Zoning Board of Appeals- - Minutes 04/25/2002CITY OF
MUSKEGO
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
Brian D. Turk
Director of Planning
(262) 679-4136
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FINDINGS OF FACTS
A dimensional variance is hereby granted to Chad Tisonik, by the Zoning Board
of appeals of the City of Muskego to permit a 10.3-foot setback from the right-of-
way line for the reconstruction of an attached garage at W 187 S7040 Gold Drive
/ Tax Key No. 2175.964, based upon the applicant having met the specifics of
the City Ordinance with respect to granting variances.
It was found that the variance preserve the intent of the Municipal Code because
there is practical difficulty associated with the legal non -conforming parcel
complying with the Zoning Code, there were exceptional conditions applying that
do not generally apply to other properties. More specifically, the granting of the
variance provides the property with rights enjoyed by properties in the immediate
vicinity, the property rights of other property owners are preserved, and no
substantial detriment is caused to an adjacent property.
Dated this 3rd day of May, 2002.
Signed
Da chepp
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
Signed /
Dustin J olff
Assists Plan i tor
W182 S8200 Racine Avenue - Box 749 - Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0749 - Fax (262) 679-5614
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
CITY OF MUSKEGO
April 25, 2002 APPROVED
Meeting was called to order at 7:06 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Vice Chairman Schneiker, Mr. Terry O'Neil, Mr. Mike Brandt, Mr. David Conley,
Dr. Barbara Blumenfield, Mr. Horst Schmidt and Assistant Plan Director Dustin Wolff,
ABSENT: None
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The Secretary stated the meeting was noticed on April 22, 2002 in
accordance with Open meeting Laws.
Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
NEW BUSINESS: APPEAL #01-2002 Petitioner: Chad Tisonik, W187 S7040 Gold R=Drive 1 Tax Key No.
2175.964 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17, Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provisions,
Petitioner seeks the following variances: 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 setback of 25-feet is required from the right-of-way line. The petitioner seeks a setback of 10.3-feet from the
right-of-way line to permit the reconstruction of an attached garage, and is therefore requesting a 14.7-foot variance
from the right-of-way line.
Vice-chairman Schneiker administered the oath to Chad Tsonik. Mr. Tsonik explained to the Board the
existing garage is sitting on a cement slab without a footing, and the garage floor has begun to heave and crack.
He plans on removing the existing garage up to the "good" footing that the house is sitting on. He would then
construct a new garage —with a footing —mimicking the size of the previous garage. He also stated that he would
like to add another bedroom over the garage. This addition will give him an additional 200 sq.ft. with an attic for
storage.
Mr. Tsonik also explained that four years ago he carve to the City to do an addition and was instructed by Staff that
if he wanted to make future additions he would have to go outside of his existing footprints and not up. Mr. Tsonik
at that time did put an addition on to his house. This addition includes cathedral ceilings and skylights. He does
not want to tear that apart and build over the addition. At this time Staff informed Mr. Tsonik that he would not be
able to go outside of the existing footprint of the house.
Mr. Tsonik stated there had been a shed on the property that he removed to allow for the addition onto the house.
Assistant Plan Director Wolff presented the City's opinion: The City is in favor of property owners being able to
have an attached garage on their property. The petitioner does not have the ability to fix it according to the zoning
code; as soon as he tears it apart he will not be able to put it back up due to conformity issues outlined in Code.
Staff didn't look at the second floor addition because it is included in the existing footprint. Staff is recommending
approval of the appellant's appeal allowing the reconstruction of an attached garage with a 10.31-foot setback from
the public right-of-way.
APPEAL 02-2002, Petitioners: Kathleen Luckas Sommers and Leonard Sommers, W 163 S7964 Bay Lane Place 1
Tax Key No. 2217.963. 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 5.08 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. Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.04(2)
Building Size. Maximum Permitted (F.A.R): The maximum total floor area of the buildings on a lot shall not exceed
that permitted under the floor area ratio (F.A.R) as hereinafter specified by the regulations for the district in which
such building is located.
ZBA Minutes
4125101
Page 2
The petitioner seeks an exception to the floor area ratio requirement to allow the construction of an addition to the
residence. In addition, the petitioner seeks an exception to the open space requirement for the district.
Minimum open space for the property is required in the amount of 6004.5 square feet (75% of the lot area). The
current open space is 678.5 square feet less than required, resulting in 67-percent of the lot area preserved as
open space), and is therefore requesting a 8-percent variance.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio for the property is 2,001.5 square feet (25% of the lot area). The current Floor Area is
130.5 square feet greater than the maximum permitted. Therefore, the Appellant is requesting a 130.5 square foot
variance to the maximum permitted Floor Area.
