Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals 02-1998CITY OF NIUKEGO May 29, 1998 Mr. Thomas Reck W 180 W6701 Muskego Drive Muskego, WI 53150 RE: Amended Appeal #2-98 Dear Mr. Reek: DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING Matthew G. Sadowski, AICP Director of Planning (414) 679-4136 The Board of Appeals wishes to advise that your appeal from Chapter 17 - Zoning Ordinances, Section 5.02(2) Building Location for your carport was granted to allow an existing carport 11 feet from Muskego Drive right-of-way. And your appeal from Chapter 17, Section 5.02(2) B, Building Location was granted to allow your existing carport 11 feet from the base setback line. Please be advised an as built building permit is required as well as a zoning permit. Should you have any questions, please contact Carlos Trejo at 679-5674 Sincerely, Susan J. Schroeder Recording Secretary W182 S8200 Racine Avenue * Box 903 * Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0903 * Fax (414) 679-5614 Amended Appeal #02-98 Thomas D. Reck W 180 S6701 Muskego Drive Muskego, WI 53150 Tax Key No, 2174.928 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following two (2) variances: i. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks an 14 foot variance to place a new accessory structure 11 feet from the Muskego Drive right-of-way. (zoning requirement is 25 feet) 2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) B Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot closer than 20 feet to the base setback line. Petitioner seeks a 9 foot variance to leave an existing carport 1 L feet from the base setback line. Zoned: RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District in a Lake Shore Overlay DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Approve as submitted. The hardship cited was the topography of the site, location of the existing house and the uniqueness of the lot. Chairman O'Neil Vice Chairman Approved Approved Approved IVIer Ross Denied Member Schepp Absent Member Brandt Approved Member Conley (1 Approved Member LeDoux (2nd Aft.) CITY OF MUSIKEGO MINUTES OF MAY 28, 1998 PRESENT: Chairman O'Neil, Vice Chairman Schneiker, Dan Schepp, James Ross, David Conley, and William LeDoux, ABSSENT: Mike Brandt STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: Secretary reported notice was given May 15, 1998, in accordance with open meeting laws. MINUTES: Mr. Schneiker made a motion to approve the April 23, 1998, minutes as submitted. Mr. Schepp seconded, upon voice vote motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Signing of decision letters for the April 1998 meeting. Amended Appeal # 02-98,Thomas D. Reck, W I80 S6701 Muskego Drive, Tax Key No. 2174.928 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following two (2) variances: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks an 14 foot variance to place a new accessory structure 11 feet from the Muskego Drive right-of-way. (zoning requirement is 25 feet) 2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) B Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot closer than 20 feet to the base setback line. Petitioner seeks a 9 foot variance to leave an existing carport 11 feet from the base setback line. Zoned: RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District in a Lake Shore Overlay Mr. Reck returned to the Board of Appeals with an amended appeal; he is still under oath. Mr. Reek stated three hardships for allowing a variance. 1.) The terrain causes rain water to flood his garage and basement. 2.) The inability to access the garage due to entrance being too small and too steep, the carport allows lighted access and security for his family. 3.) The structure is not closer to the road than four surrounding area garages. Mr. Reek supplied architectural plans for the construction of the carport along with a letter regarding rainfall and pictures showing the location of other garages along the Muskego Drive. A letter from Alderman Pionek was also submitted substantiating the unique character of the lot. Mr. Trejo stated this is a legal noncomforming property. Ordinance calls for 25 foot setback, with requirements that no structure be placed within 20 feet from a road right-of-way. This appeal has been amended removing the request for the two side decks and increasing the amount of the set back variance request from right-of-way. The house is setback within the required 25 feet, and there is a steep slope from the Muskego Drive, down into the existing driveway. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #04-98, David Love, W198 511091 Racine Avenue, Tax Key No. 2287.998.005 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variance: Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (3) A.1 Building Location: Offsets. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a five (5) foot variance to place a new accessory five (5) feet from the south property line. (zoning requirement is 10 feet)Zoned: RS-2/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay Henry Schneiker administered an oath to David Love, homeowner, and Fred Arbenalla, contractor and neighbor. Mr. Love provided three hardships for allowing a variance: 1) Driveway is concrete and located in the center of a narrow lake lot, access to the garage would be on the side and turning around into the garage would be difficult. 