Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals- - Minutes 08/24/2006Memo To: Zoning Board of Appeals From: Adam Trzebiatowski Date: August 16, 2006 Re: Appeal #07-2006 — Willow Pond Apartments Appeal #07-2006 has been withdrawn by the petitioner. The petitioner resolved the portions of their proposal that required variances. The Planning Commission approved their updated proposal on August 15, 2006. Since this items has been withdrawn the board does not need to take any action on it at the August 24, 2006 BOA meeting. Thank You PHILLIPS, MILEWSKI & ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHITECTURE • ENGINEERING • PLANNING formerly BIRCH • GRISA • PHILLIPS iNc. August 18, 2006 Mr. Jeff Muenkel Plan Director City of Muskego W182 S8200 Racine Ave. Muskego, WI 53150 Dear Mr. Muenkel: At the August 15, 2006 meeting of the City of Muskego Plan Commission Resolution P.C.083-2006 was amended and passed for the creation of additional garage buildings at the Willow Pond Apartment Complex. The approved layout no longer requires the granting of a lot line variance, and as such, the owner is requesting that his petition for variance be removed from consideration. Please call me if you have any questions regarding this request. Sincerely, Vincent D. Milewski, ALA, NCARB Principal Architect cc: Ripp Realty 10859 W. BLUEMOUND ROAD, SUITE 200 • MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 53226 414/476-1212 • 414/476-1862 (FAX) • infofpma-inc.us • www.pma-inc.us ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES CITY OF MUSKEGO August 24, 2006 Meeting was called to order at 7:07 P.M Those in attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker, Dr. Barb Blumenfield, Mr. Horst Schmidt, Dr. Russ Kashian, Mr. William Le Doux and Associate Planner Adam Trzebiatowski. ABSENT: Mr. Richard Ristow STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The secretary stated the meeting was noticed on August 17, 2006 in accordance with open meeting laws. NEW BUSINESS: APPEAL #08-2006—Petitioner: Paul and Jennifer Schmidt, S65 W18764 Onyx Drive/Tax Key 2174.108. 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. Two variances are being requested within this appeal. A. A setback of 40-feet is required from any right-of-way line on the above mentioned corner lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 31.16-feet from the southeastern (front) right-of-way line and a setback of 17.87-feet from the western (side) right-of-way line to permit the construction of a garage, and is therefore requesting a 8.84-foot variance from the southeastern right-of-way line and a 22.13-foot variance from the western right-of-way line. B. A separation of 10-feet is required between an accessory building (garage) and principal structure (house). The petitioner seeks a separation of 5-feet between their proposed garage and their existing house, and is therefore requesting a 5-foot variance from the code requirement. Vice Chairman Schneiker swore in Paul Schmidt and Adam Trzebiatowski. Mr. Schmidt explained he is requesting to build a detached garage where the current driveway is located. The main reason for this location is to preserve the space in the backyard for his children to play in. Both Onyx and Gold are busy streets and he would not want his children playing in the front yard along these streets. There is currently a fence along Gold Drive that would have to come down if he moved the garage toward the back of the lot for the driveway to access Gold Drive. Chairman Schepp questioned the need for the variance for the 10-foot separation. Mr. Schmidt stated he was not opposed to attaching the house to the garage, but the driveway is currently 5-feet away from the house. Mr. Le Doux noted if the garage were attached to the house it would have to have footings Mr. Schneiker questioned Mr. Schmidt what the hardship is. Mr. Schmidt stated the hardship is the safety of his children playing along two busy streets if the garage where placed in the rear yard. Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City's opinion based on the Zoning Code. The petitioner does not currently have a garage on their property, which is located at the corner of Onyx Drive and Gold Drive. Since this lot is on a corner, both street sides (right-of-way sides) have a front setback applied to them. Therefore there is a 40-foot setback required from both right of way lines. Two variances are being requested. The first relates to the location of the structure. The petitioner is requesting a 8.84-foot variance from the southeastern right of way line and a 22.13-foot variance from the western right of way line. The second variance is related to the clearance between the house and the garage. The code requires a 10-foot offset between the house and garage. The petitioner is requesting a 5-foot separation. Mr. Trzebiatowski stated there are options for the petitioner. There is room for the garage size that is ZBA Minutes 8/24/2006 Page 2 proposed if the garage were placed in the rear yard within the required setbacks and offsets, the driveway could be relocated off of Gold Drive and the current driveway