The URL can be used to link to this page

Zoning Board of Appeals 02-2007ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDINGS OF FACTS A dimensional variance is hereby granted to C.J. Callies, by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Muskego in Appeal #02-2007 to permit the construction of a deck/stairs along the western side of the house allowing a 5.7-foot offset from the western side lot line requiring a 2.8-foot variance at S76 W 18384 Kingston Drive / Tax Key No. 2195.005, 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 were exceptional conditions applying that do not generally apply to other properties. The granting of the variance will allow the property owner to add a deck/stairs along the western side of the house. The service door leading from the garage needs a set of stairs leading down the slope of the grade. There would be undue hardship to the property owner to pour cement to create a staircase. The wood structure will provide a safe access to the rear/side yard. Dated this 30th day of April 2007. Az--4,�- S gned !7'i Chairman Dan Schepp' Zoning Board of Appeals ,� r Signed f Kellie Renk Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Unapproved CITY OF MUSKEGO April 26, 2007 Meeting was called to order at 7:10 P.M. Those in attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker, Dr. Russ Kashian, Mr. Richard Ristow and Planner Adam Trzebiatowski. ABSENT: Dr. Barb Blumenfield, Mr. Horst Schmidt, Mr. William Le Doux STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The secretary stated the meeting was noticed on April 19, 2007 in accordance with open meeting laws. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #01-2007 — Petitioner: John Skalla, W182 S6521 Garnet Drive / Tax Key No. 2174.185. REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.02 Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioner seeks the following variances: Two variances are being requested within this appeal. A. Chapter 17 — Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.03 — Building Height. (1) Maximum Height Restricted: In any district no building or structure shall be hereafter erected or structurally altered to a height in excess of that hereinafter specified by the regulations for that district, except as may be modified by this Code. A maximum height of 15-feet is allowed for accessory structures as measured from the average grade at the front of the building to the mid point of the highest gable. The petitioner seeks a height, as measured by code, of 20-feet for a 2''� story addition to their existing detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 5-foot variance to the accessory structure height requirement. B. Chapter 17 — Zoning Ordinance: Section 6.02 — Non -Conformity. (2)C. Structure repairs and alterations to non -conforming structure housing shall not, as long as such use continues, exceed 50% of the assessed value of the structure at the time the use became nonconforming. The material costs for additions to non -conforming structures are limited to 50% of the assessed fair market value (FMV). The existing garage on the property has a FMV of $8,000, which allows $4,000 (50% of $8,000) to be put into materials for an addition. The petitioner seeks a garage addition with materials valued at $14,120, and is therefore requesting a $10,120 variance. Vice Chairman Schneiker swore in John Skalla and Adam Trzebiatowski. Mr. Skalla explained he would like to add a second story addition above the garage. The property is located in the floodway and because of the floodway the DNR will not allow the footprint of the building to be expanded. The property does not have a basement due to the floodway also. Mr. Skalla stated he does not have adequate storage or a safe place for his children to play. Mr. Skalla stated the garage will still be lower in height then the house and the neighbors have no issues with the addition. Mr. Skalla stated his hardship is having a legal non -conforming lot in a floodway that will not allow him to expand the footprint of the building. Mr. Skalla stated he needs an area for storage and a safe place for his children to play. ZBA Minutes 4/26/2007 Page 2 Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City's opinion based on the Zoning Code. The petitioner is seeking approvals to construct a second story addition to an existing non -conforming detached garage. The petitioner currently has a 2-story home with a detached garage on their property. The entire property is shown within the 100-year floodplain. A small portion of the parcel near the road is within the floodfringe. Most of the parcel is within the floodway. Their house does not have a basement for storage or play due to the floodplain location and the water table. The petitioners first option was to add onto the existing house and/or to connect the house to the garage. The DNR typically does not allow any new structures/additions that could raise the regional flood elevation by more than .01-foot. Therefore, Mr. Skalla is requesting two variances the first one for an