Zoning Board of Appeals 03-1998CITY OF DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
} Matthew G. Sadowski, AICP
MUSKEGODirector of Planning
(414) 679-4136
l rt�
April 28, 1998
Ms. Debra Berens
S75 W 18650 Kingston Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
RE: Appeal #3-98
Dear Ms. Berens:
The Board of Appeals wishes to advise your appeal from:
1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks, was denied.
2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) B Building Location: Setbacks, was denied.
3. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (3) A.I Building Location: Offsets, was denied.
Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.05 (2) CA, Accessory Uses and Structures, Permanent Structures,
was denied.
The Board of Appeals has granted you 60 days to return to the Board of Appeals with a different plan for
consideration without paying the required fees.
Should you have any questions, please contact Carlos Trejo at 679-5674
Sincerely,
Susan J. Schroeder
Recording Secretary
W182 S8200 Racine Avenue • Box 903 0 Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0903 • Fax (414) 679-5614
CITY OF MUSKEGO
BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 1998
PRESENT: Chairman Terry O'Neil, Vice Chairman Mike Brandt, Henry Schneiker, Dan Schepp, James Ross,
and Planning Assistant Carlos Trejo,
ABSENT: Ed Herda and David Conley.
MINUTES: Mr. Schepp made a motion to accept the minutes of December 11, 1997, as submitted. Mr. Brandt
seconded, upon voice vote, motion carried. Mr. Schepp made a motion to accept minutes of February 26, 1998, as
submitted, Mr. Brandt seconded, upon voice vote, motion carried.
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: Secretary reported notice was given April 10, 1998, in accordance "'ith
the open meeting laws.
OLD BUSINESS: Signing of decision letters for the December 1997 and February 1998 meetings.
NEW BUSINESS: Appeal # 01-98, Kenneth and Christine Johnson, W181 S6415 Lentini Drive, Tax Key No.
2174.013 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.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 6.2 foot variance to place an addition to an existing residence 12 feet from the north
property line. (zoning requirement is 18.2 feel) The property is zoned RS-2. Suburban Residence District.
Mr. Brandt administered an oath to Chris and Ken Johnson. Ms. Johnson explained they are proposing taking
down an old one car garage (attached) and replacing it with a 26' x 32' garage. They intend to add a new roof and
siding. They submitted a letter from the neighbors stating they have no objections to this variance. Ken Johnson
explained there is no storage area.
Mr. Trejo explained the lot zoning and stated there were alternatives available, i.e. detaching the garage or having
a turn around garage. The back of the property would allow for a detached structure.
Ms. Johnson stated that the addition would improve the appearance of the residence, and that several buildings
down the street have the garages less than the required 15 feet to the lot line.
Mr. Brandt questioned why the garage couldn't be moved back further. Mr Johnson stated that the proposed
location was done as an aesthetic concern.
Appeal # 02-98,Thomas D. Reek, W 180 S6701 Muskego Drive, Tax Key No. 2174.928
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following three (3)
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 12 foot variance to place a new accessory structure 13 feet from the Muskego 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 7 foot variance to leave an existing carport 13 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 4 foot
variance to place an addition to an existing residence 6 feet from the south property line. (zoning requirement is
10 feet): The property is zoned RS-31OLS, Suburban Residence District in a Lake Shore Overlay
BOA 04/23M
Page 2
Mr. Brandt administered an oath to Tom Reck. Mr. Reck apologized to the Board members for his ignorance in
doing work on his property without permits. He built a carport onto his garage to stop the flooding to his
basement. There was a drainage grate previously in the driveway, however, it was always saturated Also, this is
for the safety of his family to have the ability to park in a dry, cover and lighted spot. Mr. Reck is proposing a
wooded walkway from the side of the north side of the house down to the lake, and on the other side of the house, a
stairway coming down from the second story down to the a deck on the ground level.
Mr. Trejo explained the zoning of the property and how the hardship is self created. If the owner would have
consulted staff and pulled the proper permits, this would have not been an issue. Now the carport is built, serves a
legitimate purpose, but requires a variance after the fact.
Mr. Schneiker questioned whether the drainage problem was from the neighbor's property or from the roof Mr.
Reck explained the drainage has stopped entering his basement since the carport was erected. This is the lowest lot
along Muskego Drive before East Drive. The road is over six feet higher than the grade of the home. Water is
coming down directly to his property, and the overhang over the drainage grate, help reduce additional flooding.
Chairman O'Neil stated a wooden walkway was not necessary, that there are landscaping options for a stairway
down to the lake, thus eliminating one of the variance requests. Also, the stairway from the second story could be
designed so as not to be in the offset area.
Mr. Reck stated his hardship is the extensive slope causing a safety issue for his family.
Appeal # 03-98, Debra Berens, S75 W 19650 Kingston Drive. Tax Key No. 2195.031.002
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following four (4)
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 23.5 foot variance to place a new accessory structure L5 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 18.5 foot variance to place a new accessory structure 1.5 feet from the base setback line Chapter
17--Zoniny, 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 a new accessory structure and a deck addition to the rear of the primary building, 3.5 feet from
the west property line. (zoning requirement is 5 feet) 2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.05 (2) C.4,
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 186 square
foot variance to construct a 820 square foot accessory building. (zoning requirement is 634 s.f.) The property is
zoned RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay
Mr. Brandt administered an oath to Debra Berens, David Woida, David Taube, Mark and Susan Schmalz.
David Woida stated they are requesting a 820 square foot garage for their two cars and boat located 20 feet from
the house to allow servicing to the well. The house was built in 1943 and never had a garage. He is proposing
keeping the garage inline with the house. Ms. Berens stated the hardship is the location of the existing home.