converted into green space. Two sections of the fence could be removed to allow for the driveway. Mr. Trzebiatowski also stated if the garage were built in a location that did not require a setback variance it would not require the separation variance either. Mr. Trzebiatowski noted firewalls would still be required with the 5-foot offset and must meet the building code requirements. If the garage were attached the 50% rule would apply, where any additions or alteration to the house must be less than 50% of the value of the house (materials only). Staff is respectfully requesting denial of appeal 08-2006 (A) and (B) citing 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. There is the ability to construct a detached garage in the backyard of this property. This would then preserve the code requirement and still allow a garage to be constructed on this property. If the garage were located in the back yard meeting the Zoning Code requirements, there is not need to have a clearance only of 5 feet between the two structures. DELIBERATIONS: APPEAL 08-2006— Mr. Le Doux moved to approve as submitted. Seconded by Dr. Kashian. Mr. Le Doux stated there are exceptional circumstances applying to this property since this is a corner lot and it is not being able to be used as the neighboring lot could. Most properties have a garage and Mr. Le Doux stated he would rather see it on Onyx Drive. There is no determent to the adjacent properties where proposed and by placing the garage in the back it destroys the yard. Mr. Le Doux further stated corner lots are being penalized when the property owner is trying to add value to the property. Corner lots should be made larger to compensate for increased setbacks. Mr. Trzebiatowski explained in the newer subdivisions developers are taking the corner lots into consideration and determining setbacks prior to development. Chairman Schepp and Dr. Kashian both agree visibility is not an issue since there is currently a fence on the corner of Gold Drive. Dr. Blumenfield noted in 1978 when the house was built if a garage would have been built it would more than likely have been attached to the house in this location. Dr. Blumenfield also stated she would not want the children playing near Onyx and Gold without a fence and the hardship for this appeal is the safety of the children. Upon a roll call vote Appeal 08-2006 is approved 5-0. OLD BUSINESS: Appeal 07-2006 — Petitioner: Phillips, Milewski & Associates, Inc. and Mickey Ripp, Willow Pond Apartment/ Tax Key Nos. 2195.981.005 & 2195.981.004. 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 5.02 Building Location. (1) Location Restricted: No building shall be hereinafter 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. The following are the two variance are being requested within the appeal: A. 2195.981.006 (Parcel 6) — An offset of 20-feet is required from the side property lines on the above -mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks an offset of 7-feet from the southeastern lot lie to permit the construction of an additional detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 13-foot variance from the southeastern property line. ZBA Minutes 8/24/2006 Page 3 B. 2195.981.004 (Parcel 3) — A setback of 40-feet is required from the font property lines (right-of- way) on the above -mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 30-feet from the southern lot line (right-of-way) to permit the construction of an additional detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 10-foot variance from the southern property line (right-of-way). Mr. Trzebiatowski referred to the letter, dated August 18, 2006, from the petitioner requesting this variance be removed from consideration. Mr. Trzebiatowski stated because the appeal was withdrawn, no action will be taken. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the minutes of July 27, 2006. Seconded by Mr. Schneiker. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried. MISCELLANEOUS: ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this Board, Dr. Blumenfield moved to adjourn. Mr. Schmidt seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 8:47 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Kellie Renk Recording Secretary ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES CITY OF MUSKEGO July 27, 2006 Meeting was called to order at 7:07 P.M Those in attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker, Mr. Horst Schmidt, Mr. Richard Ristow and Associate Planner Adam Trzebiatowski. ABSENT: Dr. Barb Blumenfield, Dr. Russ Kashian and Mr. William Le Doux STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The secretary stated the meeting was noticed on July 21, 2006 in accordance with open meeting laws. NEW BUSINESS: APPEAL #05-2006—Petitioner: David & Debra Woida, S75 W18650 Kingston Drive/ Tax Key 2195.031.002. 