Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals- - Minutes 04/24/2003CITY OF DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING Brian D. Turk `� r T � � � � O Director of Planning 11 (262) 679-4136 7 i© - OOQ.14 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDINGS OF FACTS A dimensional variance is hereby granted to Brian and Sue Schmit, by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Muskego in Appeal # 01-2003 to permit 66.9-percent of the lot area preserved as open space at W186 S7536 Kingston Drive 1 Tax Key No. 2195.027, based upon the applicant having met the specifics of the City Ordinance with respect to granting variances. It was found that the variance preserves the intent of the Municipal Code because there is practical difficulty associated with the legal non -conforming parcel complying with the Zoning Code, there were exceptional conditions applying that do not generally apply to other properties. More specifically, the granting of the variance provides the property with rights enjoyed by properties in the immediate vicinity, the property rights of other property owners are preserved, and no substantial detriment is caused to an adjacent property. Signed d this 2r'd day of May 2003. Dan Schepp ' L% Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeal Signed Dustin 1#61ff Assist46t Plan i /ctor W182 S8200 Racine Avenue • Box 749 • Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0749 • Fax (262) 679-5614 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES CITY OF MUSKEGO APRIL 24, 2003 Meeting was called to order at 7:06 P.M. PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Dr, Barbara Blumenfield, Mr. Horst Schmidt, Dr, Russ Kashian, Mr. Steve Whitlow and Assistant Plan Director Dustin Wolff. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Schneiker and Mr. Harvey Schweitzer STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The Secretary stated the meeting was noticed on April 18, 2003, in accordance with Open Meeting Laws. NEW BUSINESS: APPEAL #01-2003 Petitioner: Brian and Sue Schmidt, W186 S7536 Kingston Drive/Tax Key 2195.027, REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variances: Chapter 17- Zoning Ordinance: Section 5,08 Existing Substandard Lots. The open space requirements in the case of such lot may be reduced without appeal provided the open space area is equal to at least 75% of the actual lot area. Minimum open space for the property is required in the amount of 6,294 square feet (75% of the 8,392 SF lot). The current open space is 2 square feet less than required, resulting in 75-percent of the lot area preserved as open space). The Appellant is proposing to construct a residence and to pave a 1,001 SF driveway, resulting in 66.9-percent of the lot area preserved as open space, and is therefore requesting an 8.1-percent variance to the Code requirement. Dr. Blumenfield administered the oath to Mrs. Schmidt. Mrs. Schmidt explained that the existing home does not meet current codes. She further explained they were planning to tear down the existing home and build a new home on the property. They will be moving the proposed house back away from the lake to open the view of the lake to the neighbors. Mrs. Schmidt explained that the surrounding neighbors have two car garages with drives, and have submitted letters with signatures stating they are not opposed to the variance. Mr. Wolff gave the City's opinion. Mr. Wolff stated the Board has taken the position that all properties should be afforded the opportunity to install paved driveways. In the past the Board has ruled favorable in maters regarding open space variances to allow paved driveways. Mr. Wolff further explained that Staff finds that there is practical difficulty in complying with all aspects of the Code for this property, and that the property owners have worked with the City to comply wherever possible. Mr. Wolff also noted the Board recently approved a 7.7-percent exception to the open space requirement for a property on Oak Grove Drive in June 2002. Mr. Wolff stated that the Committee of the Whole will be discussing open space requirements and lake properties at a future meeting. DELIBERATIONS: APPEAL #01-2003 Dr. Blumenfield moved to approve appeal #01-2003, allowing a 8.1-percent exception to the open space area required for the property in order to provide a paved driveway. Dr. Kashian seconded. Dr. Blumenfield feels that there is a unique situation with lake properties and in the past the Board has approved variances similar in nature. Dr. Blumenfield also noted in the future, depending on what Council decides, a variance of this type may not be necessary. Mr. Schmidt commended the petitioners on working with the City to meet all aspects of the code. Upon a roll call vote Appeal 01-2003 was approved unanimously. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Dr. Blumenfield moved to approve the minutes from December 5, 2003, Seconded by Mr. Schmidt. Upon voice vote, motion carried. ZBA Minutes 4124/2003 Page 2 MISCELLANEOUS: None ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this board, Mr. Schmidt moved to adjourn. Dr. Blumenfield seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 7:18 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Kellie Renk, Recording Secretary CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA April 24, 2003 7:00 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 above listed appeals. The Board of Appeals will then reconvene into open session. Detailed descriptions are available for public inspection at the Clerk's office. All interested parties will be given an opportunity to be heard. OLD BUSINESS 1, None NEW BUSINESS 1. APPEAL #01-2003 Petitioner: Brian and Sue Schmit Residence: W 186 S7536 Kingston Drive 1 Tax Key No. 2195.027 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variances: Chapter 17—Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.08 Existing Substandard Lots T The open space requirements in the case of such lot may be reduced without appeal provided the open area is equal to at least 75% of the actual lot area. Minimum open space for the property is required in the amount of 6,294 square feet (75% of the 8,392 SF lot). The current open space is 2 square feet less than required, resulting in 75-percent of the lot area preserved as open space). The Appellant is proposing to construct a residence and to pave a 1,001 SF driveway, resulting in 66.9-percent of the lot area preserved as open space, and is therefore requesting an 8.1-percent variance to the Code requirement. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 5, 2002 MEETING. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS ZBA 4/24/2003 Page 2 ADJOURN 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 Jean K. Marenda, Clerk -Treasurer at Muskego City Hall, (262) 679-5625, City of Muskego Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 01-2003 For the meeting of. April 24,2003 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variances: Chapter 17—Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.08 Existing Substandard Lots The open space requirements in the case of such lot may be reduced without appeal provided the open area is equal to at least 75% of the actual lot area. APPELLANT: Brian and Sue Schmit LOCATION: W186 S7536 Kingston Drive 1 Tax Key No. 2195.027 SW % Section 9 PREPARED BY: Dustin Wolff BACKGROUND The petitioner seeks an exception to the open space requirement for the district. Minimum open space for the property is required in the amount of 6,294 square feet (75% of the 8,392 SF lot) The current open space exceeds the minimum required amount The Appellant is proposing to construct a new residence and to pave a 1,001 SF driveway, resulting in 66.9-percent of the lot area preserved as open space, and is therefore requesting an 8 1-percent variance to the Code requirement. DISCUSSION The petitioner is proposing to construct a new home with an attached garage. The building footprint is approximately 1,643 square feet. The proposal meets the bulk requirements outlined in the Zoning Code, with the exception of open space. During the review it was determined by the Planning Department that with the proposed driveway, the property would exceed the total area of impervious surface allowed by 681 square feet. The Board has taken the position that all properties should be afforded the opportunity to install paved driveways. Paved driveways enhance properties, reduce the effect of dust affecting surrounding properties, and further the Best Management Practices and Policies of the City by reducing sedimentation in run-off. As such, the Board has ruled favorably in matters regarding open space variances to allow paved driveways. Staff concurs with this policy. Staff finds that there is practical difficulty in complying with all aspects of the Code for this property due to its area being approximately 2,000 SF less than the District requirement Moreover, at the June 2002 meeting the Board has approved a 7.7-percent exception to the open space requirement for a property on Oak Grove Drive STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Approval of Appeal 03-2002, allowing a 8.1-percent exception to the open space area required for the property in order to provide a paved driveway. hwrrl s yr-?A .�'11va T w it=r .do. .Cow 7 /* rF p; spa rf ci��reAl spwf fa.. �, 9 sF ,J!R,¢ At 4 r llo.v r,r ,-rr o."a r/w,O,A* . A.k AAr, /A-C- V /, 6y? no 17 7/, CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FOR DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE Appellant's Name: k a v, cA Subject Property Address: V419,.v S-7, 3 } , n �; 5 ter• I7r� Telephone: Day: y±� - y��l - �'SU4 e Evening: -" f 1 i - 1 a3` Property Zoning: AS- 3 v LS Tax Key: r .2 Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable): Owner Lessee Other Date inspector denied zoning permit: Requesting variance to Code Section To allow: A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section would result in practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship because: The variance, if granted, will not be contrary to the public interest and will be in accord with the spirit of the code because: The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize public welfare because: S_1ClTYHALL1ZBAlApplicationslZBA-Dimensional Appeal Application doc Last printed 1121/02 9:14 AM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE REQUESTS At the direction of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the following information is required to be submitted with the application: ■ For any variance pertaining to a parcel of land, a Plat of Survey, prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor, must be submitted. The Plat of Survey must be dated, with no time requirements, and include the original seal of the surveyor. Plat of Survey must contain the following: 1. The parcel in question with dimensions, bearings and a description of the exterior boundaries. 