ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Packet - 6/25/2020CITY OF MUSKEGO
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA
06/25/2020
6:00 PM
, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Approval of Minutes of the May 28, 2020 Meeting.
NOTICE OF CLOSED SESSION
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
Appeal #02-2020 Petitioner: Robert Hoelzl (of LBJ Muskego Realty, LLC)
Property: S73 W16555 Janesville Road / Tax Key No. 2198.978
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 400-18 of the Municipal Code (Zoning –
Zoning Board of Appeals), the petitioner seeks the following variance:
Chapter 400-23 A. – 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 side offset of 10-feet is required from the eastern side lot line. The petitioner seeks an
offset of 9.8 feet from the east side lot line for the continued allowance of a portion of an
existing commercial building and is therefore requesting a 0.2 -foot variance from the
required side offset.
CLOSED SESSION
OPEN SESSION
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
ADJOURN
Packet Page 1
NOTICE
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MEMBERS OF AND POSSIBLY A QUORUM OF MEMBERS OF OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BODIES OF
THE MUNICIPALITY MAY BE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE ABOVE-STATED MEETING TO GATHER INFORMATION; NO ACTION
WILL BE TAKEN BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL BODY AT THE ABOVE-STATED MEETING OTHER THAN THE GOVERNMENTAL
BODY SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO ABOVE IN THIS NOTICE.
ALSO, UPON REASONABLE NOTICE, EFFORTS WILL BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF DISABLED
INDIVIDUALS THROUGH APPROPRIATE AIDS AND SERVICES. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR TO REQUEST THIS
SERVICE, CONTACT MUSKEGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, (262) 679-4136.
Packet Page 2
UNAPPROVED
CITY OF MUSKEGO
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
05/28/2020
6:00 PM
Electronic Meeting, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Board of Appeals of the City of Muskego will hold a meeting at 6:00 PM on
Thursday, May 28, 2020, via an online digital Zoom meeting. This meeting will not be held at Muskego City Hall.
This is in efforts to protect the health of the public, City leaders and staff due to the fact that the City of Muskego has
declared a state of emergency as a result of the COVID-19 virus pandemic. The Board of Appeals meeting, and the
associated Public Hearing, will however be available to the public for live streaming via the City of Muskego channel
at www.youtube.com . Any Board of Appeals/Public Hearing comments which the public wish to make relating to this
variance request may be communicated to the City via email at citizencomments@cityofmuskego.org or via phone at
414-376-8022. Any email and phone comments for this Public Hearing must be received by 4:30 PM on the date of
the meeting. All received comments will be read to the Board of Appeals as part of the Public Hearing. Interested
parties may also observe in the meeting directly by downloading the ZOOM app located at http://zoom.us and utilize
this unique ID to join: 817 1425 1370.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Blumenfield called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Dr. Blumenfield, Mr. Boschert, Mr. Robertson, Dr. Kashian, Mr. Schneiker and Mr.
Wallner and Mr. Harenda
Excused: None
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
The meeting was noticed in accordance with the open meeting laws.
NOTICE OF CLOSED SESSION
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
Appeal #01-2020 Petitioner: Phillip Jakubowski
Property: W185 S6710 Jewel Crest Drive / Tax Key No. 2174.066
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 400-18 of the Municipal Code (Zoning –
Zoning Board of Appeals), the petitioner seeks the following variances:
Chapter 400-23 A. – 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.
Page 1 of 5
Approval of Minutes of the May 28, 2020 Meeting.
Packet Page 3
1. A setback of 25-feet is required from Jewel Crest Drive right-of-way line. The
petitioner seeks a setback of 18.9 feet from the right-of-way line for the construction of
an attached garage and is therefore requesting a 6.1-foot variance from the required
right-of-way setback.
2. An offset of 5.6-feet is required from the north side lot line. The petitioner seeks
an offset of 2.5 feet from the north side lot line for the construction of an attached
garage and is therefore requesting a 3.1-foot variance from the required north side
offset.