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 5.08 Existing Substandard Lots. The open space requirements in the case of such lot may be reduces without appeal provided the open area is equal to at least 75% of the actual lot area. The minimum open space required for the property is 6,427 square feet (75% of the 8,570 SF lot). The current open space is 5,802 square feet, resulting in 67.7-percent of the lot area being preserved as open space, which is non -conforming. The Appellant is proposing to construct an addition connecting the existing detached garage to the existing house and also the removal of two concrete areas, resulting in 67.2-percent of the lot area being preserved as open space, and is therefore requesting a 7.8-percent variance to the Code requirement. Vice Chairman Schneiker swore in David Woida and Adam Trzebiatowski. Mr. Woida explained he bought the house in 1996. The house has a small kitchen and is not large enough for his family. Mr. Woida is requesting to add about 250 square feet to double the size of the kitchen and connect the house to the garage. Due to the location of the stairway to the second floor, they are unable to add onto another wall. Mr. Woida explained there is a 75% green space requirement that the property currently does not meet even without the addition. Mr. Woida has proposed to take out an existing parking slab and replace with brick pavers or grass and cut out an existing area of the driveway for landscaping. With the proposed addition and removing existing concrete Mr. Woida stated he will only be a half of percent over what he currently has for open space. Mr. Woida feels removing all of the driveway to be in compliance with the open space requirement would be dangerous to his young children who ride skateboards and roller blades on the driveway if it were pavers. Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City's opinion based on the Zoning Code. In reviewing the permit request, it was discovered that the petitioner is over the allowed amount of open space with their proposed plan. When the garage was originally approved the contractor installed a driveway without permits. The driveway puts the property over the open space requirements. In the petitioner's submittal they stated they would be willing to remove the section of concrete that is currently in front of the garage measuring 180 square feet and a section of concrete 16-square feet for landscaping. With the removal of 196 square feet of concrete, the open space total would be 5,761 square feet, which is still 666 square feet over the open space limit and would require a 7.8 percent variance. With the removal of the concrete areas the site would be 51 square feet over the current amount of open space on the site. Mr. Trzebiatowski noted there is an option to replace concrete/asphalt with brick pavers, grass, gravel or woodchips. Staff does not feel that a decrease in the amount of open space for this site is appropriate. The site is already over the 75-percent open space limit. If this project/permit were to proceed, and a variance would not be granted, the petitioner would need to bring the site into the 75-percent open space compliance. Mr. Trzebiatowski also noted since these structures are already non -conforming, the typical 50% rule that ZBA Minutes 7/27/2006 Page 2 applies to the total cost of materials for the addition still applies for this proposal. The total cost of the materials is not to exceed 50% of the current value of the house and garage. Staff is respectfully requesting denial of Appeal 05-2006 as submitted, allowing the proposed addition which will consume additional open space on the property, requiring a 666 square foot variance (taking into consideration the removal of 196 square feet of concrete/asphalt). Staff does recommend approval of a variance that does maintain the current amount of open space, which is 5,802 square feet (67.7 percent open space). This would require an open space variance of 625 square feet (7.3 percent). Since there are options present to bring the open space into compliance, no additional open space beyond the current amount should be consumed. Chairman Schepp questioned if the garage needed a variance. Mr. Woida stated a variance was granted to build the garage closer to the road. Appeal 06-2006 — Petitioner: C.I. Banker Wire & Iron Works, S84 W 19120 Enterprise Drive/ Tax Key No. 2228.999.005. 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 6.04 Off -Street Parking. (4)D. Setback: In any off-street parking area no vehicle shall be parked closer than 10 feet to the existing street line. A setback of 10-feet is required from the right-of-way line (lot line) on the above -mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 5-feet from the right-of-way (southern lot line) to permit the relocation of a parking lot, and is therefore requesting a 5-foot variance from the right-of-way (southern lot line). Vice Chairman Schneiker swore in John and George Boxhorn, co -owners of C.I Banker Wire and Adam Trzebiatowski. John Boxhorn explained the plans were originally approved with the fire street located on the west end of the building. The owners and the fire department would prefer the fire street at the front (south end) of the building for safety reasons. The proposed fire lane and the parking lot in the front of the building would be located 5-feet within the 10-foot required setback. Mr. Boxhorn stated they need another five feet closer to the street for the fire lane. Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City's opinion based on the Zoning Code. The petitioner received Planning Commission and Building Permit approvals to construct a 12,000 square foot addition onto their existing industrial building. The location of the fire lane was not the ideal location per the Fire Department. Phil Dibb of the Fire Department sent an email to the Planning Department stating his opinion on the matter. Mr. Dibb stated they are in favor of the fire street relocation for the following reasons: • This is the safest area having dual access and direct city street access • This area has multiple access points to the building • T fIIS Brea will not ha Siivvv i5siie5 to ucai 'JJiu I • It is the most logical area — matches all other buildings Mr. Trzebiatowski also noted there is no ability to shrink down this fire street. A variance from Plan Commission and Board of Appeals would be required to allow the 5-foot setback. Plan Commission did approve the variance from the General Design Guide requirement under Resolution PC 09-2006 at the July 18, 2006 meeting. Their approval also recommends approval of the variance from the Board of Appeals. Staff representative respectfully requests approval of appeal 06-2006, allowing a 5-foot setback from the right-of-way for a parking lot, requiring a 5-foot variance, citing there are safety concerns relating to the placement of the fire street and that the placement along the front of the building is the safest option and this should not hamper the surrounding properties. ZBA Minutes 7/27/2006 Page 3 Appeal 07-2006 — Petitioner: Phillips, Milewski & Associates, Inc. and Mickey Ripp, Willow Pond Apartment/ Tax Key Nos. 2195.981.005 & 2195.981.004. 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 5.02 Building Location. (1) Location Restricted: No building shall be hereinafter 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. The following are the two variance are being requested within the appeal: A. 2195.981.006 (Parcel 6) — An offset of 20-feet is required from the side property lines on the above -mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks an offset of 7-feet from the southeastern lot lie to permit the construction of an additional detached garage. and is therefore requesting a 13-foot variance from the southeastern property line. B. 2195.981.004 (Parcel 3) — A setback of 40-feet is required from the font property lines (right-of- way) on the above -mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 30-feet from the southern lot line (right-of-way) to permit the construction of an additional detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 10-foot variance from the southern property line (right-of-way). The petitioner was not present as staff is recommending deferral. Mr. Trzebiatowski explained this item is also up for discussion at Plan Commission. This item was deferred at Plan Commission on July 18, 2006. At the Plan Commission meeting the Commissioners had questions for the petitioners. The petitioners were not present to answer their questions. The item was deferred to allow the petitioners to answer the questions. The outcome at Plan Commission will determine how this appeal will go forward. Staff representative respectfully requests deferral of appeal 07-2006. DELIBERATIONS APPEAL 05-2006— Mr. Schneiker moved to approve appeal 05-2006 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Ristow. Mr. Schneiker stated because the driveway is already not in compliance there will not be a substantial change once the project is complete. By replacing the concrete driveway with brick pavers there would not be much gain and there would be maintenance and up -keep for the property owner and future property owners. There is also a safety issue for the children with brick pavers for the driveway. Chairman Schepp stated the hardship is the location of the garage in relation to the house and the need for a larger kitchen to facilitate the petitioner's growing family. Chairman Schepp noted the other houses on the street appear to over the open space requirement also, and the proposed project will only be a half of percent over what already exists. Upon a roll call vote Appeal 05-2006 is approved 4-0. APPEAL 06-2006— Mr. Schmidt moved to approve appeal 06-2006 as submitted, allowing a 5ft setback. Seconded by Mr. Ristow. The Board agreed there is a safety issue with the fire street being on one end of the building. The best location for the fire street is along the front (south end) of the building. Upon a roll call vote Appeal 06-2006 is approved 4-0. APPEAL 07-2006— Mr. Schmidt moved to defer appeal 07-2006 until Plan Commission makes a determination. Seconded by Mr. Schneiker. Upon voice vote appeal 07-2007 is deferred 4-0. OLD BUSINESS: None APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the minutes of May 25, 2006. Seconded by Chairman Schepp. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried. MISCELLANEOUS: New Zoning Code Information — Mr. Trzebiatowski explained staff has been working on a re -write of the ZBA Minutes 7/27/2006 Page 4 Zoning Code. The current code was originally adopted in 1963 and revisions to it have been made from time to time. One of the biggest changes will be the creation of new zoning districts. Included in the packet is the re -write of the Board of Appeals section of the Code. If any members have questions or concerns, they should contact staff as soon as possible for clarification. Once the Zoning Code is completed and approved by Council, a copy will be distributed to the Board members. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this Board, Mr. Schmidt moved to adjourn. Mr. Schneiker seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 8:12 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Kellie Renk Recording Secretary CITY OF MUSKEGO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA July 27, 2006 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 appeals described below. The Board of Appeals will then reconvene into open session. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS 1. APPEAL #05-2006 Petitioner: David & Debra Woida Property: S75 W18650 Kingston Drive / Tax Key No. 2195.031.002 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 5.08 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. The minimum open space required for the property is 6,427 square feet (75% of the 8,570 SF lot). The ..a .. C OI'1 rf ....�.....+ f....♦ .lii.. .. 67 7 1 of the I i being ropy hied a gnen - - _ _ ,y,_ _ - can, , a o, area �, , p,, s �. space, which is non -conforming. The Appellant is proposing to construct an addition connecting the existing detached garage to the existing house and also the removal of two concrete areas, resulting in 67.2-percent of the lot area being preserved as open space, and is therefore requesting an 7.8-percent variance to the Code requirement. 2. APPEAL #06-2006 Petitioner: C.I. Banker Wire & Iron Works Property: S84 W19120 Enterprise Drive / Tax Key No. 2228.999.005 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 6.04 Off -Street Parking ZBA 7/27/2006 Page 2 (4)D. Setback: In any off-street parking area no vehicle shall be parked closer than 10 feet to the existing street line. A setback of 10-feet is required from the right-of-way line (lot line) on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 5-feet from the right-of-way (southern lot line) to permit the relocation of a parking lot, and is therefore requesting a 5-foot variance from the right-of-way (southern lot line). 3. APPEAL #07-2006 Petitioner: Phillips, Milewski & Associates, Inc. and Mickey Ripp Property: Willow Pond Apartments (Lions Park Drive) / Tax Key Nos. 2195.981.006 & 2195.981.004 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 5.02 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. NOTE: There are two variances being requested within this appeal. A. 2195.981.006 (Parcel #6) - An offset of 20-feet is required from the side property lines on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks an offset of 7-feet from the southeastern lot line to permit the construction of an additional detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 13-foot variance from the southeastern property line. B. 2195.981.004 (Parcel # 3) - A setback of 40-feet is required from the front property lines (right-of- way) on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 30-feet from the southern lot line (right-of-way) to permit the construction of an additional detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 10-foot variance from the southern property line (right-of-way). CLOSED SESSION OPEN SESSION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MAY 25, 2006 MEETING. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS -r- .: I. 1`IevY LVI 1111g V1Ju= II IIUr1.. atiulI ADJOURN It is possible that members of and possibly a quorum of members of other govemmental 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 Janice Moyer, City Clerk/Treasurer at Muskego City Hall, (262) 679-5625. City of Muskego Staff Representative Brief Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 07-2006 For the meeting of. July 27, 2006 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: Phillips, Milewski & Associates, Inc. and Mickey Ripp LOCATION: Willow Pond Apartments (Lions Park Drive) / Tax Key Nos. 2195.981.006 & 2195.981.004 CITY'S POSITION PRESENTED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski, City Staff Representative BACKGROUND The petitioner is seeking approvals to construct some additional garage structures at the existing Willow Ponds Apartment complex. Two of the specific garages would require variances due to their proposed locations. The parcels are zoned RSM, Multiple Family Residence District. This complex is located off of Lions Park Drive. The petitioner is seeking the following variances: A. An exception to the side yard offset requirement for the district. An offset of 20-feet is required from the side property lines on Parcel #6. The petitioner seeks an offset of 7-feet from the southeastern lot line to permit the construction of an additional detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 13-foot variance from the southeastern property line. (2195.981.006 - Parcel #6) AND B. An exception to the front setback requirement for the district. A setback of 40-feet is required from the front property lines (right-of-way) on Parcel #3. The petitioner seeks a setback of 30-feet from the southern lot line (right-of-way) to permit the construction LheFeI--- -L:Ing � All IU L VC1I Id II-� C-U��-.