2) Building and overhang being so close to driveway could hinder winter snowplowing, maintenance and delivery BOA 05/28/98 Page 2 trucks. 3) Concerns over the safety of children and pets playing in the area if the garage is placed close to the existing drive could hinder exiting in and out. Adjoining neighbors have no problem with proposed location of the structure as it would be abutting a natural buffer of trees. Mr. Arbenella stated if a variance is not granted, Mr. Love would be required to cut down trees to accommodatc this structure. Mr. Trejo stated that the property and structures on the parcel grounds area all conforming with the designated zoning district. The may hinder to this request is the location of t he driveway, and a driveway location does not substantiate a hardship. The tot has no unique characteristics that would hinder the relocation of the driveway. To may alternatives still exist, that the appellant has not utilized, including switching the garage doors to the street side, increase the width of the driveway along the turn around area or placing fencing or buffering to avoid children playing in the turn around area. Appeal #05-98 Timothy and Julie Dunn, S67 W 18775 Pearl Drive, Tax Key No. 2174.020REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following two (2) variances: Chapter 17-- Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a 16 foot variance to place an enclosed spa 24 feet from the Gold Drive right-of-way. (zoning requirement is 40 feet) Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a four (4) foot variance to place a new accessory structure 36 feet from the Pearl Drive right -of --way. (zoning requirement is 40 feet) Zoned: RS-21OED, Suburban Residence District with an Existing Development Overlay Mr. Schneiker administered an oath to Tim and Julie Dunn. Mr. Dunn stated they are requesting to install an enclosed spa next to an existing deck that was there when they purchased this property and replace and increase the size of the existing covered patio on the north side. Their property is triangularly shaped and enclose by three right-of-ways. The house, taking up a majoring of the buildable area, has no space for expansion due to being surrounded by all the right-of-ways. The location of the spa blocked from view on all sides, the street grade is higher than the side yard areas. Mr. Dunn feels this is a severe hardship in preserving his property rights and the request would not infringe on adjacent properties. Also, the spa is not a permanent structure, with no long term repercussions. Mr. Trejo stated the house is a conforming structure. There is a detached garage located on the property that is closer to Gold Drive than is ordinarily permitted. The existing deck is nonconforming, located to close to Gold Drive. The spa would be located behind the existing deck, no closer to the road. This is a unique lot with three right-of-ways, however, that was taken into consideration when the house was built and a spa is not necessarily considered a permitted use by right. Mr. Dunn stated there are no home in the subdivision across the street and the tree line serves as a natural fence in back. The porch would be enclosed for safety reasons. The spa would enhance the landscaping. Appeal # 06-98 Debra Berens, Tax Key No. 2195.031.002 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following five (5) variances: ON THE ACCESSORY BUILDING Chapter 17--Zonina Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a 14 foot variance to place a new accessory structure I feet from the Kingston Drive right-of-way. (zoning requirement is 25 feet) Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) B Building Location- Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot closer than 20 feet to the base setback line. Petitioner seeks a 9 foot variance to place a new accessory structure 1 l feet from the base setback line. Chapter 17- -Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (3) A.1 Building Location: Offsets. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a one (1) foot variance to place a new accessory structure four (4) feet from the west lot line. (zoning requirement is five (5) feet) BOA 05/28/98 Page 3 Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.05 (2) CA, Accessory Uses and Structures, Permanent Structures. Said regulation states no detached private garage shall have a floor area greater than 60% of the floor area of the principal building on the lot. Petitioner seeks a 134 square foot variance to construct a 768 square foot accessory building. (zoning requirement is 634 s.f.) ON THE DECK Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (3) A.1 Building Location- Offsets. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a 1.5 foot variance to place an attached deck 3.5 feet from the west lot line. (zoning requirement is five (5) feet) Zoned: RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay. Mr. Schneiker administered an oath to Debra Berens, David Woida, Don Connor, Joe Fischer, Howard Gygax, Dave Taube and Mark Schmalz. Mr. Woida stated they reconsidered the excessiveness of their previous variance request and are now proposing to erect a garage 12 feet from the house, maintain an offset from the west lot line that would be equal with the house, and reduced the size of the proposed structure. The hardships stated were: 1) Property is bound on one side by water and the pre-existing location of house. 