2. Abutting streets, properties, lakes and/or rivers, etc. 3. Location and size (with dimensions and area) of any existing buildings or structures. 4. Ordinary High-water Mark, 100-year Flood Elevation, 2-foot about the 100- year Flood Elevation, Easements, etc. 5. Location and size of culverts, ditches, trees, wells, septic system, retaining walls, driveways, sidewalks, patios, or any other items pertinent to the variance requested —including area calculations. 6. Elevations at corners of parcel, building comers, grade breaks and any other elevations pertinent to the variance requested. 7. Proposed building, structure or appurtenance for which the variance is being requested. • The scaled construction drawings of the appurtenance, addition, or structure for which the variance is being requested. ■ Fee in the amount of $200.00 Account # 100.01.18.03.4327 SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT DATE `/I `'` i O ,� SIGNATURE OF OWNER (if different) DATE PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT ANY LEGAL, ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEES INCURRED BY THE CITY, IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING A PROPOSAL OR APPLICATION, BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THIS FEE SCHEDULE, WILL BE CHARGED BACK TO THE PETITIONER/ APPLICANT 1 OWNER 1 DEVELOPER FOR 100% RECOVERY. (Ch. 3.085/Ord. #909) S:1ClTYHALLIZBA1Applicatiom\ZBA-Oimensio Appeal Application.doc Last printed 415t2042 2:17 PM We could use your help! We have applied for a variance on open area space for our proposed new home and will be stating our case at a meeting on Thurs. April 24. The city only allows 25% of lake lots to be covered with home and concrete. That is an exceptionally difficult restriction to meet since our property is so small. Our proposed new home is expected to cover 19% of the lot and we would like to place the home as close to the lake as the city allows, which is 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark. Because on the home placement, the driveway would cover 8% of the property, putting the total covered space at 33% which is 8% above the 25% allowed by the city. We would like to put in a 2-car driveway from the street to the garage, the same as most of the homes in this neighborhood. We aren't asking the city for anything more than most homes on this street have. The home and concrete currently on our property covers more than 33% so we could actually be decreasing the covered area. We also feel that our new home and driveway will improve the aesthetic appearance of our property_ So, we are asking the city to allow a variance on the total open area space on our property. The length and width of the driveway is really the issue with the city. The city planner said that we will probably get this variance without any problems, but showing letters from our neighbors stating that you understand what we are asking for and that you have no objections, would make things even easier for them. If you understand what we are asking for and you have no objections with this, a short note stating this would be very helpful to us. It doesn't have to be anything formal. Thank you! 9' U0 rc G`op [ ks LN T J +te— APRIL I7, 2003 TO: BRIAN AND SUE SCHMIT WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE VARIANCE THAT YOU HAVE REQi JESTED TO BUILD YOUR HOUSE. GOOD LUCK ON YOUR NEW HOME. iEORGE A INDY EMER • U E r7 C Ln I —I ry H � O Z a Z (V W 0a z�• (O H • (D O d (N lJ Z co LLJ7 m • • OLL, 0 0) CN Y [O •L � � Q CN W ro UCN LO O n -- (n O WU� a M 2 U V) LJ..I D Ln Z a m 0 Z O F- Ln 0 z_ X r7 Lin n ED 00 O z oU� Q — ari) >-a� m 3� Z (n O A H - W O 9 06l N 3 Ld .x (/7 LLf) O 3 °4-- O V) ° (A Z ° U // � �� Y�•C // 1 Aga yam. k CD 0�+++ / `\ -Co.m° �\ ++ m N Q] moo' p~ O vna C ado cNin = s r) C) t N O �'Y / \ CPS" O� O O _1-ZU a q o0 Di 0 z z O� o V) s �; •- a) - _r_ x p m :1 V) O 0 0 0; Li.l , Y C v, LS 0 1 U � FW ✓ O V) o 0 z C Y •- il' N a-�4- F4 O + , p . — F- O O LLJ C zL07 a+• O rn 0 z L_N c V) — iv O O Y _F_QNU w 1 rn �:) to vC- Ln O (:,,of �3 z r7 (1) Q LO • C m j zU o w 60 LL3 _j 'r i�/ Y°b rY Y O "Moo TAX � oil DEG a a (Ujr) got to S /05' O• . yi \ 4 A `` GOG� lg�'S I? IV � 04 /f�'��•5�°°1•. g ��w 5/G4 00 0� 0 /Q N N C:)O � N _(:0 O_ _ N W s :3 O U a 0 O� ° ��' • 40 4 ate ,� c c 4 'r' c \ a 4 C 4 fl titi o QD ZS s Gy 4. ti a Goy' y �� w A w2� \ a. a Cb y 9tts �� / gyp•. r+ 4 4. V ti 0 4 q b- �ti g /p CRASS Sirs �r \ 5 00.44 �" \ V 23004 cri won O °y�� Wf�WOA.-• fZda1H�(X