Mr. Schneiker swore in the following:
Phillip Jakubowski
Adam Trzebiatowski, Planning Manager
Phillip Jakubowski explained that the reason for the variance is because the existing 2.5-car
garage is in disrepair and needs to be rebuilt. The variance is new to extend the garage back
toward the house and attach to the house. The setbacks of the new garage in the variance are
the same we when initially constructed in 1976. In 1995-1996 the garage was rebuilt. A tree
was removed and with the roots rotting, the foundation has failed. The lot is on the inside of the
bend of the road. They looked at moving the garage back to meet the current setbacks, but
there wouldn’t be enough room to park a car in the garage. The same setbacks would be used
as the 1976 variance. Included was letters from the neighbors regarding this proposal. For
safety reasons, would be nice to not have to walk around where ice problems are found and
they don’t like to use salt due to the proximity of the lake. A new footing is needed, thus the
need for a new variance.
Mr. Jakubowski explained the hardship as the safety issue, the tree being removed by the City.
There is also a drainage issue on neighboring property when the street being repaved. Need to
replace the garage, not their fault, and understand they can rebuild as it sits, but would like to
extend back to the house. Anyone that lives in the house would have the same unique
circumstances they are dealing with. They could rebuild but after consulting with the gas
company they said they would need to do a road cut to reconnect the gas. Asked all neighbors
to review the plans and provide insight. Decreasing the depth would not be feasible to fit an
average vehicle.
Mr. Schneiker asked if there will be an open space issue. Mr. Jakubowski said there is an open
space issue and will replace asphalt with paving bricks to meet the open space requirements.
Only became aware of the open space issue when the Board of Appeals packet arrived.
Mr. Schneiker asked that safety is the hardship being stated and truck doesn’t fit. Does that
mean the truck must be parked on the road? Mr. Jakubowski responded that no, could still park
in the driveway then it would shade the walkway more which causes more ice buildup. Mr.
Jakubowski said they park toward the end to reduce the ice. With the location of the lot
neighbors cannot see traffic past his vehicles.
Mr. Schneiker asked to clarify that the garage was rebuilt in 1996. Mr. Jakubowski said it was
rebuilt and to raise the garage and add a gable roof. The footprint stayed the same.
Mr. Wallner asked about a correction to the supplement. Planner Trzebiatowski confirmed and
explained the typo.
Mr. Wallner asked about the shed structure on the side of the house. Mr. Jakubowski explained
that yes they have a shed and is needed to fit gardening tools, but could be removed if needed.
Page 2 of 5
Approval of Minutes of the May 28, 2020 Meeting.
Packet Page 4
Mr. Wallner asked about the contacts for the neighbors and if this is a precedent setting matter.
Dr. Blumenfield stepped in and explained this is only about this petition and not about anyone
else.
Mr. Boschert asked if it is possible to move the garage away from the road and property line.
Mr. Jakubowski said they could, but only fit one vehicle due to proximity of the house. Because
of the attachment to the house, significant construction would need to take place for egress
reasons and believes they would only be able to fit one vehicle. Additionally the gas meter
issue comes into play. Trying to do this to maintain the character of the neighborhood as well.
Dr. Blumenfield wanted to clarify how many times people have been hurt due to the ice issue.
Mr. Jakubowski explained a lot of people have fallen and described several serious injuries.
Dr. Blumenfield asked if the gas meter is attached to the garage. Mr. Jakubowski said it was
originally on the house, but was moved to the garage and they are trying to eliminate the gas
company work and road cut.
Dr. Kashian asked if they chose to do nothing, the gas insufficient gas lines would remain. Mr.
Jakubowski said that was correct.
Dr. Blumenfield asked whether or not the variance is granted the garage needs to be rebuilt.
Mr. Jakubowski confirmed the garage has to be rebuilt due to the state of disrepair.
Planner Trzebiatowski reiterated that neighbors have submitted letters in support of the project.
Also the City received a call from Jackie Cloud, S66 W18557 Jewell Crest Drive, and she is in
favor of the variance being approved and the garage is an eyesore. An additional email from
Mike Lembezeder, W186 S6743 Jewel Crest Drive, who had questions regarding the purpose of
setbacks, which the City responded. Mr. Lembezeder is in support of the variance.
Planner Trzebiatowski explained the open space and that those numbers are not typically
reviewed until a survey is submitted. If any option is moved forward with, the open space
review will take place. The shed is not accounted for on the survey. The shed does need a
permit if it will stay and will be accounted for during permitting.
Planner Trzebiatowski explained that each case should be looked at on its own merits. Planner
Trzebiatowski also explained to the neighbor that each case is its own.
Planner Trzebiatowski understands there is a drainage issue and there are plenty of options to
correct the drainage issues that would help the icing.