exception to the accessory structure height requirement for a second story garage addition. The maximum height of 15-feet is allowed for accessory structures as measured from the average grade at the front of the building to the mid point of the highest gable. The petitioner seeks a height of 20-feet for a 2"d story addition to the existing detached garage, which a 5-foot variance to the accessory structure height requirement. The second is an exception to the 50% rule for a non -conforming accessory structure. The material costs for additions to non -conforming structures are limited to 50% of the assessed fair market value. The existing garage on the property has a fair market value of $8,000, which allows $4,000 to be put into materials. The petitioner seeks a garage addition valued at $14,120 and is requesting a $10,120 variance. Based upon the submitted information staff has found a valid hardship. The petitioner has researched all other possible options and the second story addition above the garage is the only one that could work. Staff respectfully requests approval allowing a 20-foot high accessory structure for the construction of a second story addition to an existing detached garage, requiring a 5-foot variance and a 50% rule variance of $10,120, citing the variances preserve the intent of the Zoning Ordinance because there are exceptional conditions applying to the parcel that do not apply to other properties. The floodplain and floodway on this property restricts new building footprints from being constructed, which eliminates other alternatives. Appeal #02-2007 — Petitioner: Curtis J. Callies, S76 W 18384 Kingston Drive / Tax Key No. 2195.005. REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.02 Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioner seeks the following variances: 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. In the case of the petitioned lot, an offset of 8.5-feet is required from the side (western) lot line for any structure or deck. The petitioner seeks an offset of 5.7-feet from the side (western) lot line to permit the construction of a deck/stairs, and is therefore requesting a 2.8-foot variance from the side (western) lot line. Vice Chairman Schneiker swore in C.J. Callies and Adam Trzebiatowski. Mr. Callies explained he built his home in 2004. Drawings for deck permits were submitted at the same time as the new home for approval. The permit expired for the deck before it was completed. The City sent Mr. Callies a letter to renew and that is when it was discovered the deck was non -conforming. Mr. Callies stated he has a 9-foot basement and his house is higher than both his neighbors. He had planned on doing some type of stairs on this side but after discussing this with his neighbor they decided it is too steep to do anything. The west side will be the only access point to the front of the house. On the west side of the house is the proposed wood stairs that are not completed. Originally the stairs were going to be made of concrete or a retaining wall. Mr. Callies stated his hardship is safety. The concrete/retaining wall stairs would not be safe for ZBA Minutes 4/26/2007 Page 3 people to walk down. This wood stairs with a handrail would be much safer. Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City's opinion based on the Zoning Code. The petitioner has already constructed a deck/stairs along the side of their house leading from the front yard to the side/rear of their house without proper permits being issued and does not meet the zoning requirements. 8.5-feet is required from the side (western) lot line, which is already reduced because the lot is narrow. The petitioner is seeking an offset of 5.7-feet from the side/western lot line and is therefore requesting a 2.8-foot variance. Based upon the submitted information staff has not been able to find a valid hardship that meets State Law and Zoning Code Law guidelines. When the new home permit for the house was approved, the plans showed that the side of the house in question was going to have a retaining wall staircase, which is allowed by code. It also showed a concrete pad/landing at the side of the garage where the side service door to the garage is located. If the original plans would have been followed, there would not be any zoning issues today. The majority of lake lots with exposures do not have access via a staircase they use the natural grade of the land as access. The grading plan submitted showed the current height above ground due to the 9-foot basement and the desire to have a full exposure. The Engineering regulations at the time required the rear yard grade elevation to be 3-feet above the 100-year floodplain elevation. This then forced the house to be at a higher grade if a full exposure was wanted by the owner. A full exposure was not required by the City. Mr. Trzebiatowski added one of the biggest principals relating to the variance request is the fact that the deck/stairs were almost completely finished before the variance request was submitted. Construction without a permit is not a hardship