2) Safety, the ingress and egress from the existing residence and the location of the proposed structure. 3) Lack of storage. 4) Keep sideyards consistent. 4) Keep neighborhood beautiful.. The petitioners feel attaching the garage to the existing house would cause considerable hardship as the floor plan of the house does not make this addition feasible and the well would have to be relocated or placed within the structure. Mr. Trejo stated the existing structure is too close to the western lotline and adding a deck and a garage would only make this property more nonconforming. The alternatives are: 1) Attach garage to the house. 2) Construct a smaller garage. 3) Move the proposed location of the garage closer to the house with a firewall. Mr. Trejo also expressed that staff still considers this as a self imposed hardship. The owner sold off the neighboring lot, lot 39, and now has no adequate area for a structure of this size. Chairman O'Neil stated the lot was sold in 1996 and not relevant to the issue before the Board. Don Connor stateed he recently purchased a residence on Muskego Drive without a garage and would like to see this variance granted, since a home and vehicles are the largest purchases a person makes in their lifetime and they should be enclosed and safer. He too, plans to build a garage on his lot and would be requesting the same considerations. Howard Gygax, neighbor on the west, did not have a concern with the proposed deck. And if the proposed garage will keep storage inside, he has no problem with the size, as long as it is properly sided. Mark Schmalz spoke in protest of proposed garage structure, stating it would reduce property taxes and crowd an area even more. Mr. Schmalz feels that a request for five variances is excessive for any property. Dave Taube questioned which members viewed the site. Mr. Taube feels there is contradicting testimony regarding legal lot status, stating he was on the City Council when these Iots were split. The garage should be attached to the house and even if the well is located inside the garage. Ms. Berens stated that property is unique in shape and can not be compared to new construction since the house was built in the 1940's. The interior layout of the home would not be accommodating to an attached garage, the well location hinders placement further away from the street. Mr. Schepp made a motion for a 10 minute recess. Mr. Schneiker seconded. Motion carried. DELIBERATION APPEAL #2-98 Mr. Ross made a motion to approve the variance as submitted. Mr. Schneiker seconded. Discussion ensued over the topography of the site, location of existing house and the uniqueness of the lot. Upon BOA 05/28/98 Page 4 roll call vote, motion carried, 5-1, Mr. Schepp voting nay. APPEAL #4-98 Mr. Conley made a motion to approve as submitted. Mr. Schepp seconded. Discussion ensued regarding the placement of the garage, the possible relocation of the driveway and accessing the driveway from the street side. Upon roll call vote, the motion was denied due to lack of a hardship. APPEAL #5-98 Mr. Schneiker made a motion to approve Item #1 as submitted. Mr. Ross seconded. Discussion ensued over the unique shape of the lot, the existing location of the residence and the topology of the site off of Muskego Drive. Upon roll call vote, motion carried 6-0. Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve Item #2 as submitted. Mr. Ross seconded. Discussion ensued over the unique shape of the lot, the existing location of the residence and the topology of the site off of Muskego Drive. Upon roll call vote, motion carried 5-1, Mr. Schepp voting nay. APPEAL #5-98 Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve Item #5, as submitted. Mr. Conley seconded. Discussion ensued over the pre-existing location of the residence and the visual appearance of keeping the deck parallel with the home. Upon roll call vote, motion carried 5-1, Mr. Ross voting nay. Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve Item #4 as submitted. Mr. Ross seconded. Discussion ensued whether lack of storage substantiated a hardship and the City attorney's presentation over substantiating a hardship. Upon roll call vote, motion was denied 4-2, Chairman O'Neil and Mr. Conley voting yes Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve Item #3 as submitted. Mr. Schneiker seconded. Discussion ensued over the garage being detached and whether the aesthetics of the lot would be effected. Upon roll call vote, motion denied 4-2, Chairman O'Neil and Mr. Le Doux voting yes. Mr. Ross made a motion to approve Item #1 and #2 as submitted. Mr. Schepp seconded. Discussion ensued over the location of the well and house on lot. Upon roll call vote, motion carried. 4-2, Mr. Conley and Mr. Le Doux voting nay. ADJOURN With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Schepp made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Ross seconded. Upon voice vote, motion carried. Respectfully submitted, ._ .