Vice Chairman Schneiker administered the oath to Kathleen Luckas Sommers and Leonard Sommers. The
Sommers explained to the Board the patio collapsed due to snow and ice. They went to the City to apply for a
permit to enclose the patio. They received the permit and passed inspections. At that time they discussed with the
inspector making it part of the house with a doorway through the kitchen. They had the furnace replaced to serve
the extra space. They went to the City to apply for a permit to finish off the inside of the room, and at that time staff
indicated the original permit was not valid.
Dr. Blumenfield asked if they would be willing to remove the sheds. Mrs. Sommers stated they would like to keep
them for storage as they were existing on the property before they bought the house.
Mr. Wolff presented the City's opinion. There was an error in the routing of the previous permit and the permit did
not receive Planning Department approval. According to the state law permits issued in error are deemed invalid.
The petitioner is asking for a variance for open space requirements and also for the floor area ratio. Because, the
petitioner purchased the house with the existing cement areas staff recommends approval of open space exception
of 678.2 SF less than required, or 67% of the lot area.
In a rush to get on agenda, rough calculations for floor area ratio were used from the Assessor's numbers, which
are not accurate by Planning Department guidelines. The Plan Department does not count storage and pantry
areas in the Floor Area calculation. Staff cannot recommend approval to the second part of the appeal for a
variance to the floor area ratio, as are other options available to the petitioner. If they can demonstrate to the
Planning Staff that there is at least 130.5 SF of storage area, removing a shed, or a combination of both it would be
possible to complete the addition without an exception to the Floor Area requirement.
r7:11111111I:3: I-; HAI U[ei
APPEAL #01-2002 Mr. O'Neil moved to approve appeal as submitted. Mr. Conley seconded. Upon roll
call vote the motion was approved 5-0. Chairman Schepp stated that because the Appellant was willing to
forego his four -foot addition towards Gold drive and keep within the existing footprint the Appellant is not
requesting more than currently exists on the property. If the Appellant does not make the proposed footing
repairs and the structure becomes unstable the Building Department will make an inspection and the
property owner will be forced to bring the structure up to code, regardless.
APPEAL #02-2002 Mr. Brandt moved to approve appeal as submitted. Mr. O'Neil seconded. Because
there are options for the petitioner to still do the addition without the Boards approval Mr. Brandt withdrew
his motion to approve appeal 02-2002 and Mr. O'Neil withdrew his second of the motion.
Mr. Brandt moved to approve appeal of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance, Section 5.08 Existing Substandard
Lots as submitted. Mr. O'Neil seconded. Upon roll call vote motion approved 5-0,
APPEAL #02-2002 Mr. Brandt moved to approve appeal of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance, Section 5.04(2)
Building Size as submitted. Mr. Conley seconded. The Board concurred with the Staff recommendation
that there are other options available to the petitioner in regards to complying with the Floor Area
requirement. Upon roll call vote motion failed 5-0.
ZBA Minutes
4/25101
Page 3
Dr. Blumenfield stated in reference to the second part of appeal #02-2002 it does not make sense to deny that
which you support.
Amendment to the Board of Appeals policies and procedures -- Dr. Blumenfield moved to accept amendments
to the Board of Appeals policies and procedures as submitted subject to further review. Mr. Schmidt seconded.
Upon voice vote, motion carried.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Dan Schepp moved to approve the minutes from March 14, 2001 as submitted.
Seconded by Dr. Blumenfield. Upon voice vote, motion carried.
MISCELLANEOUS: Mr, Wolff reported to the committee that Mr. Knudsen's 30 days to appeal to circuit court
had expired.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this board, Mr. Schmidt moved to adjourn. Dr.
Blumenfield seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 8:32 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kellie Renk
Recording Secretary
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA
CITY OF MUSKEGO
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to Wisconsin State Statute 62.23 (7) (e) 6, that a Public Hearing
will be held in the Muskego Room at the Muskego City Hall, W 182 S8200 Racine Avenue, at 7:00 P.M.,
Thursday, April 25, 2002, to consider the following petitions for appeals to the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Muskego:
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 above listed appeals.