and not following the previously approved plans is not a hardship. Staff is respectfully requesting denial of appeal 02-2007, citing the variance does not preserve the intent of the Zoning Ordinance because there are not exceptional conditions applying to the parcel that do no apply to other properties. Also, a non -self imposed hardship is not found for the appeal. The placement of the house and its doors, the placement of the existing retaining walls, and the proposed grading of the site are self-imposed hardships. Dr. Kashian stated the only issue is the wrong materials were used and without the proper permits. Mr. Schneiker questioned the difference between wood or block stairs related to the stricter setbacks/offsets. Mr. Trzebiatowski stated the deck is considered a built structure connected to the house and tends to be more obtrusive. The retaining wall or blocks are built into the ground and are not as noticeable. Mr. Callies submitted a letter that the neighbor signed stating they would not be installing any kind of steps, stairs, paths or retaining walls on the eastern side of the property. DELIBERATIONS: Appeal #01-2007 — Vice Chairman Schneiker moved to approve as submitted. Seconded by Dr. Kashian. The hardship of having floodway and floodfringe over the entire parcel and the DNR restrictions of what you can do in a floodway gives the property owner no other options but to build a second story addition over the garage to allow for storage and a safe place for his children to play. Upon a roll call vote Appeal 01-2007 is approved 4-0. Appeal #02-2007 — Dr. Kashian moved to approve as submitted. Seconded by Vice Chairman Schneiker. Dr. Kashian stated the argument in this appeal is over building ZBA Minutes 4/26/2007 Page 4 materials. The house needs a set of stairs and the wood deck/stairs is a quality structure. Dr. Kashian added there needs to be a staircase as the service door would lead to nowhere. There would also be undue hardship for the property owner to pour cement to create a staircase. Vice Chairman Schneiker added this structure will be inspected to ensure safety as part of the building permit inspection process. A block staircase would not be inspected. Upon a roll call vote Appeal 02-2007 is approved 5-0. OLD BUSINESS: none. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Dr. Kashian moved to approve the minutes of December 7, 2006. Seconded by Mr. Ristow. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried. MISCELLANEOUS: ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this Board, Vice Chairman Schnieker moved to adjourn. Dr. Kashian seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 8:03 P.M. Telli p tfully Submitted, e Renk Recording Secretary City of Muskego Staff Representative Brief Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 02-2007 For the meeting of. April 26, 2007 REQUESTING: 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: Curtis J. Callies LOCATION: S76 W 18384 Kingston Drive / Tax Key No. 2195.005 CITY'S POSITION PRESENTED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski, City Staff Representative BACKGROUND The petitioner has already constructed a deck/stairs along the side of their house leading from the front yard to the side/rear of their house without proper permits being issued. Upon submittal and review of the permit application, the deck/stairs are closer than allowed to the side lot line. There were also two (2) other decks/stairs that were built on this property without proper permits that are being corrected so that they do not require a variance. Those two decks/stairs also did not meet the code requirements relating to setbacks and offsets. The petitioner has stated that safe access is needed to get down this side of their yard. They want to be able to keep the deck/stairs in their current location. Below is the detailed timeline relating to the deck/stair permits. The permit application for these decks/stairs, specifically the one requesting the variance, was submitted on January 20, 2006. Due to incomplete information and a required updated survey, the permit was put on hold on January 24, 2006. The owner was contacted or had messages left for him three times in May and June 2006. In early June an updated survey was brought in that showed the numerous decks that were not approved did not meet the zoning requirements. The survey at that time stated that the deck locations were added to the survey without any field work. On June 6, 2006 the owner stated that the decks were already built. The Zoning Board of Appeals information and application was then picked up on June 7, 2006. A message was left again for the owner on December 27, 2006 and a follow up letter was sent on February 6, 2007. In late February 2007 a further revised survey was submitted showing the actual built locations of the decks. A final follow up letter was sent on March 13, 2007 stating that if the owner did not remove the non -approved decks or apply for the proper variance by this meeting deadline, citations would have to be issued. The parcel is zoned