� � ax-r� Susan I Schroeder 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, West at the Muskego City Hall, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue, at 7:00 P.M., Thursday, May 28, 1998, to consider the following petitions for appeals to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Muskego: 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE APRIL 23, 1998, MEETING. 5. OLD BUSINESS • Signing of decision letters for the April, 1998 meeting_ Amended Appeal # 02-98 Thomas D. Reck W 180 S6701 Muskego Drive Muskego, WI 53150 Tax Key No. 2174.928 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following two (2) variances: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks an 14 foot variance to place a new accessory structure 11 feet from the Muskego Drive right -of --way. (zoning requirement is 25 feet) 2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) B Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot closer than 20 feet to the base setback line. Petitioner seeks a 9 foot variance to leave an existing carport 11 feet from the base setback line. Zoned: RS-310LS, Suburban Residence District in a Lake Shore Overlay 6. NEW BUSINESS Appeal #04-98 David Love W 198 S 11091 Racine Avenue Muskego, WI 53150 Tax Key No. 2287.998.005 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variance: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (3) A.1 Building Location: Offsets. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. BOA OV2"8 Page 2 Petitioner seeks a five (5) foot variance to place a new accessory five (5) feet from the south property line (zoning requirement is 10 feet) Zoned: RS-2/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay Appeal #05-98 Timothy and Julie Dunn S67 W 18775 Pearl Drive Muskego, WI 53150 Tax Key No. 2174.020 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following two (2) variances: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a 16 foot variance to place an enclosed spa 24 feet from the Gold Drive right-of-way. (zoning requirement is 40 feet) 2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a four (4) foot variance to place a new accessory structure 36 feet from the Pearl Drive right -of --way. (zoning requirement is 40 feet) Zoned: RS-2/OED, Suburban Residence District with an Existing Development Overlay Appeal # 06-98 Debra Berens S75 W 18650 Kingston Drive Muskego, WI 53150 Tax Key No. 2195.031.002 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following five (5) variances: ON THE ACCESSORY BUILDING 1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a 14 foot variance to place a new accessory structure 11 feet from the Kingston Drive right-of-way. (zoning requirement is 25 feet) 2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) B Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot closer than 20 feet to the base setback line. Petitioner seeks a 9 foot variance to place a new accessory structure 11 feet from the base setback line 3. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (3) A.l Building Location: Offsets. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a one (1) foot variance to place a new accessory structure four (4) feet from the west lot line. (zoning requirement is five (5) feet) 4. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.05 (2) CA, Accessory Uses and Structures, Permanent Structures. Said regulation states no detached private garage shall have a floor area greater than 60% of the floor area of the principal building on the lot. Petitioner seeks a 134 square foot variance to construct a 768 square foot accessory building. (zoning requirement is 634 s.f.) ON THE DECK 5. Chapter 17--.Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (3) A.1 Building Location: Offsets. No structure shall be BOA 05/28/98 Page 3 erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a 1.5 foot variance to place an attached deck 3.5 feet from the west lot line. (zoning requirement is five (5) feet) Zoned: RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay 7. Miscellaneous Business. None 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. Board of Appeals City of Muskego Terry O'Neil, Chairman Dated this 15th day of May, 1998 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 0BODY SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO ABOVE IN THIS NOTICE. NOTICE "Please note that, 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 Marenda at City Hall W182 S8200 Racine Avenue, (414) 679-5625." City of Muskego Board of Appeals Application for Variance Applicant's Name: ...................... Thomas D. Reck Subject Property Address:.......... W180 S6701 Muskego Drive Telephone Number: .................... 