The Board of Appeals will then reconvene into open session. Detailed descriptions are
available for public inspection at the Clerk's office. All interested parties will be given an
opportunity to be heard.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Amendments to the Board of Appeals Rules of Procedure
NEW BUSINESS
1. APPEAL #01-2002
Petitioner: Chad Tisonik
Residence: W 187 S7040 Gold Drive 1 Tax Key No. 2175.964
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
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 setback of 25-feet is required from the right-of-way line. The petitioner seeks a setback
of 10.3-feet from the right-of-way line to permit the reconstruction of an attached garage,
and is therefore requesting a 14.7-foot variance from the right-of-way line.
Z8A 4/25/2002
Page 2
2. APPEAL #02-2002
Petitioner: Kathleen Luckas Sommers
Residence: W 163 S7964 Bay Lane Place 1 Tax Key No. 2217.963
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 5.08 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.
Minimum open space for the property is required in the amount of 6004.5 square feet (75% of the
lot area). The current open space is 678.5 square feet less than required, resulting in 67-percent
of the lot area preserved as open space), and is therefore requesting a 8-percent variance.
Chapter 17—Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.04(2) Building Size
Maximum Permitted (F.A.R.): The maximum total floor area of the buildings on a lot shall not
exceed that permitted under the floor area ratio (F.A.R.) as hereinafter specified by the regulations
for the district in which such building is located.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio for the property is 2,001.5 square feet (25% of the lot area). The
current Floor Area is 130.5 square feet greater than the maximum permitted. Therefore, the
Appellant is requesting a 130.5 square foot variance to the maximum permitted Floor Area.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 14, 2002 MEETING.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
ADJOURN
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 Jean
K. Marenda, Clerk -Treasurer at Muskego City Hall, (262) 679-5625.
City of Muskego
Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 01-2002
For the meeting of: April 25, 2002
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provisions,
Petitioner seeks the following variances,
Chapter 17—Zanin Ordinance: Section 5.02(1) 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.
Zoned: RS-310LS, Suburban Residence District as modified by the Lakeshore Overlay
LOCATION: W187 S7040 Gold Drive I Tax Key No. 2175 964
SW Y< Section 4
APPELLANT: Chad Tisonik
PREPARED BY: Dustin Wolff
BACKGROUND
The petitioner seeks an exception to the setback requirement to allow the reconstruction of the attached
garage. The structure is currently located within the required 25-foot setback from the right-of-way line.
The petitioner seeks a setback of 10.3-feet from the right-of-way line to permit the reconstruction, and is
therefore requesting a 14 7-foot variance from the right-of-way line
DISCUSSION
The existing attached garage was constructed as slab on grade The garage structure and the garage
floor are falling into a state of considerable disrepair Due to the non -conformity of the structure (including
the residence), the razing of the attached garage would result in the residence as being re-classified as
legal conforming. The Zoning Code reads, "When such structure is damaged to the extent of more than
50% of its current fair market value, it shall not be restored except in conformity with the regulations of the
district in which it is located." As such, the City is not permitted to approve a building permit for the re-
construction.
The 64 square foot shed, located between the garage and the right-of-way, will be removed by the
petitioner. The parcel currently meets the minimum Open Space requirement, and the setback variance
sought is identical to the current setback
The Board has taken the position that all properties should be afforded a two -car garage. In addition, the
Board has ruled favorably for allowing garages where the residence does not have a basement for
storage Staff concurs with this policy
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Approval in of Appeal 01-2002 allowing the reconstruction of an attached garage with a 10.31-foot
setback from the public right-of-way.