RL-3, Lakeshore Residence District. The property is located on Kingston Drive on Little Muskego Lake. The petitioner seeks the following variance: An exception to the required offset from the side lot line for a deck/stairs. In the case of the petitioned lot, an offset of 8.5-feet is required from the side (western) lot line for any structure or deck. The petitioner seeks an offset of 5.7-feet from the side (western) lot line to permit the construction of a deck/stairs, and is therefore requesting a 2.8-foot variance from the side (western) lot line. Appeal # 02-2007 ZBA 04-26-2007 Page 1 DISCUSSION Based upon the submitted information staff has not been able to find a valid hardship that meets State Law and Zoning Case Law guidelines. There will be some type of block or retaining wall staircase along the southeastern side of the house that will provide access to the rear yard. There also is the ability to walk around the retaining walls on the northwestern side of the house. The majority of lake lots with exposures do not have access via a staircase along both sides of their house to the rear yard. When the new home permit for this house was approved, the plans showed that the side of the house in question was going to have a retaining wall staircase, which is allowed by code. It also showed a concrete pad/landing at the side of the garage where the side service door to the garage is located. If the original plans would have been followed, there would not be any zoning issue today. The petitioner stated in their submittal that the City required the house to be placed higher than the neighbors. This is incorrect. The builders/surveyors of the home had to propose the grades they'd like on their survey and/or grading plan. The grading plan that was submitted by the builder/homeowner showed the current height above ground due to the 9-foot basement and the desire to have a full exposure. The Engineering regulations at the time required the rear yard grade elevation to be 3 feet above the 100-year floodplain elevation. This then forced the house to be at a higher grade if a full exposure was wanted by the builder/owner. A full exposure is not and was not required by the City. If the deck/stairs were removed, the question may come up regarding the side service door to the garage. If the original City approved plans were followed there would be a safe exit area from the side service door. The retaining wall may need to be altered to facilitate the exit area from the side service door. Also, the current retaining walls and grades in the area of the walls do not exactly match the City approved grading plan. If they were followed exactly, no alteration may be needed to the retaining walls. One of the biggest principals relating to the variance request is the fact that the deck/stairs that is seeking the variance was almost completely finished before the variance was even talked about or submitted. Construction without a permit is not a hardship and not following previously approved plans in not a hardship. 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 owners(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. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, THE CITY STAFF REPRESENITIVE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS: Denial of Appeal 02-2007, allowing a deck/stairs to be allowed with a 5.7-foot offset, a 2.8-foot variance, from the side (western) lot line; citing that the variance does not preserve the intent of the Zoning Ordinance because there are not exceptional conditions applying to the parcel that do not apply to other properties. Also, a non -self imposed hardship is not found for the appeal. The placement of the house and its doors, the placement of the existing retaining walls, and the proposed grading of the site are self-imposed hardships. There will be some type of block or retaining wall staircase along the southeastern side of the house that will provide access to the rear yard. There also is the ability to walk around the retaining walls on the northwestern side of the house. Alterations to the existing retaining wall, if need, can be made to help facilitate egress from the side service door. Remember, the deck/stairs did not follow the original building plans and they were built without permits. Appeal # 02-2007 ZBA 04-26-2007 Page 2 Appeal #02-2007 Supplemental Map LEGEND Agenda Item(s) Property ^V Right-of-way Hydrography (� Prepared by City of Muskego Planning Department 4/19/2007 e Petitioner: 2195.005 Curtis J. Callies S76 W18384 Kingston Drive Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 02-2007 Deck/Stairs that encroach into the required offsets. S76 W18384 Kingston Drive / Tax Key No. 2195.005 View from Kingston Dr. (Looking Southeast) Deck/Stairs that -- encroach into the required offsets. View from Kingston Dr. (Looking Northeast) 1 of 2 Deck/Stairs that encroach into the required offsets. --Area to walk X ound if the -conforming _d--Ck/stairs are removed. View from Kingston Dr. (Looking Northeast) 2of2 IN �o ' - ' - • . S77I�M 'SAX ,�I�L •N'�I 'SSIX� 141 ii2F',�'IoO� ........... i 04 OD oP W J... �Ld 02Id .. - . ... • - ico - L 0.0 % tk5 �+� �Iy Wes'X... - Piwn. P C# Val, Print Application CITY OF DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE APPLICATION PACKET MAC JSKEG,01 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Applicant (Please Print or Type) Name: U !'