414-679-9912 Property Zoning: ......................... Key # Petitioner's relationship to property: Owner Fees: $195 Date inspector denied permit: Requesting Variance to Section: To allow: 1. Setback from road for installed carport 2. Offset from North side to allow for deck walkway A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section would result in practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship because: 1) This property is sloped down steeply from the road to the house causing two areas of concern to the owners. a) During rains the runoff, from the steep slope, road, adjacent property and off of the home's roof, flows right into the garage and basement. All of the areas near the garage form a funnel right down to the front of the garage. This rain runoff causes unnecessary wetness inside of the home and makes the garage and basement not usable for any storage because of the consistent flooding. The previous owner installed some underground drains to divert the water flow, but they are now saturated and continue to flow into the basement. b) It is virtually impossible to drive a vehicle into the current single car garage due to the extreme angle and small driveway in the front of the attached garage. A family, with multiple vehicles, can not make use of the garage the way it stands alone. W18OS6701 Muskego Drive Page 1 of 3 Application for Variance By placing a carport over the existing driveway in the front of the garage it not only allows for covered parking for one of the family cars, it also redirects the rain off of the home's roof and driveway onto the side land down past the home. A gutter system will be installed to direct the flow of water to lower land ground past the home. 2) The steep slope the home is built will benefit by the placement of a walkway from East to West on the North side of the home. This walkway will allow residents or visitors to pass from the driveway to the lakeside of the home safely without always traveling through the home. Following the literal enforcement of the code does not provide enough room for a standard width walkway. 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) The carport structure is built away from the road, past a wooded area, and is low to the ground making it obscure to vehicles passing by on the road. Since the carport is built directly in front of the attached garage it does not pose any additional site restrictions from the road, or homes viewing the lake property from across the street. Only the minimum amount of space over the existing driveway was used to build the carport thus keeping in the spirit of the code. The neighbor's land to the South is set where their home is on the far South side of their property, thus providing at least 30 feet between the homes. No reconstruction of land will take place for the installation of the carport. 2) A standard width walkway will be built on the North side of the property and will only infringe into the variance allowed 1.5 feet, leaving approximately 9 feet to the North property. The property on the North is a public Park and therefore the walkway will not infringe on another resident's home or property. WI8OS6701 Muskego Drive Page 2 of 3 Applicabon for Variance The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize public welfare because: 1) Safety is of utmost importance and granting this variance will increase the safety of the family at this address by allowing them to park their vehicle under lit cover and walk safely into their home. The safety of vehicles on the road is keep at the same level while the structure does not block any view from any driver. 2) A railed walkway will provide safe passage for residents and visitors so that someone does not fall down again on the steep slippery incline along that side of the home. Without a walkway there lies the possibility of someone falling down on the blacktop and getting seriously injured. W 180S6701 Muskego Drive Page 3 of 3 Application for Variance Thomas D. Reck W 180 S6701 Muskego Drive, Muskego, WI 53150 MEMO 4X, 1 Date. _Thursday, May 07, 1998 Io: City of Muskego Muskego Board of Appeals W 182S8200 Racine Avenue Muskego WI 53150 From: Tom Reck W180 S6701 Muskego Drive Muskego WI 53150 Phone: 414-679-9912 Fax phone: 414-317-2001 REMARKS: ❑ Urgent ® For your review ❑ Reply ASAP ❑ Please comment Muskego Board of Appeals, Please approve the proposed variances for W I8OS6701 Muskego Drive because: • the property terrain slopes dramatically toward the home causing flooding in the garage and basement • and the owner seeks protection for their vehicle in the same way as others have on the same street. Please find the attached information regarding the setback for W 180S6701 Muskego Drive. This additional information will be very helpful in making an informed decision. • Blue Prints of the layout for the carport on the property. • Blue Prints for the construction of the carport on the property. • Photographs of 4 neighboring homes with Garages just 3 properties to the South of my property who are closer to the road then my Car Port as shown in photos. • Photographs of the carport showing the difficult turn to the single stall garage in the home, and of the steep slope funneling down to the carport. • Photograph of the Home, Garage, and carport from the street showing the steep slope to the home and difficulty to grade or place a driveway directly into the garage. AIso, this is the only home on the entire Muskego Drive with that steep of a slope positioned so close to the home. • Photograph of the basement under the Kitchen showing the mold and damage to the foundation wall, with cracks previously routed into the floor