- UI dll dUUItlUlldl UCIdGIICd garage, d11d IJ IIICI CI VIC ICI.�UCJIII II�. d IV-IVVI VdIIdIII.0 II VIII LIIC JVUIIICIII property line (right-of-way). (2195.981.004 - Parcel # 3) DISCUSSION The petitioner recently submitted plans to the Planning Commission for a Building, Site, and Operation Plan amendment in order to be able to construct four (4) new garage structures and one (1) garage addition. Out of these garages, two (2) of them do not conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in regards to Setbacks and Offsets. This item is currently at the Planning Commission, which is the first step within this approval process that needs to occur. The Planning Commission deferred this item at its July 18, 2006 meeting because there were some questions that the Commissioners had in regards to the garages that may require the variances. The petitioners were not present at the Planning Commission meeting to answer question that Appeal # 07-2006 ZBA 07-27-2006 Page 1 of 2 the Commission had. Due to this, the item was deferred so that the petitioner could be at the next meeting to answer the questions that the Commission had. The question related partially to the hardship(s) that the petitioners thought were present. The reason this item was on the Board of Appeals agenda was because this item was originally expected to have been acted upon at the July 18, 2006 Plan Commission meeting. Based upon the Planning Commission not yet taking any action on this item (they deferred this item), the Board of Appeals needs to also defer this item until the questions existing with the Planning Commission are resolved and the Planning Commission has made their decision regarding this proposal. The decision of the Planning Commission will determine how this appeal will need to proceed and what will factor into the appeal. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, THE CITY STAFF REPRESENITIVE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS: Deferral of Appeal 05-2006, since this item has been deferred by the Planning Commission. Until the Planning Commission takes action on this item, deferral needs to be sought since the decision of the Planning Commission will determine how this variance will need to proceed, and will highly factor into the issues at hand. Appeal # 07-2006 ZBA 07-27-2006 Page 2 of 2 Appeal #07-2006 Supplemental Map LEGEND Agenda Item(s) Petitioner: Property 2195.981.004 & 2195.981.006 Phillips. Milewski & Associates, Inc. ^� Right-of-way and Mickey Ripp Hydrography Willow Pond Apartments, Lions Park Drive CITY OF Prepared by City of Muskego %anning Department k M 11 o-- ---.-..___ 717 2006 Area of Interest Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 07-2006 Willow Pond Apartment Complex Lions Park Drive Parcel 6 — Proposed 8 Car Garage Location Proposed Garage Location Parcel 3 — Proposed 12 Car Garage Location (from the East) 1 of 2 Proposed Garage Location Parcel 3 — Proposed 12 Car Garage Location (from the West) 2of2 CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS I; i U� i JUL - 7 2006 APPLICATION FOR DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE i Appellant's Name: M► G ILe `� }21 PC' Subject Property Address: 57 %mil b r, L/d.#JS PAR14- Telephone: Day: 4(4 -,52? - (.l Z 3 Evening: Property Zoning: 1- S r" Tax Key: Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable): Owner Lessee Other Date inspector denied zoning permit: Requesting variance to Code Section �8 .1 6 ► 5�T- �� To allow: _moo-v SST �p.G IL of Gq��r{rcz, f /�R-GCC- 3 A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section would result in practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship because: sew The variance, if granted, will not be contrary to the public interest and will be in accord with the spirit of the code because. SSe- 4!;t 'Z The variance; if granted, will not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize public welfare because. �F—& 7_,qc��O -4� 3 S:\CITYHALL\PlanningTORMS\BOA-Dimensional Appeal Application.doc Last printed 1/21/2004 10:14 AM City of Muskego Board of Appeals Application for Dimensional Variance Willow Pond Apartments S78w18655 Lions Park Drive 1. Due to the irregular site and existing apartment unit the owner would not be able to provide a garage for automobile parking and storage of personal items for each tenant. 2. Automobiles and tenant personal items currently stored outdoors can now be securely stored indoors. The garages will provide tenants an indoor space for automobile maintenance in lieu of the open parking lot. 3. Unobstructed fire lanes (grater than 26' wide) from public roads are provided and fire lanes extend to within 150' of any portion of the exterior wall of the apartment building.