Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Packet - 5/24/2018CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA 05/24/2018 7:00 PM Muskego City Hall, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF CLOSED SESSION OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 1 Appeal #02-2018 - S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road, Tax Key No. 2163.030; Chapter 17 - Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 - Building Location CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES 1 Approval of the Minutes from the January 25, 2018 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. Packet Page 1 Appeal # 02-2018 ZBA 5-24-2018 Page 1 of 3 City of Muskego City Representative Brief Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 02-2018 For the meeting of: May 24, 2018 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: Brian Narlow LOCATION: S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road / Tax Key No. 2163.030 CITY’S POSITION PRESENTED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski AICP, City Representative BACKGROUND The petitioner is proposing to construct a 15 foot addition to their existing attached garage. The home on the lot currently contains a two-car attached garage. The property also currently contains a shed (96 SF). The newly proposed attached garage addition measures 15’ x 32.56’ (488.4 SF) in size. The parcel is zoned RS-2, Suburban Residence District. The property is located on the southeast corner of Fleetwood Road and Dunstan Court. The petitioner is seeking the following variance: An exception to the required setback from the front right-of-way line for the expansion of an existing attached garage. A setback of 40-feet is required for principal structures/garages from the Dunstan Court right-of- way line on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 36.63-feet from the right- of-way line for a 15 foot attached garage addition, and is therefore requesting a 3.37-foot variance from the required right-of-way setback. DISCUSSION Based upon the information submitted, staff does not see a valid hardship to allow the addition of 15 feet onto the existing attached garage. The property already contains a two-car attached garage, which is typical for most homes in the City, and an 11.6 foot addition is allowable without any type of variance. In addition to the 11.6 foot addition option, there is also plenty of space on the east side of the home/yard to build a separate detached garage if there is a need for more storage. The owner has stated in their submittals that they believe it is not suitable to build on the other (eastern) portion of the yard due to the following reasons:  This is the area of the yard the kids play in most.  This area is closer to the bedrooms of the home.  Building in this area would be less appealing than onto the existing garage.  A second driveway would be needed in this area, which would take away more yard space and be less appealing. Page 1 of 19 Appeal #02-2018 - S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road, Tax Key... Packet Page 2 Appeal # 02-2018 ZBA 5-24-2018 Page 2 of 3  There are power lines in this area, which could be an issue.  The sump pump discharges in this area and that would need to be relocated.  There is a drainage ditch along the far eastern lot line which could make it difficult to build.  Since there are two-adults and three-kids in the home, they need to plan for future needs relating to bikes, cars, sports, etc. while keeping the home uniform and not an eye sore.  This option makes more sense.  Would have to cut down some trees. The owner’s application does not at all talk about reasons on why the proposed addition cannot be kept in the same location west of the existing garage, but reduced to 11.6 feet or less in size, which would be compliant with the code requirements. That option would still provide plenty of additional storage space on the property without needing any variance at all. This is the option that staff suggested should be explored further. This option would still leave this property with more garage storage than many other properties in the City. It is important to note that historically the board has not typically granted variances for garages beyond two-car in size as anything larger is looked at as a luxury and/or bonus beyond the basic needs of a property. Relating to the reasons that the applicant has noted in their application and noted above for their request, here is a summary of the variance standards that are applicable to this case: 1. Zoning Case Law states that “self-imposed hardships” and “circumstances of the applicant” are not grounds for granting a variance, such as wanting a certain size addition or location for convenience or a certain size addition based on family size/need. We cannot look at what might be needed in the future. The hardship needs to be the same no matter who lives in the home, regardless of their family situation/size or how the family uses the property. 2. Zoning Case Law states that “lack of objections from neighbors does not provide grounds for granting a variance.” 3. Zoning Case Law states that the parcel-as-a-whole must be looked at when deciding these cases. In this request the board needs to not only look at why a garage cannot be built on the eastern portion of the lot, but also why narrowing the addition slightly (to 11.6 feet) in it currently proposed location is not a valid option. 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, since there are options that meet the goal of more garage/storage space without a variance, then there are not grounds for granting said variance. 