Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals Packet - 9/28/2017 CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA September 28, 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 # 05-2017 Petitioner: Linda & Dave Drow Property: W192 S7224 Hillside Drive / Tax Key No. 2189.040 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 for new accessory structures from the Hillside Drive right-of-way line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 12-feet from the right-of-way line for a new detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 28- foot variance from the required right-of-way setback. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM MAY 25, 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 # 05-2017 ZBA 9-28-2017 Page 1 of 2 City of Muskego City Representative Brief Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 05-2017 For the meeting of: September 28, 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: Linda & Dave Drow LOCATION: W192 S7224 Hillside Drive / Tax Key No. 2189.040 CITY’S POSITION PRESENTED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski AICP, City Representative BACKGROUND The petitioner is proposing to construct a new detached garage on their property. The lot currently contains a home and a small detached garage. Due to the small size and elevation of the detached garage it is not functional for vehicle storage. This then leaves the property with no functional garage at this time. The applicant has also stated that there are concerns with safety, erosion, run-off, and existing parking of vehicles adjacent to the roadway. The newly proposed detached garage measures 24’ x 26’ (624 SF) in size. The parcel is zoned ERS-3, Existing Suburban Residence District. The property is located on Hillside 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 for new accessory structures from the Hillside Drive right-of-way line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 12-feet from the right-of-way line for a new detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 28-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 property/home should be afforded some type of garage, but the questions typically relate to what size and location. The petitioner is proposing the detached garage to the south side of their existing house. The proposed garage is not excessive in size. The petitioner has stated that they have explored various options on how to get a garage on this site including locating it further down the hill on the lot, placing it in the “backyard”, and trying to build up the lot. The applicant believes that the proposed location they decided on is the least variance possible to get a functional garage on this property while creating a safer parking situation for them. The petitioner has stated that the hardships for this request are as follows: Appeal # 05-2017 ZBA 9-28-2017 Page 2 of 2 1. Slope of the lot 2. Existing garage being unusable 3. Elevation of the road 4. Erosion on the northern portion of the site 5. Existing dangerous parking situation along Hillside Drive Staff acknowledges that out of all of the other garage options 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 establishes a safe and enclosed location for parking located further from the road than the existing garage. 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 if the garage were setback down the hill further, an attached garage in an inappropriate location, and having a garage located too close to moving roadway traffic. b. Unique Property Limitations – The bulk of the property contains existing steep slopes and many trees that 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. This is actually further from the roadway, which hopefully creates a safer condition. 2. The only item 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 further from the roadway, given the amount of excavation, the existing steep slopes, and the existing run-off concerns that already exist it could be very difficult to move the garage further back than currently proposed. 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 05-2017 as proposed, allowing a detached garage with a 12-foot setback, a 28- 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, dense trees on portions of the lot, existing drainage concerns, and safety concerns along right along the roadway 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 restI050100 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 5-2 017 Lind a an d D av e Dr ow W1 92 S72 24 Hillside D rive 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 : 9 /2 1/2 0 17