Planner Trzebiatowski explained that staff has become aware of the old variance during our due
diligence for this and they could rebuild with the same footprint. The new proposed garage is no
closer to the road or to the side property line.
Planner Trzebiatowski mentioned that there is case law that the Board should keep in mind and
the first is that the hardship cannot be self-imposed and circumstances of the applicant. An
example would be that they want more storage space. Hardship has to be the same regardless
of who lives there. Another item to keep in mind is any other options. Back in 1976 the
variance was result was a compromise of what was asked and what was granted. The Board is
also tasked with granting the minimal variance to grant a waiver. Financial hardship cannot be
grounds to grant a variance. Any other nearby violations or lack of objections are not grounds
to grant a variance. Planner Trzebiatowski discussed the three-step test including the hardship,
unique property limitations, and public interest.
Page 3 of 5
Approval of Minutes of the May 28, 2020 Meeting.
Packet Page 5
Planner Trzebiatowski explained the recommendation is to deny the variance because there is
already a variance for a two-car garage that can be rebuilt. Additional notes include the open
space that must come into compliance and that permits are needed moving forward.
Dr. Kashian explained that the variance is already there. This is about installing a pad to
connect the existing space to the house. Does that existing space violate any of the set-aside
rules today? Planner Trzebiatowski explained that the literature states that if any of the
variables change such as wanting a larger building, it must be looked at completely new. From
a practical standpoint they are not getting any closer to the front or the side from where the
garage was previously.
Dr. Kashian did nothing, would the community enforce open space requirements now. Planner
Trzebiatowski explained that open space is applied at the time of permits. The City does not
drive around looking for violations. The exception is when there is a complaint.
Mr. Boschert asked whether the safety issues fall under any of the three test categories.
Planner Trzebiatowski explained that public interest that is not defined. Is this the general
public or whomever.
Mr. Boschert asked is if it was fair to say that if something is attached there is significantly
reduced safety risk than if detached. Planner Trzebiatowski explained that practically it would
be safer but nothing in the code discusses this.
Mr. Harenda asked the speed limit, 25? And has public safety or DPW looked at regarding the
traffic or accidents. Planner Trzebiatowski is not aware if this was a topic in front of the Public
Safety Committee. Direction now would be to discuss with their Alderman.
Mr. Harenda understands this will not affect the garage being built, but it was brought up as an
issue. Also, the drainage issue, is this on the property or by the road. Planner Trzebiatowski
and Phil Jakubowski explained that there is a drain on his property due to the drainage issues.
This cause additional issues and the drain was raised. The neighbor has had ongoing
discussions with DPW regarding the drainage issues.
Mr. Harenda wanted confirmation that the homeowner is responsible for the area between the
property line and the roadway. Planner Trzebiatowski confirmed.
Deliberations:
Dr. Kashian made motion to approve Appeal 01-2020 for Phillip Jakubowski at W185 S6710
Jewel Crest Drive / Tax Key No. 2174.066 with the hardship of public safety. Mr. Schneiker
seconded.
Dr. Kashian wanted to clarify that if reduced to if the Board would approve rebuilding the garage
on the same slab. He would approve immediately. The question is connecting to the house.
Open space will be an issue that the homeowner needs to address.
Mr. Schneiker said that in 1976 this was not requested to be attached to the house. If it were
requested to attach to the house and is fairly certain if attaching the garage to the house was
asked for it would have been granted. The setback is the same, offset is the same so this is just
a matter of the few feet between the house and garage. Variances based on safety issues have
been granted in the past.
Mr. Robertson agrees with tying the safety issue to the public interest test. He doesn’t see any
other hardship. Would be comfortable based on granting the variance based on a safety issue.
He is also confident that if the garage was proposed attaching to the house back in 1976 it
would have been approved.Page 4 of 5
Approval of Minutes of the May 28, 2020 Meeting.
Packet Page 6
Dr. Blumenfield said that in 1976 the variance and the community were far different that they are
now. Lake lots are extremely unique and there are different parameters on those lots. Dr.
Blumenfield says the safety issue is and has been an extremely important issue as no one
should be putting their life in danger and serious injuries are not something that we want to
happen to anyone in the City. This can be concluded as a hardship and appreciates that Mr.
Jakubowski is willing to rebuild the garage regardless of the outcome, but how much safer will it
be if his family doesn’t have to risk injury to get into the house. Could modify the parameters of
the request, but that would not be in the interest of the applicant or the City. The hardship of
safety is what should be stressed. Would like an amendment to include open space and
permits in the motion for clarity.
