Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals- AGENDA 04-25-2002CITY OF MUSKEGO DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING Brian D. Turk Director of Planning (262) 679-4136 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDINGS OF FACTS A dimensional variance is hereby granted to Kathleen Luckas Sommers and Leonard Sommers, by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Muskego to permit 67-percent of the lot area preserved as open space at W163 S7964 Bay Lane Place / Tax Key No. 2217.963, based upon the applicant having met the specifics of the City Ordinance with respect to granting variances. It was found that the variance preserve 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. A dimensional variance is hereby denied to Kathleen Luckas Sommers and Leonard Sommers, by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Muskego to permit a 130.5 square foot exception to the maximum permitted Floor Area at W 163 S7964 Bay Lane Place 1 Tax Key No. 2217.963, based upon the applicant having not met the specifics of the City Ordinance with respect to granting variances. Specifically, the Board agreed that there are other options available to the petitioner that did not result in "practical difficulty" in complying with the Floor Area requirement outlined in the Zoning Code. Dated this 3rd day of May 2002. Signed Dan Schepp Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals a Signed Z4-//r #4 Dustin J Iff Assistan Ian Dire W182 S8200 Racine Avenue - Box 749 - Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0749 - Fax (262) 679-5614 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA CITY OF MUSKEGO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to Wisconsin State Statute 62.23 (7) (e) 6, that a Public Hearing will be held in the Muskego Room at the Muskego City Hall, W 182 S8200 Racine Avenue, at 7:00 P.M., Thursday, April 25, 2002, to consider the following petitions for appeals to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Muskego: 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. Amendments to the Board of Appeals Rules of Procedure NEW BUSINESS 1. APPEAL #01-2002 Petitioner: Chad Tisonik Residence: W 187 S7040 Gold Drive 1 Tax Key No. 2175.964 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variances: Chapter 17—Zoninq Ordinance: Section 5.02 Building Location 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 25-feet is required from the right-of-way line. The petitioner seeks a setback of 10.3-feet from the right-of-way line to permit the reconstruction of an attached garage, and is therefore requesting a 14.7-foot variance from the right-of-way line. ZBA 4/25/2002 Page 2 2. APPEAL #02-2002 Petitioner: Kathleen Luckas Sommers Residence: W 163 S7964 Bay Lane Place 1 Tax Key No. 2217.963 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. Minimum open space for the property is required in the amount of 6004.5 square feet (75% of the lot area). The current open space is 678.5 square feet less than required, resulting in 67-percent of the lot area preserved as open space), and is therefore requesting a 8-percent variance. Chapter 17—Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.04(2) Building Size Maximum Permitted (F.A.R.): The maximum total floor area of the buildings on a lot shall not exceed that permitted under the floor area ratio (F.A.R.) as hereinafter specified by the regulations for the district in which such building is located. Maximum Floor Area Ratio for the property is 2,001.5 square feet (25% of the lot area). The current Floor Area is 130.5 square feet greater than the maximum permitted. Therefore, the Appellant is requesting a 130.5 square foot variance to the maximum permitted Floor Area. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 14, 2002 MEETING, MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 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. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES CITY OF MUSKEGO April 25, 2002 APPROVED Meeting was called to order at 7:06 P.M. PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Vice Chairman Schneiker, Mr. Terry O'Neil, Mr. Mike Brandt, Mr. David Conley, Dr. Barbara Blumenfield, Mr. Horst Schmidt and Assistant Plan Director Dustin Wolff. ABSENT: None STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The Secretary stated the meeting was noticed on April 22, 2002 in accordance with Open meeting Laws. Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. NEW BUSINESS: APPEAL #01-2002 Petitioner: Chad Tisonik, W187 S7040 Gold R=Drive 1 Tax Key No. 2175.964 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17, Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variances: 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 25-feet is required from the right-of-way line. The petitioner seeks a setback of 10.3-feet from the right-of-way line to permit the reconstruction of an attached garage, and is therefore requesting a 14.7-foot variance from the right-of-way line. Vice-chairman Schneiker administered the oath to Chad Tsonik. Mr. Tsonik explained to the Board the existing garage is sitting on a cement slab without a footing, and the garage floor has begun to heave and crack. He plans on removing the existing garage up to the "good" footing that the house is sitting on. He would then construct a new garage —with a footing —mimicking the size of the previous garage. He also stated that he would like to add another bedroom over the garage. This addition will give him an additional 200 sq.ft. with an attic for storage. Mr. Tsonik also explained that four years ago he came to the City to do an addition and was instructed by Staff that if he wanted to make future additions he would have to go outside of his existing footprints and not up. Mr. Tsonik at that time did put an addition on to his house. This addition includes cathedral ceilings and skylights. He does not want to tear that apart and build over the addition. At this time Staff informed Mr. Tsonik that he would not be able to go outside of the existing footprint of the house. Mr. Tsonik stated there had been a shed on the property that he removed to allow for the addition onto the house. Assistant Plan Director Wolff presented the City's opinion: The City is in favor of property owners being able to have an attached garage on their property. The petitioner does not have the ability to fix it according to the zoning code; as soon as he tears it apart he will not be able to put it back up due to conformity issues outlined in Code. Staff didn't look at the second floor addition because it is included in the existing footprint. Staff is recommending approval of the appellant's appeal allowing the reconstruction of an attached garage with a 10.31-foot setback from the public right-of-way. APPEAL 02-2002, Petitioners: Kathleen Luckas Sommers and Leonard Sommers, W163 S7964 Bay Lane Place 1 Tax Key No. 2217.963. 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. Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.04(2) Building Size. Maximum Permitted (F.A.R): The maximum total floor area of the buildings on a lot shall not exceed that permitted under the floor area ratio (F.A.R) as hereinafter specified by the regulations for the district in which such building is located. ZBA Minutes 4125101 Page 2 The petitioner seeks an exception to the floor area ratio requirement to allow the construction of an addition to the residence. In addition, 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 6004.5 square feet (75% of the lot area). The current open space is 678.5 square feet less than required, resulting in 67-percent of the lot area preserved as open space), and is therefore requesting a 8-percent variance. Maximum Floor Area Ratio for the property is 2,001.5 square feet (25% of the lot area). The current Floor Area is 130.5 square feet greater than the maximum permitted. Therefore, the Appellant is requesting a 130.5 square foot variance to the maximum permitted Floor Area. Vice Chairman Schneiker administered the oath to Kathleen Luckas Sommers and Leonard Sommers. The Sommers explained to the Board the patio collapsed due to snow and ice. They went to the City to apply for a permit to enclose the patio. They received the permit and passed inspections. At that time they discussed with the inspector making it part of the house with a doorway through the kitchen. They had the furnace replaced to serve the extra space. They went to the City to apply for a permit to finish off the inside of the room, and at that time staff indicated the original permit was not valid. Dr. Blumenfield asked if they would be willing to remove the sheds. Mrs. Sommers stated they would like to keep them for storage as they were existing on the property before they bought the house. Mr. Wolff presented the City's opinion. There was an error in the routing of the previous permit and the permit did not receive Planning Department approval. According to the state law permits issued in error are deemed invalid. The petitioner is asking for a variance for open space requirements and also for the floor area ratio. Because, the petitioner purchased the house with the existing cement areas staff recommends approval of open space exception of 678.2 SF less than required, or 67% of the lot area. In a rush to get on agenda, rough calculations for floor area ratio were used from the