` 7I S Business Name: Address: JS 76 (,L) j S 1el,V6 � j�Yti City: v{ (J J /"' k L b State: IC,U I Zip Code: 1s3iS er) Phone Number: Fax N,azer: I 'M/, Y �/ _ p 4- i Mobile Number: a[ Y/t,/ , 6 (1 0 o' q-75 11 E-mail Address: Date y-;�-o-7 Property Owner (Please Print or Type) This section can be left blank if the same as above. Name: S"t4rA�_ E Business Name: Address: City: I State: I Zip Code: Phone Number: Fax Number: Mobile Number: I E-mail Address: Please fill out the information below regarding the proposed dimensional variance. Location/Address: Tax Key Number(s) To allow: y4 LA A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section would result in practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship because: Page 1 of 4 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 77% -S'.,7�14S ivl G c, q1 T Sf}� 7a o v F 6,(4e u &; v 73,��/v 1�''Ic)S.e- 1'r7 6'4e()N0 L-49/0-i 7-0 If this form has been filled out electronically, please click on the "Print Application" button on the top of page 1 or to the right of this text. I Print Application Once the application is printed/filled out it can be submitted to the Planning Department along with any applicable information required for your submittal. Please see the attached sheet to ensure that the proper supporting documents are submitted along with this completed form. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE PROCEDURE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS WILL RESULT IN THIS APPLICATION BEING WITHHELD FROM CONSIDERATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. 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 / OWNER / DEVELOPER FOR 100% RECOVERY. (Ch. 3.085/Ord. #909) Signature of the Property Owner: U/�-izS CALcI bS Pnn Name: ` Date: q —,5— Q Signature of the Applicant (working as 'Agent" for the owner): Print Name: Date: Page 2 of 4 C U I E T I S C+t c,, t ,ems t(toK f/4e f6 - AeCK-f A�-a co Tf115 7Z3 op i4T" Td.� BdGv� 7z%A.0 .s14�5 .415 (11 5,*l -JT� �s y ..57/2F-C '�' 7?11�-� s why /r �lS ,J� T �.�eXalc.O r¢ 3 A)i--S T D,6 e4 NO DS 7z ,�'� ,�-t�-r� y,�S' Lve �o A�', /02-5/61��62 7a 4,f04 AWd 7k7�- 004 �� 0y% IZ J)U /Df}Tl 6 AV C (U QLT/S C mac-- S 7- -k 7,(l06 / -4y- a / Pt, o o.s "c-,eS' �i irk 7 ftT 77 Zj?�,ffati T ,eea.,, Tf> �o�-D sloes 7 VA ;a (Vrf W7 ;5,',D 7T TD Zd ceS l 776re 77Z) 77 <<1�.N7-it �47e-O - 7� 731 C,�� CUr ? 7,l- 6l P4�r /T /S SO 7 Gr/.�ti T- 70 R f 44 ?007 4 5 0 Qn L' "'d ' ' " " GROUP INC. civil engineering land surveying site planning S71 W23325 NATIONAL AVENUE SUITE 5 BIG BEND WISCONSIN 53103 (262) 662-5002 fax (262) 662-5012 (email) edgewood-eg@bizwi.rr.com PREPARED FOR: C.J. CALLIES PLAT OF SURVEY LOCATION: S76 W 18384 KINGSTON DRIVE, CITY OF MUSKEGO, WISCONSIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 13 IN KINGSTON'S ON MUSKEGO SUBD. NO. 1 BEING A PART OF THE SW K SECTION 9, T5N, R20E, CITY OF MUSCKEG, WAUKESHA COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AUGUST 23, 2006 WAU-56 FEBRUARY 20, 2007 (DRAWING REVISED) LITTLE MUSKEGO FEBRUARY 27, 2007 (DRAWING REVISED) SCALE:1" = 20' LAKE \ \ O \ \ N * \h1� ORDINARY HIGH \ WATER MARK \ \ IRON PIPE \ FOUND \ \N6go pop IRON PIPE FOUND _— ry� i ~ EXISTING 14 c� o� N �Dti v v S", 37 EXISTING DWELLING N I� ti EXISMG 12 DECKS — -- E N PIPE `�1' 4Q FOUND N \ L o1'- \ �I .\I 60,, �G SrIRON \ PIPE Qv FOUND I •1,11,111111111,,,, V CHRISTOPHER J. -71 KUNKEL s-i 755 � I hereby certify that I have surveyed the above described property and the above map is a true WAUKESHA representation thereof and shows the size and location of the property, its eaaenor boundaries, the Mil 0 ` location of all visible structures and dimensions of all principal buildings thereon, boundary fences. apparent easements, roadway and visible encroachments, if any. This survey is made for the Q. �, 941 y0 present owners of the property, and also those who purchase, mortgage, or guarantee, the title thereto within ,�.• 10 �. U Rv �,�� one 12) year from dote henrof 111111111% 0 1 THIS IS AN ORIGINAMNT IF SEAL IS IMFRIN Ch sto h J. Kunkel egistered Land Surveyor S-1755 C--\D CV P—S orw Sett..gs\D...e.\locos Sett.gs\Aco<ati Dota\A,t sk\A., ode Lorca Desktop 2007\R170\ert,\ rr0ote\DMD STAPTUP.e.t 6i7/2006 e729 PM CST 7-0 0 A.) 0 c 4119 65 /0 7 � A14 -5 7— s 7%� a y � ti4,Uc yl �, � Y -S !UPrAvc Y' i S (Oufl- A)i (6 fBo2s) 6 4- 7- Gv t 85 S 76 S ;k tet,u6s,--ea 0 v 2 ,f-A-M Ox C,/,a,e-.a s v✓V.& 7; � W Lv o u z-10 /U_ 7- 7007- Ai IV Sri o°S , � 77- 1 ic-s / Neu f4-7W 04 4-ZT�i,,V/AG Ct)h-UL, S'T�/%-S 7-0 v S 4-5 ��✓ -c.� s o A16 /S Td o s 7-25-AA-V /, 7� o Q,9-N��/LovS 7-0�.ti� �/�D D� JCS' o� T� i' S' s 7 ems' �r �� >� AND sT✓9- ! �-.S';, 7'�l._S lS iffy �� DS�� o� ti��D�1�G co /Z T/S CA&C J 401 CA't& / 6-5 ha r0ecl 6.2L4 q-alo -vi own W 0