Loading...
boam19960822 CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 22, 1996. PRESENT:Chairman O'Neil, Dan Schepp, Henry Schneiker, Heather Schuster, James Ross, Ed Herda and Carlos Trejo. ABSENT: Mike Brandt MINUTES: Dan Schepp made a motion to approve the minutes of July 25, 1996, as presented. Heather Schuster seconded. Upon voice vote, the minutes of July 25, 1996, were approved unanimously as presented. OLD BUSINESS: Appeal # 21-96 Roger Frycienski W186 S6834 Jewel Crest, Muskego, requesting under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks one variance: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.07 (1) Open Space. Said regulation requires 66.7% of said lot to be left as open space. Petitioner seeks a 27.7% variance to permit only 39% of the lot to be left as open space. Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Mr. Frycienski. Mr. Trejo explained to the Board that this appeal was reviewed last month, and variances had been granted for the attachment of the existing detached garage and the open space it would consume. However, the Board had questions in regards to the existing deck at the lakeside of the lot. Mr. Frycienski explained that his renovation would require alterations to the existing deck. He is proposing to rebuild the deck 10 feet shorter than the existing deck and meet the required offset on the northern property line, thus making the structure less noncomforming. NEW BUSINESS Appeal # 23-96 Robert L. Prah, W188 S7688 Oak Grove Drive, Muskego, requesting under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks two (2) variances: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (1) Building Location: Setbacks. Said regulation requires a minimum 55 foot setback from the road center line. Petitioner seeks a 35 foot variance to permit a detached garage located 20 feet from the center of the road. 2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (3) Building Location: Offsets. Said regulation restricts the offset of any structure five (5) feet from the northern property line. Petitioner seeks a 2.7 foot offset variance to build a detached garage 2.3 feet from the northern property line. Mr. Trejo explained the RS-3 /OLS zoning and the minimum required 60' right-of-way stated by the ordinance for all road arterials. In this case, Oak Grove Drive has a 50' right-of-way. Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Mr. Prah, Mr. Prah then explained that revised drawing were submitted for a 20' x 28' detached garage and deck which was relocated further from the center line of the road, measured to at least 35 feet from the center line of the road, revising the request for a 20 foot variance. The garage would be aligned with the existing retaining wall and would be even with the existing neighboring garages. The purpose of the 2.7 foot offset variance would allow the building to line up with his existing building. Mr. Trejo has received no comment from neighbors. Appeal # 24-96 Harry Dumire, S64 W18808 School Drive,Muskego, requesting under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 4.05 (2) C.4 Accessory Uses and Structures: Permanent Structures. Said regulation limits the size of a detached garage to 60% of the floor area of the principal building on the lot. Petitioner seeks a 260 square foot variance to permit a 840 square foot garage (87%) detached garage. Mr. Trejo explained the zoning. He stated the house is smaller than allowed in this district, which requires a minimum of 1,200 square feet. The proposed garage is 30'Deep x 24'Wide with access off School Drive. No comments were received from the area neighbors. Mr. Schepp administer an oath to Mr. Dumire. Mr. Dumire stated he intends to remove one of his sheds and relocate the one currently near the house to the rear of the lot. He also stated this will be the only garage on the property and would be comparable to the size of his neighbors. His hardship is lack of storage due to the small size of his home and lack of a basement. Appeal # 25-96 Dean M. Wainscott,W190 S6401 Preston Lane,Muskego, 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) Building Location: Offsets. Said regulation restricts the offset of any structure ten (10) feet from the southern property line. Petitioner seeks a two (2) foot offset variance to build an attached garage eight (8) feet from the southern property line. Mr. Trejo explained the zoning, RS-3, there is a 10' and 15' offsets. The lot has an irregular shape and the western portion of the lot slopes. The adjoining lots are in a RS3-OED district, which only require a 7.5 foot offset from the northern property line. No comments were received from the neighbors. Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Mr. Wainscott. Mr. Wainscott stated he would add on to the existing garage to house a boat. The hardship stated was the pre-existing location of the home, the slope on the rear yard, and the lack of sufficient storage space. ***************************************************************** DELIBERATION: APPEAL #21-96, Ms. Schuster made a motion to allow a variance to the 60% rule, however, the deck may not encroach within the 50 foot setback on the lake side. Mr. Schneiker seconded. The hardship is the pre-existing location of the house and the narrowness of the lot. The Board felt the variance would conform to the general character of the area and would not pose a threat to public welfare or safety. Upon roll call vote, the motion to grant the variance was approved, with Mr. Schepp voting nay, stating the encroachment of the deck within the 50' setback area is minimal and is creating a less non-conforming situation than the existing one. APPEAL #23-96 Mr. Schepp made a motion to accept the first request as amended. The hardship being the narrow shape of the lot, the alignment with other structures along Oak Grove Drive, and the extent of the ultimate right-of-way on the lot. The Board felt the variance would conform to the general character of the area and would not pose a threat to public welfare or safety. The second request (location 2.7 feet offset variance), was denied, due to lack of a hardship. Ms. Schuster made the seconded. Upon roll call vote, the motion was approved unanimously. APPEAL #24-96 Ms. Schuster made a motion to approve the amended variance request. The hardship was the legal non-conforming size of the primary structure, in which the ordinance does not take structure size into account in Existing Development Districts. The Board requested that one shed be removed at the time of construction. The Board felt the variance would conform to the general character of the area and would not pose a threat to public welfare or safety. Mr. Ross seconded. Upon roll call vote, the motion was approved unanimously. APPEAL #25-96 Mr. Ross made a motion to accept the variance as requested. The hardship being the location of existing house, the irregular shape of the lot, the fact that the adjoining neighbor's zoning is different and the topography of the lot. The Board felt the variance would conform to the general character of the area and would not pose a threat to public welfare or safety. Ms. Schuster seconded. Upon roll call vote, the motion was approved unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Schepp made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Schneiker seconded. With no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Susan J. Schroeder Recording Secretary