Assessor's numbers, which are not accurate by Planning Department guidelines. The Plan Department does not count storage and pantry areas in the Floor Area calculation. Staff cannot recommend approval to the second part of the appeal for a variance to the floor area ratio, as are other options available to the petitioner. If they can demonstrate to the Planning Staff that there is at least 130.5 SF of storage area, removing a shed, or a combination of both it would be possible to complete the addition without an exception to the Floor Area requirement. DELIBERATIONS: APPEAL #01-2002 Mr. O'Neil moved to approve appeal as submitted. Mr. Conley seconded. Upon roll call vote the motion was approved 5-0. Chairman Schepp stated that because the Appellant was willing to forego his four -foot addition towards Gold drive and keep within the existing footprint the Appellant is not requesting more than currently exists on the property. If the Appellant does not make the proposed footing repairs and the structure becomes unstable the Building Department will make an inspection and the property owner will be forced to bring the structure up to code, regardless. APPEAL_ #02-2002 Mr. Brandt moved to approve appeal as submitted. Mr. O'Neil seconded. Because there are options for the petitioner to still do the addition without the Boards approval Mr. Brandt withdrew his motion to approve appeal 02-2002 and Mr. O'Neil withdrew his second of the motion. Mr. Brandt moved to approve appeal of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance, Section 5.08 Existing Substandard Lots as submitted. Mr. O'Neil seconded. Upon roll call vote motion approved 5-0, APPEAL #02-2002 Mr. Brandt moved to approve appeal of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance, Section 5.04(2) Building Size as submitted. Mr. Conley seconded. The Board concurred with the Staff recommendation that there are other options available to the petitioner in regards to complying with the Floor Area requirement. Upon roll call vote motion failed 5-0. ZBA Minutes 4125101 Page 3 Dr. Blumenfield stated in reference to the second part of appeal #02-2002 it does not make sense to deny that which you support. Amendment to the Board ofAppeals policies and procedures — Dr. Blumenfield moved to accept amendments to the Board of Appeals policies and procedures as submitted subject to further review. Mr. Schmidt seconded. Upon voice vote, motion carried. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Dan Schepp moved to approve the minutes from March 14, 2001 as submitted. Seconded by Dr. Blumenfield. Upon voice vote, motion carried. MISCELLANEOUS: Mr. Wolff reported to the committee that Mr. Knudsen°s 30 days to appeal to circuit court had expired. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this board, Mr. Schmidt moved to adjourn. Dr. Blumenfield seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 8:32 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Kellie Renk Recording Secretary City of Muskego Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 02-2002 For the meeting of. April 25, 2002 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. Chapter 17—Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.04(2) Building Size Maximum Permitted (F.A.R.): The maximum total floor area of the buildings on a lot shall not exceed that permitted under the floor area ratio (F.A.R.) as hereinafter specified by the regulations for the district in which such building is located. Zoned: RS-310LS, Suburban Residence District as modified by the Lakeshore Overlay LOCATION: W163 S7964 Bay Lane Place 1 Tax Key No. 2217.963 NE % Section 15 APPELLANT: Kathleen Luckas Sommers PREPARED BY: Dustin Wolff BACKGROUND The petitioner seeks an exception to the floor area ratio requirement to allow the construction of an addition to the residence. In addition, 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 6004.5 square feet (75% of the lot area). The current open space is 678 5 square feet less than required, resulting in 67-percent of the lot area preserved as open space), and is therefore requesting a 8-percent variance. Maximum Floor Area Ratio for the property is 2,001 5 square feet (25% of the lot area). The current Floor Area is 130.5 square feet greater than the maximum permitted. Therefore, the Appellant is requesting a 130 5 square foot variance to the maximum permitted Floor Area. DISCUSSION The paved surfaces and structure footprints existed when the current owner bought the property Last year the petitioner sought a permit to replace a metal awning that collapsed under excessive snow loading. The structure was located over an existing concrete patio. While the patio counted against