY’S POSITION PRESENTED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski AICP, City Representative BACKGROUND The petitioner applied for and was granted a variance back on July 23, 2015 under #01 -2015 to be able to keep the two existing single-family homes up on the lot as conforming uses. This was requested since the applicant wanted to add-on to one of the existing homes on the lot in question and they needed to be conforming to do that. There is a provision in the zoning code that allows the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant an exception to permit more than one house on a property if they feel certain conditions are met. That main reasoning that City staff and the board used as supporting reasons behind that past request was that both homes existed and were going to remain. With that past variance being granted, the applicant then proceeded to get permits for the remodeling of the home closest to the lake. Once that permit was issued and the work was started, the applicant discovered that based on the significant amount of work needed, it may be more prudent to raze/remove the home closest to the lake and to build new. The applicant talked with staff and since this new variance request is based on different variables and factors, such as both homes not remaining as part of the new proposal and one of them being built new, it was determined that a new variance request would be required. The parcel is zoned RL-3, Lakeshore Residence District. The property is located on Janesville Road on Little Muskego Lake’s southern shore. The petitioner is seeking the following variance: An exception to the requirement that only allows one single-family home per lot. There are currently two single-family homes on this property which were granted a variance in 2015 to deem them both as conforming uses so that future improvements could have possibly Appeal # 03-2017 ZBA 5-25-2017 Page 2 of 3 occurred to the existing home(s). The owner would now like to remove one of the homes and re- build it, which would require a variance to possibly allow two homes on the lot, one an existing home and one a new home. DISCUSSION Given the questions that are part of this request, planning staff had a discussion with the City Attorney, Jeff Warchol, to get his opinion on this request. The City Attorney offered the following comments specifically focusing only on Section 5.08 of the Zoning Code: Section 5.08 of the Code is not clear regarding this issue. The title of subsection (2) seems to indicate only one home allowed per lot. However, the “exception” language then allows a variance under two conditions both of which must be met: 1) not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance and 2) provided that there is sufficient lot area to permit compliance with size, density, location and space. Because Section 5.08 is silent as to whether it applies to existing or new home construction, the analysis should not focus there. The Code will be construed against the City. I do not believe that the applicants request is contrary to the spirit of the ordinance as that term is defined in the Code. Therefore, I believe the issue to be with the second condition regarding the area of the lot which is a fact intensive analysis. If after hearing the facts related to this request, the Board is convinced that there is sufficient lot area to permit compliance with the factors as stated in the Code, the variance may be granted. If not, the variance may be denied. It all depends on the facts as presented at the Hearing. Planning staff has to look at this request in relation to the over Zoning Code (Chapter 17) of the Municipal Code. Planning staff views this request very differently than the past request. The main difference in this request is that one of the existing homes is now willingly being torn down just to build a new home whereas in the past case, both homes were to remain. Once that wiling removal of a home occurs that significantly changes the background information. The applicant has started in their submittal that they believe the code clearly states that a second home can be allowed, subject to Zoning Board of Appeals approval, without any mention or regard if the second home is existing or new, as long as applicable zoning requirements can be met. Staff agrees that the code does not specifically talk about the difference of new home construction versus existing homes, but staff feels that the general intensions of the City and the codes within it do not generally support more than one home on a lot. For example, the code section is titled “Only One Principal Residence Building on a Lot”. This intension is also shown within the code section as it requires a variance through the Zoning Board of Appeals to have this even considered, rather than just being allowed by right. The code actually prohibits more than one home on a lot, unless this unique approval from the Board is granted. As is noted above, the zoning code states that the Zoning Board of Appeals can grant an allowance of more than one home on a property if the Board feels the following is met: “…where such grant would not be contrary to the spirit or intent of the Ordinance or to the regulations applicable to the specific district, and provided that a sufficient lot area is provided and the buildings so located as to permit individual compliance in the case of future division with the lot size, density, building location, and open space requirements of the district in which located.” Staff does agree with the applicant in stating that it appears that the second home could be divided onto its own lot while meeting the required zoning requirements that relate to lot size, width, density, open space, etc. With that being the case though, that doesn’t change the fact that staff believes this was not the overall intension of the City when said codes were adopted. Since the owner wants to tear down one of the homes to build a new one, the owner has the ability now to relocate the new home in a better Appeal # 03-2017 ZBA 5-25-2017 Page 3 of 3 location to allow this one larger lot to be split into two lots, with still possibly allowing lake access to both lots. In reviewing the past staff supplement, it was very specifically identified that staff recommended approval of the past request solely due to the specific fact that the two homes both existed before the current codes were established. That proposal did not involve any removals and/or reconstructions of any of the buildings. Also, in re-reviewing the audio recording of the past variance request, it was also discussed there that the uniqueness of the past request was based on the fact that the two homes were both existing on this lot. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, THE CITY RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS: Denial of Appeal 03-2017, allowing two single-family homes on this single property, one of which would be torn down and a new home bu ilt in its place, citing that since one of the homes is being voluntarily removed that there is not inherent right that it can or has to be re-built. There is the option to now split the lots to create two buildable lots given the fact that the new home c an now be placed anywhere compliant on the overall lot. If this request is approved it is recommended that said approval be subject to the approval being contingent upon the homes never being rented separately and never being occupied by residents that are not related to the owners of the other home through blood, marriage, or adoption. This would be similar to other code sections that allow two homes on one property, such as in the Guest House regulations. This would then follow the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code. Unapproved CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES February 23, 2017 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. Robertson, Mr. Le Doux, Mr. Ristow and Mr. Petfalski. Excused: Dr. Kashian 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 # 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 Bay Shore 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. Mr. Schneiker swore in the following: Jenny Gonzalez, W192 S7355 Bay Shore Drive Scott Bowser, W192 S7332 Bay Shore Drive Jerry Kozy, Classic Builders S83 W18901 Saturn Drive Adam Trzebiatowski, Lead Planner City of Muskego Mr. Kozy explained they are requesting a variance from the 40 setback requirement to 36 feet. Several other options have been looked at but would make it difficult due to the topography of the lot and the location of the sewer lateral and cleanout. The new garage will have a hip roof and stone to match the house. Ms. Gonzalez explained she is a neighbor and was concerned about the trees being removed. Mr. Kozy stated they will not be taking the trees down. Planner Trzebiatowski gave the City's opinion based on the code. The petitioner worked with staff to try and figure out what would work on this lot. A gas line already has to be moved, but to move the sewer line would be something the City would not want to require of a property owner. This option is the most practical and works with the conditions of the property with the topography and the sewer location. Staff recommends approval of this appeal. Deliberations: Mr. Schneiker made a motion to approve Appeal 02-2017 as submitted. Mr. Le Doux seconded. Mr. Schneiker stated the property owners have demonstrated a hardship with the topography of the lot. Appeal 02-2017 was approved 5-0. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM JANUARY 26, 2017. Mr. Robertson made a motion to approve the minutes of January 26, 2017. Mr. Schneiker seconded. Motion Passed 5 in favor. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ADJOURN Mr. LeDoux made a motion to approve adjourn at 6:18 PM. Mr. Schneiker seconded. Motion Passed 5 in favor. Respectfully submitted, Kellie McMullen, Recording Secretary