5. Per the Zoning Board Handbook (2nd Addition, 2006), using the three-step test which looks at unnecessary hardship, unique property limitations, and no harm to public interest, the following can be found: a. Unnecessary Hardship – Unnecessary hardship exists when compliance would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for the permitted purpose (leaving the property owners without any use that is permitted for the property) or would render conformity with such restrictions “unnecessarily burdensome”. In the case of this request, the proposal is for something that is above and beyond what is needed for normal use of this house/property. There are other options that can also work without a variance being needed. b. Unique Property Limitations – Unnecessary hardship must be due to physical limitations of the property. There are no property limitations to adding 11.6 feet or less off the west side of the existing garage. c. No Harm to Public Interest – A variance may not be granted which results in harm to public interest. There is no harm to the public interest in adding 11.6 feet or less to the west side of the existing garage. Please see the applicant’s full submittal for full details on their request. Page 2 of 19 Appeal #02-2018 - S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road, Tax Key... Packet Page 3 Appeal # 02-2018 ZBA 5-24-2018 Page 3 of 3 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 02-2018 as proposed, allowing a 15 foot addition to the existing attached garage with a 36.63-foot setback, a 3.37-foot variance from the right-of-way line; citing that a garage addition can still be built out 11.6 feet or less, which would leave 40.03 feet or greater of setback, which meets the code requirements. Also, there is plenty of space on the east side of the home/yard to build a separate detached garage if there is a need for more storage. The hardships stated are self-imposed/self-created, do not consider the parcel-as-a-whole, and are not the least variance necessary. Page 3 of 19 Appeal #02-2018 - S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road, Tax Key... Packet Page 4 MUSKEGOthe City of Area of InterestI050100 Feet Agenda Item(s) Properties Zoning Districts Right-of-Way Hydrography Supplemental MapAppeal #02-2018 Brian Narlow S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road JANESVIL L E LOO M I S R D RA C I N E A V DU R H A M WOOD S CO L L E G E Prepared by City of Muskego Planning Department Date: 5/16/2018 Page 4 of 19 Appeal #02-2018 - S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road, Tax Key... Packet Page 5 Page 5 of 19 Appeal #02-2018 - S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road, Tax Key... Packet Page 6 Page 6 of 19 Appeal #02-2018 - S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road, Tax Key... Packet Page 7 Page 7 of 19 Appeal #02-2018 - S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road, Tax Key... Packet Page 8 Page 8 of 19 Appeal #02-2018 - S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road, Tax Key... Packet Page 9 Page 9 of 19 Appeal #02-2018 - S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road, Tax Key... Packet Page 10 Page 10 of 19 Appeal #02-2018 - S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road, Tax Key... Packet Page 11 Page 11 of 19 Appeal #02-2018 - S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road, Tax Key... Packet Page 12 Page 12 of 19 Appeal #02-2018 - S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road, Tax Key... Packet Page 13 Page 13 of 19 Appeal #02-2018 - S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road, Tax Key... Packet Page 14 Page 14 of 19 Appeal #02-2018 - S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road, Tax Key... Packet Page 15 Page 15 of 19 Appeal #02-2018 - S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road, Tax Key... Packet Page 16 Page 16 of 19 Appeal #02-2018 - S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road, Tax Key... Packet Page 17 Page 17 of 19 Appeal #02-2018 - S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road, Tax Key... Packet Page 18 Page 18 of 19 Appeal #02-2018 - S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road, Tax Key... Packet Page 19 Page 19 of 19 Appeal #02-2018 - S67 W13731 Fleetwood Road, Tax Key... Packet Page 20 Unapproved CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES January 25, 2018 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: Dr. Blumenfield, Dr. Kahsian, Mr. Robertson, and Mr. Ristow. Excused: Mr. Petfalski, Mr. Schneiker and Mr. Le Doux. 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 None. NEW BUSINESS Appeal # 01-2018 Petitioner: Ener-Con Companies, Inc. Property: S74 W17000 Janesville Road / Tax Key No. 2198.984.014 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 10-feet from the right-of-way was required for the construction of the first new apartment building within the Parkland Towne Center development. The petitioner seeks a setback of 8-feet from the right-of-way line to be allowed the existing placement of the first apartment building within the Parkland Towne Center development, and is therefore requesting Page 1 of 2 Approval of the Minutes from the January 25, 2018... Packet Page 21 a 2-foot variance from the required right-of-way setback. Dr. Kashian swore in the following: Chris Car, Ener-Con representative. Adam Trzebiatowski, Planning Manager Mr. Trzebiatowski explained in 2017 Ener-Con completed construction on the first of the three 30-unit apartment buildings within the Parkland Towne Center development. After the construction was completed the surveyor was working on the condo plat and noticed a setback error. The building setback should be 10-feet and is actually 8-feet. At the time of footing and foundation recertification the building was still in what appeared to be the correct location. At some point the right of way line was shifted which gave the city a little more right of way. The building is still the same distance to the road, but is now two feet closer to the right of way line. The surveyor competed and submitted affidavits of correction to make sure this mistake would not be repeated going forward. Staff is recommending approval of the variance citing that compliance would be unnecessarily burdensome to relocate the large building and creates an unnecessary hardship. Deliberations: Dr. Kashian made a motion to approve Appeal #01-2017 as submitted. Mr. Ristow seconded. Dr. Blumenfield explained this error was discovered after the fact as things have shifted. When this happens the Board needs to make sure there is no harm to the public. It was the intent of the builder, surveyor, and the city to comply with the ordinances. It helps there will be no additional errors on this site with the surveyor filing the affidavits of correction. Upon a roll call vote, Appeal #01-2018 is approved 4-0. CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 13, 2017 Aaron Robertson made a motion to approve the minutes of December 13, 2017. Dr. Russ Kashian seconded. Motion Passed 4 in favor. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ADJOURN Richard Ristow made a motion to adjourn at 6:10 PM. Aaron Robertson seconded. Motion Passed 4 in favor. Respectfully submitted, Kellie McMullen, Transcribing Secretary Page 2 of 2 Approval of the Minutes from the January 25, 2018... Packet Page 22