boam19960425
CITY OF MUSKEGO
BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD ON APRIL 25, 1996.
PRESENT: Chairman O'Neil, Dan Schepp, Henry Schneiker, Mike Brandt, and Ed Herda.
MINUTES: Mr. Schepp made a motion to adopt the minutes of March 28, 1996, meeting as corrected. Mr. Schneiker seconded. Upon voice vote, the minutes of March 28, 1996, meeting
passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:Appeal # 10-96 Carl Bergmann, W177 S6975 Wildwood Drive, Muskego. REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance:
1) Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.05 (2) C.4 Accessory Uses and Structures: Permanent Structures, Garages. Said regulation limits the size of a detached private garage
to 60% of the floor area of the primary building. Petitioner seeks a 221 square foot variance to construct a 648 square foot accessory structure (91% of primary floor area).
Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Carl Bergmann and Mr. Jack Bahr, his builder.
Mr. Trejo described the RS3-OED zoning and the variance requested. Mr. Trejo stated that RS3-OED zoning takes into consideration the lot's nonconformity, but neglects to take into
account the size of existing structures in existing developments. This, in effect, limits the permitted size for accessory structures, since most of the primary dwelling units do
not meet the minimum required building size.
Mr. Bergmann stated he intends to remove the existing shed. He explained the access would be from Wildwood. The garage would be located 8'7" from his home and will contain a firewall.
It is not feasible to locate the garage on the side lot because of the mature trees in the area.
Appeal # 11-96 Dale Karpinski W183 S6581 Jewel Crest Drive REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks two (2) variance: 1) Chapter
17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.06 (2) A.1 Legal Nonconformity: Nonconforming Structures. Said regulation restricts the expansion or enlargement of a structure, except within conformity
of said district. Petitioner seeks to expand the existing legal nonconforming home with an additional 560 square feet.
2) Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (3) A Building Location: Offsets. Said regulation requires a 7.5 foot offset on the western property line. Petitioner seeks a 2.5
foot variance to permit an addition with a 5 foot offset to an existing legal nonconforming home.
Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Mr. Karpinksi and his builder, Steve Beres.
Mr. Trejo described the RS3/OED zoning. In this case two lots are under the same ownership. When the dwelling unit was built on the western lot, the structure meet the required
offsets for the single lot and was considered conforming. When the existing garage was built, it was built over the joining property line with the lot to the east. This eliminated
the use of discounts on the offsets and made the primary dwelling unit legally nonconforming There had been a variance granted previously for the garage in 1986. None of the neighbors
contacted the City with concerns.
Mr. Beres explained the addition cannot go to the north because of the location of the garage and well. The home is built on a slab. The variance would allow the house to look architecturally
correct.
Appeal # 12-96 Mark Schultz, S79 W20473 Tyler Drive REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance: 1) Chapter 17--Zoning
Ordinance: Section 5.03 (1) Height: Maximum Height Restricted. Said section restricts the maximum height of any residential structure to 30 feet. Petitioner seeks a 4.2 foot height
variance to permit a residential structure with a maximum height of 34.2 feet.
Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Mr. Robert Schultz (the father) and Mr. Tim Sidel, the builder.
Mr. Trejo explained the City received a letter from Ms. Carol Yeager, the Architectural Control Board for Kimberly Estates withdrawing her Architectural Approval for this home.
Mr. Trejo explained he received two telephone calls in regards to the appeal that opposed the height request and one that was not concerned.
Mr. Sidel, the petitioner's architect, explained the bedroom layouts are based on the excess ceiling heights and the proportions of the home and the structural integrity of the home
are also based on the excess pitch. Changes to the height would effect the costs and looks of the structure.
Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Mr. Wayne Salentine and Mr. Jim Ellis, neighbors in the subdivision. They did not oppose the variance, however, both commented that their intention
is to build ranch style homes.
Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Mr. James Szalacinski on Monterey Drive, he was not concerned.
Appeal # 13-96 Mark R. Pfuehler, S75 W13901 Bluhm Court REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance: 1) Chapter 17--Zoning
Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (3) A Building Location: Offsets. Said regulation requires a 15 foot offset on the eastern property line. Petitioner seeks a 3 foot variance to permit
a deck with a 12 foot offset.
Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Mr. Pfuehler. Mr. Pfuehler stated he has had many builders look at his home to design a deck with the limited shape of the lot. He has received
Architectural Approval from the Subdivision Control Board. Mr. Pfuehler stated his hardship is the location of the house on his lot and the pie shape configuration of the lot.
******************************************************************
DELIBERATION OF APPEALS
Appeal #10-96 Mr. Herda made a motion to grant the variance as requested. Hardship being the size of the pre-existing noncomforming house, the lack of storage, and that the request
would not be harmful or jeopardize public safety or welfare. Mr. Schneiker seconded. Upon roll call vote, the motion to grant the variance was approved unanimously.
Appeal #11-96 Mr. Schneiker made a motion to grant the variance as requested. Hardship being location of the existing structure, the location of the well and the topography. Mr.
Brandt seconded. Upon roll call vote, the motion to grant the variance was approved unanimously.
Appeal #12-96 The Board of Appeals feels the Plan Commission should review the height ordinance due to the fact two variance have appeared before this Board within two months.
Mr. Schepp made a motion to deny the variance due to lack of hardship, the Architectural Approval being withdrawn and the impact it would have on the surrounding area. Mr. Herda
seconded. Upon roll call vote, motion to deny was approved. Mr. O'Neil voting against the motion.
Appeal #13-96 Mr. Brandt made a motion to defer this item until Mr. Pfuehler is able to review his options with Planning Staff and amend his request. Mr. Schepp seconded, upon
roll call vote, motion to defer was approved unanimously.
ADJOURN
Mr. Herda made a motion to adjourn, Mr. Brandt seconded. With no further business to come before this board, meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Schroeder Recording Secretary