Mr. Boschert wanted clarification that open space is an issue during permitting and not now. Dr.
Blumenfield confirmed.
Dr. Kashian wants to be clear that they don’t want Mr. Jakubowski to come forward with an
open space variance request. Dr. Blumenfield said that is another issue.
Dr. Robertson wanted clarification that ice on a private property is considered a safety issue.
Dr. Blumenfield believes that they have lived there a long time and there have been instances
where safety is an issue and the Board has found in the past that safety of the homeowner is
applicable.
Dr. Kashian amended the motion to approve Appeal 01-2020 for Phillip Jakubowski at W185
S6710 Jewel Crest Drive / Tax Key No. 2174.066 based upon safety related issues and that
open space must come into compliance and permits are required for all work. Mr. Schneiker
seconded the amended motion. Upon a roll call vote Appeal 01-2020 was approved
unanimously 5-0.
CLOSED SESSION
OPEN SESSION
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Approval of Minutes of the October 29, 2019 Meeting.
Mr. Boschert made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 29, 2019 meeting. Mr.
Robertson seconded. Motion to approve passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
ADJOURN
Mr. Schneiker made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Wallner seconded.
Meeting adjourned at 7:10 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Aaron Fahl
Associate Planner
Page 5 of 5
Approval of Minutes of the May 28, 2020 Meeting.
Packet Page 7
Appeal # 02-2020
ZBA 6/25/2020
Page 1 of 3
City of Muskego
City Representative Brief
Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 02-2020
For the meeting of: June 25, 2020
REQUESTING:
1. Under the direction of Chapter 400-23 A. – 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.
APPELLANT: Robert Hoelzl (of LBJ Muskego Realty, LLC)
LOCATION: S73 W16555 Janesville Road / Tax Key No. 2198.978
CITY’S POSITION PRESENTED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski AICP, City Representative
BACKGROUND
The owner is looking to conduct a major addition/rebuild the existing car wash building. They want to
convert it into a multi-tenant building. His first meeting with the Plan Commission in August 2019 was a
smaller project to keep most of the building and to bump out the back side of the building for more tenant
space. This project was approved under Resolution PC 049-2019.
In March of 2020 the applicant went before the Plan Commission with a new plan to tear down the entire
building except for the single stall car wash bay. At that time it was discovered that eastern wall of the
existing car wash bay was 9.8 feet from the side lot line. The offset in the B-4 Zoning District is ten feet.
Therefore, the applicant would be limited to 50 percent of the cost of materials as a non-conforming
structure. As such, the applicant then proposed moving the wall 0.2 feet toward the west to meeting the
ten-foot side offset. The Building, Site and Operation Plan was approved under Resolution PC 016-2020
with the condition that the wall be adjusted to meet the offset.
Since the March 2020 meeting, the applicant has found that moving the wall is not financially feasible for
the project. Finally, at the June 2020 Plan Commission meeting, the applicant requested the Resolution
of the March 2020 approval be amended to allow them to seek a 0.2-foot variance of the side yard offset,
if a variance was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The petitioner is seeking the following variances:
1.A side offset of 10-feet is required from the eastern side lot line. The petitioner seeks an offset of 9.8 feet
from the east side lot line for the continued allowance of a portion of an existing commercial building and is
therefore requesting a 0.2 -foot variance from the required side offset.
DISCUSSION
The existing building was expanded in 1995 to include a car wash bay attached to the east side of the
building. The site plan identified in Resolution PC 46-95 “Received 03/20/95” shows the existing building
and clearly identifies the 10-foot building offset line, but does not indicate the size or location of the
approved car wash bay itself. The City has records of inspections of a non-residential
addition/alteration/conversion at this location where the commercial footings were inspected on May 26,
Page 1 of 14
Appeal #02-2020
Packet Page 8
Appeal # 02-2020
ZBA 6/25/2020
Page 2 of 3
1995. As part of a building inspector doing their inspections, they cannot/do not inspect for location
(setback/offsets) as only a professional land surveyor can check or verify locations. It does not appear
this was done as part of that permit. Since that time, the City does now typically require foundation
recertification’s to be completed by the surveyor of the project.