the open space value for the property, it was not calculated as floor area. A permit was issued by the Building Department without approval by the Planning Department for the petitioner to construct a home addition The addition was constructed in place of the awning structure, and its area counts against both the open space requirement and the floor area for the property. As the initial building permit was issued in error, the Planning Department was not able to review the building plans for the entire residence. It is entirely possible that the FAR can be met for the parcel without the need for a variance. The floor area calculation included in this packet is based upon the numbers used the Assessor's Department. Per the Zoning Code, closets, storage areas, food pantries, and stairwells are not calculated as floor area, and their removal from the FAR calculation has not been conducted. A building plan for the existing residence should be submitted to the Planning Department for review In addition, there are two sheds located on the parcel that are included in the floor area calculation. The sheds could be removed to accommodate the building addition. As the petitioner "inherited" the existing paved areas and building footprints, and are not proposing any additions is this regard, Staff is in favor of the exception to the open space requirement. The Board has ruled favorably in the past to allow for typical paved areas such as driveways. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approval in part of Appeal 02-2002 allowing the open space exception of 678.2 SF less than required, or 67% of the lot area. Denial in part of Appeal 02-2002 allowing a 130.5 square foot exception to the maximum permitted floor area for the property. Appeal # 02-2002 ZBA 4-25-2002 Page 2 4EXW- V.,Fn--s' !►MPE+zv�.�y„�x L,oal.S S Ov.r.aE.tiL lot - . Z-, 3& 9 1# W N (63 S7I fc t+ $ -t LAV- r-- 'Pl, s�•L� r A . V V,^10-- % 2-1 1. S zcm ti p t 7 ^'00 , T r. Q- 9- ax Svv , 2. �3�0 < a (REC AS SOUTH) c ch 1 r 4rr 100. p205 00 0 Q0 50.00 -;nf. 50.52LLJ r� , LL- V) ..: (D EXIST. ........ ........................ 19.75' � • � D WL G. X rs �•:. 893 21. 90CIQ w 00 ; CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FOR DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE Appellant's Name: �`75ftif - it l �� Cr �f�� h, PAY /J�EG _ Subject Property Address: /Cc -296 i� '�Y IZA - Telephone: Day: %�//7/- 4/ Evening: 4,4!��Jp f9l ed 1 7 Property Zoning: Tax Key: /�?5/`�L' as/� — 96 S Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable): LOwner Lessee Other Date inspector denied zoning permit: Requesting variance to Code Section A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced s ction 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 welfare because: lCl v r S:ICITYWALL\ZBAIApplications\ZBA-Dimensanat Appeal Application.doc Last printed 1/21102 9:14 AM - - --NoUIRS' p/f JO ZN17 J-&YA_ m 0 � � „,,;�,.,,�,t�re�,,,,,•,, 'a z �•0 n � ,. � I r � f 's I � z z ”' cNc u�i C�= EA E2 = _m-zo - t-, 0za �� �m� n 7O� E o %� O •�•. V 'U p ��G, . I Q EQ °Q oow o 0CD�o0—MCCMon m CD t b n= a 0 o a r 0 y (D - - (D 7 O to - O) O m W :3 „. r.t. {rl Z n --. (n M h o +t0 rn -- 0 � p � cn �. lb 0 G) o b a nHn Z (D O O (D { 70 LO o -0 0) (n � rn y Q a a %D 7 O O 7- O C O) 'Y+� - CD —(D a0V)ul0to0 � NX tr 3° �N V l cI A w IM .+ rn ry o m 0 1L 1� l Y LL I~ a • a • a c 9 Y a �1fnJ xb o Z —C) —• 0 0 07 OO O C Q M m -. � � r U) am m 4 a Z aw cboo (Do a ti zr (n-• urzra ^' Z) � • • Ys a o + 0005 OOOS ('SV311) SO'LOt 3 O r+ r+ 3 (D (D 7 U) ZF () U) - (D cn �• (D (D C) m Ill a46 I O O O-• Z - i� �x < nn 4J� a 2. 4; a a O 70 Ul 7 O Z O N --.oamO-.t��d0 0 ^m`�.N tr ♦ Z CD N - o k C] (1) -. (1) (D ::r - () (D OL C) .--r (D (D � (n r-r C) (D z 6 (� O 4 f a COI �y ��oty] ID CJ1 S.« a n - !L/ • 'Q ry a° nzM - t t-I3 � - () V — • (D C) In (D (D . r� O (D 0- 0 (D —•(D —.O � t y a a ti $ v aO~) as Z t y C) - (D U) O Q. T CT U) � — CD Cl � U) (D (D — C UlLJ� N u1 q o dl Vl Vi M M r NIO Q (D — [D O ITI Q O d }T! d + 1 5 tr al 7�Q n nn" y (D 7 O- O 3 C O O � C) � N\ CD .T N O\ (D Z 1 (A � b a V y :7a O to - -- (D U) 3 — U) -P� tb O ti a O t, 7 O U) - y �� � CP O O C) Q O z d v� ib so'g: ath byZ +) O O � O O O 7 U) 3 - (� Cl Cl - - O cn no O �� a O cn (D -• - (A C a t 8iS zSOS 00'06 n C • c O O) I �, o n O� Q (D U)-;�-O 0 o o w Oo (D (n (D (D O C) M�Ofo Z2 E (D ttn� -•, (D TWO CT — • — O O a + YY37J .99"0 0071 S d tlY37? .E30 ��i (D (D 0(D r+ O (D a a o u ��N3d 00 05 3�N3d (D tD in 3 D (D w ? o + •OOOOI3•♦P5.00toS (l C O- - (D !r DCDUlD �J �' 7 O :3 - 7 () to U) (D n~ a2 (DUD (DtD OtO ��h O o o 4 a t 1 Y n n t- 3 (D T 3 r` n A C) ! T l C] 7 UI (D � o a o; C (D ❑-0 n+ 7 0 a In a cn CO (D a r O O Oo 0 (D