to direct the flow of water coming off of the wall into a drain. • A letter from a third party source, stating that the property is best suited to have a carport in the selected location. Sincerely, A - Tom Reck Finke & Associates, S.C. An Architectural ScrWrc Corporation 130 East Morgan Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53207 May 4, 1998 City of Muskego W 182 S8200 Racine Ave. Muskego, WI 53150 RE: Variance Request Applicant: Thomas D. Reck W180 S6701 Muskego Dr. Muskego, WI 53150 Tax Key #2174.928 To: Muskego Board of Appeals (414) 744-4046 Timothy L. Finke, Architect The applicant is seeking variances that would permit a carport within the front and/or side setbacks of his property. Access to the existing (one) car garage was very difficult, given the grade changes and limited maneuvering space in front of the house. Covered vehicle storage is a permitted use in this zoning district, but the pre-existing site conditions and setbacks would prevent the applicant from providing protection from the elements for his vehicle in a similar manner as many others have in the area. If granted, these variances will not create any significant detriment to adjacent property. In fact, the carport's low -profile, relative to the street elevation, minimizes the visual impact from the street and the neighboring properties. Views are not compromised, and the open sides allow the structure to blend with existing landscaping. Consideration requested for this variance is based on needs, not on economic gain or hardship. Without the carport, storm run-off often ran into the existing garage and seeped into the basement. The carport roof diverts the storm water away from the building, to a swale near the south property line. Since ly, Timothy L. Finke nn N > MMM>cm M,* "XZ o'mv" z ezr< r 0 RrR --C ivz, rn > MC -- H> z-qd )z <�� z. M >o ' i�..]o��'� Kmmm r+7 >-�+ x�d -taWM rn tir C m m 19, e A strip or parcel of land in Section 4, Tc:.7n 3 North, Range 20 East, City of Muskego, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, said strip of land lying between the center of a road and the Shore of Little Muskego Lake, said land being more particularly described as follows, to -wit; Commencing at a point in the South line of the Northeast 1/4 39.06 feet East of the center of said Section 4 (said center of said Section 4 being 2659.80 feet West of the East 1/4 corner of said Section 4); said point being the Southeasterly corner of Lot 3 about to be described; thence South 78° 18' West, 230 feet more or less to the shore of Little Muskego Lake; thence again from the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 3, North 30° 49' West 85 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 3; thence South 72' 08' West 200 feet, more or less to the shore of Little Muskego Lake. Excepting and reserving therefrom that parcel deeded to the Town of Muskego, by deed dated July 15, 1937, and recorded August 30, 1937, in Volume--2§.9 of Deeds on page Z2.8, Document No. 216074. Being known as Lot 3, Block 3, Oak -Ridge, an unrecorded plat. 3eo v�p xx w ,� ..... Q a00 z ' ^ r i CSC >> .e Q z X ,'• Z�C.. 'i ��.�. 4". 0 M am >> LeoO ;> O P0 X zv" C- "Mzz �- vv >>s ah> rn �y0 Ox A0 r=O rr z rn 3 n r v tp' C* �nm n� tiw N ov _ tom!•. �o �� gt7� _ r O r 1 !' W ea� ti 7Z' n 0 0 0 w z �• c t� io cn zs :3 U)- �V0 w My ru •- rn N a r_ m ri �. F+• M w M rs Cr �roIE: �iwo n cn rD all a o n � rD o. O rD 3 � O 0 r:s r• rD h �. rD m N O I" to C r z 0 UN M 9 z m A L O� w cc m c� 0 z D r n y C r z Q m z Q z rn rn N Z F) Donald S. Pionek 3rd District Alderman City of Muskego May 22, 1998 To: Muskego Board of Appeals Re: Amended .Appeal #02-98 for Thomas Recl- at W180 S6701 Muskego Dr., Muskego, WI. 53150 I have been at this site and talked to Mr. Reck. Due to the difference in elevation from the road to the site, and the amount of trees and bushes, this carport is not even noticed. It is well hid and does not create any problem with traffic on Muskego Drive. Before the carport, it was very- difficult to use the garage unless a person had a very short car. In the past, the City of 'Muskego has approved items such as this, because of the slope, area, size and location of buildings on the very small and irregular size lots around Kittle Muskego Labe. I£ we dial not allow these variances, to Lhese parcels, we would have a lame amount of shoreline property that would he in need of repair and alterations. I have no problem with this request, and I ask the Board to recommend approval for Mr. Reck for this appeal. Being the structure is already built, the Inspection Department will address this item. Thank you Donald S. Pionek 3rd District Alderman k Ll i a 4 TM �L 7r iA .1 111 a r - ' t, II1u9111�111A! 1;1������I /1,\a�-c� Z ;?, Qi, (! f- S -r /C iD o r- G✓ (do .S E 7d / T` Lot Line Aow}R Stirs 51 �tsw Iwq SCALE: 1/8" equals 1 foot 7w.rr.e+a yv flk 141 t3'4 777 42 122� 9'S3'11 9'=ice 3'2 DECK — — — — — — — I s7 it 18' 1 I I i I MASTER BDRM BEDROOM 0 — L — HALL I � I BEDROOM BEDROOM I / I I GLOSE7 1 �P I I I o J`I{I�. 2'6--'k— r I LIVING AREA 9'70 65 310�•��}-sgf37 IL 42 js sty MASTER BATH Jl • / I IiBlill �h�0� Ip�� III, w��,. wool VIVIl1�8'lolll!l��1 ilil�iu-l�l�l I��bi Idlll� ���----= Tic=,��=—���u� LL_