Based upon the information submitted, staff does see a valid hardship, based on case law and State
Statutes, to allow the major remodel/rebuild while keeping the easternmost wall of the car wash bay as
constructed back in 1995 without the restriction of building materials being 50 percent of the current
assessed value of the building. The car wash addition was approved by Plan Commission Resolution PC
46-95, proper permits were obtained and inspections were conducted including the commercial footing
inspection and occupancy inspection completed by City staff.
The owner has stated in their submittals that they believe there are two hardships causing the need for
the variance including:
The current building has existed in its current form for at least 20 years so it is reasonable to
believe the City of Muskego approved its construction, including the location of the building.
The appellant states that Wisconsin law indicates that where a municipality fails to detect a
mistake in the location of an improvement, requiring a property owner to demolish and relocate a
structure constitutes a hardship that is unique to an owner’s property. Accent Developers, LLC v.
City of Menomonie Board of Zoning Appeals (App. 2007 300 Wis.2d 561).
The appellant also states that the current owner did not own the property when the automatic
carwash bay was constructed, it is reasonable to assume the location of the structure was
approved by the municipality at the time of construction as this is industry standard.
Relating to the reasons that the applicant has noted in their application and noted above for their request,
here is a summary of the variance standards that are applicable to this case:
1. Zoning Case Law states that “self-imposed hardships” and “circumstances of the applicant” are
not grounds for granting a variance. Construction of the car wash bay in the wrong location
would be a self-imposed hardship. However, if the proper permits and inspections were
completed at the time, making the owner move/change the wall could be considered a hardship
that was not self-imposed.
2. The hardship needs to be the same no matter owns the property, regardless of how the owners
use the property. Regardless of who owned the property, whether it was the person who had the
car wash bay added onto the building or in this case a new owner, any subsequent changes to
the building would be limited based on the assessed value or moving the wall that was approved,
permits pulled and inspected.
3. Zoning Case Law states that the parcel-as-a-whole must be looked at when deciding these
cases. In this request the board needs to not only look at why the car wash bay cannot be
moved. The plans submitted in the second Plan Commission meeting indicated the wall could be
moved to meet the offsets of the Zoning Code.
4. Zoning Case Law states that “lack of objections from neighbors does not provide grounds for
granting a variance”, if applicable. At the time of preparation, there had not been any
communication with neighbors for or against this proposal.
5. Zoning Case Law states that the Board may only grant the minimum variance needed, if they are
even going to grant any variance. In this case, the minimum variance required would be the 0.2
feet for the offset. The applicant is not asking for anything more.
6. Zoning Case Law states that “financial hardship” does not justify granting of a variance. The test
is not whether a variance would maximize economic value of a property. Although, the applicant
has stated that the cost of moving the wall would make the project financially infeasible, this
cannot be a case for granting the variance.
7. Zoning Case Law states that “nearby violations”, if applicable, do not provide grounds for granting
a variance.
Page 2 of 14
Appeal #02-2020
Packet Page 9
Appeal # 02-2020
ZBA 6/25/2020
Page 3 of 3
8. Per the Zoning Board Handbook (2nd Addition, 2006), using the three-step test which looks at
unnecessary hardship, unique property limitations, and no harm to public interest, the following
can be found:
a.Unnecessary Hardship – Unnecessary hardship exists when compliance would
unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for the permitted purpose
(leaving the property owners without any use that is permitted for the property) or would
render conformity with such restrictions “unnecessarily burdensome”. In this case,
denying the variance will not prevent the owner from using the property for the permitted
purpose. There were two plans that were approved by the Plan Commission to both
allow for an expansion leaving the wall as-is as well as a plan to move the wall to meet
the current offsets.
b.Unique Property Limitations – Unnecessary hardship must be due to physical limitations
of the property. There are no unique property limitations present that would inhibit a
project to expand and rebuild on the property.
c.No Harm to Public Interest – A variance may not be granted which results in harm to
public interest. There is no harm to the public interest in allowing the easternmost wall of
the car wash to remain intact and allow for the remainder of the building to be removed
and rebuilt for a multi-tenant building as proposed.
Pertaining to the 2007 court ruling as stated by the appellant, the City attorney and his staff have
reviewed the cited court case and have included the attached memo explaining how is may apply to this
specific appeal request.
Also, the Plan Commission did provide a recommendation of approval of this variance request at their
June 2020 meeting, subject to the board finding a valid hardship.
Please see the applicant’s full submittal for full details on their request.