CITY OF MUSKEGO
BOARD OF APPEALS
Application for Dimensional Variance
Applicant's Name W1 Z> +'SoQ i K
Subject Property Address UJ1'61 5 7 0 Q GO L-D CX—
Telephone (Iq `,o l 0
Property Zoning: �S-3 f di- g
Tax Key #
Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable):
owner lessee other
Fee: $200.00
Date inspector denied zoning permit: �b< <n 2
Requesting variance to Code Section
z1-1y . I&+
Nv�
sir •. s \�. . ••• :.�
A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section would result in
practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship because:
s TO _ 3
The variance, if granted, will not be contrary to the public interest and will be in
accord with the spirit of the code because:
1 —f &J SZ �t �xZZJP-G %� L' �J i N l E � i N L, FOOTCA"J i
The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize
public welfare because:
N f s cs9 � JA-C t T fls
S:ICITYHALLIPlann+ng\FORMS\ZBA-Dim_App.doc
Created on 7/17/2001 11:38 AM
rope 3011rH IX77500
O�
a ril kz sR�\
tq
y y
�3 9� ae
i�
b
tin go m o o
� ram- ~• '�] O y w0 � w� c Q'
to th
)N
H bn� by
k o y�
�; � o
N
N �0 * 5
b� 9 0
00
1 mbb
a C` � 09
I� f
✓iR1
�9 00 r
E+ose
Vp a ape
a ({j
ti �y o
�o
�n
VS
00 0�
Q5
0
r1
P C r M' 6 rrrf ' f
r
ZT0 0 EC�J0 P 3r
G rom 0—CD r�oaH0mM-c�s
,� �q m m Orr o�� rr O� rr�•H rrtrmt(D 7 ter
�n 0 �'� w
rr(ODrn� rn(DNmro��*mm*�'rrorrr0-h0 V
~ O rrCn��C'zEn::) < pi
xQ rr CD (D — � o rt _. O (D� (D O � rn (D rr En
� Fi •P (D - C (fj .A r{ Q • • (D (D0 (DO ,U
O E .P rr rr rr ra rt
�o ro0"0"broo.�M' O�i�CDrrmrr(D hH
r h h Ce (D " H. 7 d Cn (D'U
r'- rr rh v, C 030 ro rr CO E H co
�z 0) cn C CD O cn Cn w- w rh ri O
rfitn ao
o � jrt m n 0 wr"N (Dart H z
Mo m e rho °moo CD v,�'0 w
(D j� O r (D ° E (Drr a o o rh � rr
O rh - n gip, ro :g CCr In n
rh rt '� "� Y. rt (D oo N• U' G co G � M (D '0
[n n m z W �� rt W0 U) r K a
_ rr
0 n O z h C] �N E H (D�ko -- rt'rfr O rr
�m H` n m rt or,, cn(n oO r, aj= 0 O
0 ��� zC m= r-h 0Wn ��0 rh
O G Qo Q �� rmr,Azp @ x ¢ �p cD
rr o • • _ rr (D (n ((DD (D r. (D(D
rr m w (Dfr�„h rt.
a
N a 0 �] (ED f CD O, No -i rr rr p) O4 [a
� N (Dcn rr D (A (D (D O � � In
((D(DrrnInrr, (DDroIn t-h �C� nniQCrr(D '�'
zrr((D P. or° E 0, (� m Q w 0 z0
0(D0ft 00(D zcn�GrrN' �O
rr rt (D A' rr `. CD rr ro rr O O ro fr Vi O
@ En
Ql rt (D Pi (�D rr rr [n CDW N U? (DO C G (n rrm C O, �rG'O coo (to n
.� fin oD (D 0 W Wrr0D��tr� r
(D00:c:S0 C(nIn 0E r`Q.
WrrZEA�mNrhrCt r,,�--rowGaCD
u� m ro �-
�' En ct z7�G �to rt0O (D on H N
r. "� rr w O w CO � 0 Q, rr W r-h Inn [D � �
Nr(Oto on,P OmO�� - Ot�iCn 0�:1to0 � o�0WU) � �b:1(n0 H
I- rt H. Fj m E (D 0 (D.. u ro Ai (D rr
rrr
tr
ro � � �- rr w (n rr N (D r* In CD K — � �
}-' CD -._ Cr rr � w CT � Pw (D a m z
Cn m 1 � (D rr Lo rr m (D (D n m �'- cn C L
G o a% ,p C a, co rt.,
ti N rr (D (n (n w (D
"((DD � rr � `t O IUD E � n CC! � " ro F - w W O (D ty, mtj
F` (Dro H `rrnv cron M (D rr pro 0 Q'(D ac4`r((D �d
O (t 0)(z (DD
0 H ft O � rhr r � w rr - rr
t0 Q t0 ro J rl- rr C O (CD � (D a 7Cn
(D s* rfi N 0 rr a
rr
o rtF I,,wTyrhrh� Wm (�D CT� rtc m � O rr
� mmcno0)Crcron(D wmro_ (D (°m
(D J�fr� o rr
H. —
"t7 }o �iP. 0 tjv'rt10 G n"D0 rrrG
� rr }i o � Di � CDr- rr 0 (D r-
A� (D O W N rh C C ram* E, rrCDw rr rr (D �r to (D 'r x
D rt C tD " r
f � w (D0 (D (DW (D
Q 6rt::)-0tio 0 OD In rt En O rrm O a.PW(n O
rh o O (D M m w rr -. rt* r h rr rn K o Orr rh
r
O
n
H
H
O
z
03
�1 C7
;n �3
O Cn
O
o z
o x
a
O
Fs• '[i
((DD y
G M
W
ko w
O �
K
r•
m
n
O
C