NOTE: Please remember that the City must base their recommendation upon a valid hardship as defined
by State Law and Zoning Case Law. Zoning Case Law states that a hardship must be unique to the
property, it cannot be self-created, and must be based upon conditions unique to the property rather than
conditions personal to the property owner(s). Case Law also states that a hardship should be something
that would unreasonably prevent the owner from using their property for the permitted purpose or would
render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome. The Zoning Board of Appeals needs
to find a valid hardship in order to be able to approve a variance request.
BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, THE CITY RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS:
Approval of Appeal 02-2020 as proposed, allowing a 9.8-foot offset from the side lot line for the
existing car wash bay; citing that the car wash addition was approved by the Plan Commission in
1995 via Resolution 46-95, building and mechanical permits were approved for the car wash bay
addition and that proper inspections were completed by the City of Muskego. Additionally, the
easternmost wall of the car wash bay will not be moved or modified during the construction
project.
NOTE 1: Regardless of the outcome of this case, the applicant must apply for proper building
permits to raze the remainder of the building and erect the new multi-tenant building in
accordance with Resolution PC 016-2020.
Page 3 of 14
Appeal #02-2020
Packet Page 10
MUSKEGOthe City of
Area of InterestI0120240
Feet
Agenda Item(s)
Properties
Zoning Districts
Right-of-Way
Hydrography
Supplemental MapAPPEAL #02-2020
ROBERT HOELZL(OF LBJ MUSKEGO REALTY, LLC)S73 W16555 JANESVILLE ROAD
JANESVIL
L
E
LOO
M
I
S
R
D
RA
C
I
N
E
A
V
DU
R
H
A
M
WOOD
S
CO
L
L
E
G
E
Prepared by City of Muskego Planning Department Date: 6/19/2020
Page 4 of 14
Appeal #02-2020
Packet Page 11
Page 5 of 14
Appeal #02-2020
Packet Page 12
6" concrete pavement section SCALE= 1" = 1'-0"
3100
CV-SV-001
# 4 @ 24" o.c.e.w.
note: saw cut joints @ 12.5' max
4" concrete
SIDEWALK
6" of 1-1/4"
dense graded
base course(1) #5 CONT.
standard PAVEMENT SECTION SCALE= 1" = 1'-0"
1100
cv-as-001
note:
ASPHALT PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION
SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
WISCONSIN DOT FDM.
1 1/2" FINISH COURSE
ASPHALT PAVEMENT
1 1/2" BINDER COURSE
ASPHALT PAVEMENT
12" OF 1 1/4" DENSE
GRADED BASE OR
EXISTING BASE
TACK COAT
PRIME COAT
STANDARD ASPHALT PAVEMENT WITHEXISTING BASE SCALE= 1" = 1'-0"
2100
cv-as-#003
note:
ASPHALT PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION
SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
WISCONSIN DOT FDM.
1 1/2" FINISH COURSE
ASPHALT PAVEMENT
1 1/2" BINDER COURSE
ASPHALT PAVEMENT
EXISTING DENSE
GRADED BASE
TACK COAT
PRIME COAT
S7
3
W
1
6
5
5
5
J
A
N
E
S
V
I
L
L
E
R
O
A
D
MU
S
K
E
G
O
,
w
i
5
3
1
5
0
ll
i
a
n
c
e
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
&
D
E
S
I
G
N
CV-CO-010
2"R
REVERSE PAN 24"
CURB AND GUTTER
MATCH ADJACENT
PAVEMENT SLOPE
24 IN. CURB & GUTTER DETAIL NO SCALE
4100
6" MIN.
18"6"
6"
4" concrete SIDEWALK section NO SCALE
xx xxx
CV-CO-001
# 4 @ 24" o.c. e.w.
note: saw cut joints @ 12.5' max
4" concrete
pavement
6" of 1-1/4"
dense graded
base course
Page 6 of 14
Appeal #02-2020
Packet Page 13
TENANT SIGNAGE
TENANT SIGNAGE TENANT SIGNAGE
TENANT SIGNAGE
S7
3
W
1
6
5
5
5
J
A
N
E
S
V
I
L
L
E
R
O
A
D
MU
S
K
E
G
O
,
w
i
5
3
1
5
0
ll
i
a
n
c
e
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
&
D
E
S
I
G
N
Page 7 of 14
Appeal #02-2020
Packet Page 14
S7
3
W
1
6
5
5
5
J
A
N
E
S
V
I
L
L
E
R
O
A
D
MU
S
K
E
G
O
,
w
i
5
3
1
5
0
ll
i
a
n
c
e
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
&
D
E
S
I
G
N
Page 8 of 14
Appeal #02-2020
Packet Page 15
Page 9 of 14
Appeal #02-2020
Packet Page 16
Page 10 of 14
Appeal #02-2020
Packet Page 17
Page 11 of 14
Appeal #02-2020
Packet Page 18
lf this form has been fiiled out electronically,
the top of page 1 or to the right of this text.
please click on the "print Application,, button on
Print Application
once the application is printed/filled out it can be submitted to the planning ServicesDivision along with any applicable information required for your submittal, please see theattached sheet to ensure that the proper supporting documents are submitted along withthis completed form.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE DIMENSIONAL VARIANCEPROCEDURE AND FA]LURE TO COMPLY WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS WILL RESULT IN THISAPPLICATION BEING WITHHELD FROM CONSIDERATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT ANY LEGAL, ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEES INCURREDBY THE CITY, IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING A PROPOSAL OR APPLICATION, BUT NOTINCLUDED IN THIS FEE SCHEDULE, WILL BE CHARGED BACK TO THE PETITIONER / APPLICANT /owNER i DEVELopER FoR 100% REcovERy. (ch. 3.08stord. #909)
Signature of the Applicant (working as,-Agent, foithe orrvner;:
Print Name.
For Planning Servic es ttse Only
Public Fiearing/Meeting Date:Fees Paid;
Page 4 of 6
Date:
Page 12 of 14
Appeal #02-2020
Packet Page 19
MEMORANDUM
To: Jeff Warchol—City Attorney
From: Robert Maniak – Legal Intern
Date: 6/18/2020
RE: Variance request for S73W16555 Janesville Road
Robert Hoelzl, is requesting a variance for the property located at S73W16555 Janesville
Road, tax key number 2198.978, because the existing building is located two inches closer to the
adjacent property then allowed by the setback. According to Mr. Hoelzl, the current building,
which is a car wash, has existed on that parcel since at least 2000. He is asking for a variance so
that he may remodel the rest of the building.
In support of his position Mr. Hoelzl cites to a Wisconsin Court of Appeals case, Accent
Developers, LLC v. City of Menomonie Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2007 WI App 48, 300 Wis. 2d
561, 730 N.W.2d 194, which he states supports the proposition that if a municipality fails to
detect a mistake in the location of an improvement, then requiring a property owner to demolish
and relocate a structure constitutes a hardship that is unique to the property.
In Accent Developers the builder measured incorrectly and placed their duplex within the
front set-back of the property. The City Building Inspector approved the location of the concrete
footings. It was only once the buildings were almost complete that the mistake was realized. The
builder requested and was granted a variance, because the board found that the city bore some
responsibility for failing to catch the violation when they first inspected the property. Because
Page 13 of 14
Appeal #02-2020
Packet Page 20
the board determined that the violation was not solely the fault of the builder, the variance was
approved.
Importantly, in Accent Developers, the City building Inspector, not a surveyor, had
approved the location of the concrete footings, and the builder testified that based on their prior
experiences they thought they should have been informed by the City of any defect. The City
Building Inspector also admitted that he had missed the set-back violation.
It is impossible to say, based on the facts provided if Accent Developers has any impact
on Mr. Hoelzl’s situation. It is my understanding that it is unknown if a Muskego building
inspector ever visited the property or saw where the expansion would be located in 1995.
Presumably the car wash expansion was inspected through the building process, but there is no
indication from the records that this occurred. There is a survey done prior to the expansion in
1995 which notes a 10 foot offset but does not show how the building would be expanded. The
surveyor who mapped the property in 1995 also surveyed the property in 2013. In 2013, the
surveyor noted that the building was 9.8 feet, rather than the required 10 feet from the property
line. It does not appear that there is anything indicating that the City knew about or approved the
expansion in its current state. The plans that are located in the City’s records do not show where
the expansion would be located.
If a building inspector had approved the expansion then it is possible that Accent
Developers could play a role in the Board’s decision making process as the violation of the set-
back would not solely be the fault of the builder. It should be noted that Accent Developers cites
to older, but not overruled precedent with regards to Wisconsin variance law.
Page 14 of 14
Appeal #02-2020
Packet Page 21