When building a new home people are able to place the house anywhere on the lot, this is an existing home.
Mr. Trejo explained the legal nonconforming lot and exactly where the 25' setback is located. Mr. Trejo stated the
submittal as a joke, that the proposal completely neglects any consideration to the City of Muskego's Zoning
Ordinance. No attention has been shown to Iimit the offset From the west to five (5) feet, move the garage over 20
feet the road right-of-way, or even stay within the limited size permitted for accessory buildings. The area is
becoming congested with new structures and the Board should not promote this further. Mr. Trejo also expressed
this as self imposed hardship when the owners sold off the vacant lot under Ms. Berens ownership, thus not
allowing adequate room for storage or expansion..
BOA 04/23/98
Page 3
Mr. Woida stated consideration was given to the building, that the structure would not be contrary to the existing
neighborhood, and provided the Board with additional information showing over sized structures in the area and to
close to the road.
Mr. Taube as neighbor is opposed to variance stating for 29 years lots 39 and 40 were combined and just recently
separated. Now the owners a requesting a variance. He feels the City improperly allowed for the legal lot status
and did not Iook into records well enough to find that the lot did not have adequate sewer connections. He feels
they have recreated their own hardship by creating two nonconforming lots.
Ms. Schmalz a neighbor feels the variance request is extreme.
Mr. Schmalz a neighbor stated in his opinion there is no reason to request a variance, there is enough room on the
lot for a garage. The location of the well is not a hardship, it can be put inside the garage. Mr. Schmalz strongly
objects to this request.
David Woida stated moving the location to the road is caused due to the well being between the home and the
proposed garage and keeping the offset of the garage in line with the residence was done for aesthetics_
The Board took a five minute recess
DELIBERATIONS
APPEAL # 1-98 Mr. Brandt made a motion to accept Appeal # 1-98-1 as submitted. Mr. Ross seconded. After
some discussion the motion was amended to state the hardship being the pre-existing location of structure, since
the house was placed in an angle fashion, rather than parallel with the street. Upon roll call vote, the motion
carried 4-1. Mr. Schneiker voting nay.
APPEAL #2-98 Mr. Ross made a motion to accept Appeal #2-98 as submitted and vote on each item individually,
Mr. Schepp seconded. A motion was made by Mr. Schneiker to defer items I and 2, and that appropriate
measurement form the road right-of-way. Mike Brandt seconded. Motion carried 3-2, Chairman O'Neil and Mr.
Schepp voting nay. Item #3 was voted on and denied unanimously due to lack of hardship.
APPEAL #3-98 Mr. Schepp made a motion to accept Appeal # 3-98 as submitted, Mr. Brandt seconded.
Discussion ensued regarding the lack of hardship due to the fact the garage has not been built and if the petition
could be allowed to adjust the plans and resubmit at a later date. Upon roil call vote, the motion to approve Appeal
#3-989 was denied unanimously Mr. Ross made a motion to allow the Beren's to return to Board of Appeals
within 60 days with a new submittal and not be charged an additional submittal fee, Mr. Schneiker seconded, upon
roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Miscellaneous Business: Elect a Vice Chairman for 1998. Mr. Schepp nominated Mr. Schneiker to be Vice
Chairman for 1998, Mr. Ross seconded. Upon voice vote, the motion carried 4-1, Mr. Brandt voting nay.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Schroede
Recording Secretary
CITY OF MUSKEGO
BOARD OF APPEALS
Application for Variance
Applicants Name: Debra Berens
Subject Property Address: S75 W18650 Kingston Drive
Telephone: 414.679.6224
Property Zoning: Residential Key M
Petitioner's relationship to property: Owner
Fees: $195.00
MSKC 2195 031 002
� C s(_ �6 &A �7tr6 f )Z[s&r
Date inspector denied permit: Per Assistant City Planner permit would be denied without
variance.
Requesting variance to Section: 30.43(3.)(c.)
To allow: Detached garage 820 square feet as per attached which exceeds the maximum
square footage per the above referenced Section with setbacks as per attached.
A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section would result in practical
difficulty and unnecessary hardship because:
(1) The property is unique in that it is of sub -standard size.
(2) The property was created before passage of current zoning ordinance.
(3) The parcel will not accommodate the proposed structure which would allow
storage of 2 cars and the owner's boat out of public view if all area, yard, and
setback requirements are observed.
(4) The existing residence's setbacks do not comply with current zoning ordinances.
The owner desires to place proposed structure in line with current setbacks to
create an architecturally sound appearance to the property.
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) Structures of comparable size exist in the subdivision.
(2) Structures with setbacks similar to the proposed structure exist in the subdivision.
(3) The structure is designed to be aesthetically pleasing and to conform and
complement existing structures.
(4) The structure will enhance the appearance of the subdivision.
The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize public welfare
because:
(1) The structure is on private property and will meet applicable building codes.
(2) The structure is designed to be aesthetically pleasing and to conform and
complement existing structures.
m
b Z
�Z
N
m
N
r s T
Or
x�rn
Eli
SDK
w m 0 c
C A m a
rer�sy
r^
z rn z
O
C
r
Di��
zp �rOC
? O
O c
s
JP
r r
w r p
inp
t
y�rSP
Yy r m n
ti w�w
_
.4
z 9 A
r � p
M
y m
a�
Otis,
fx
_�
zQpo
•
b =
Y
z
O y S
�
Y T
7 N
z0
C3 K T
1A
��,
a� ry
� N
WA
9N
.� �
b'• I1
ZG1
l � O
ma
:
0
�o
\\1N�1111i1llF1JH►gyj -. �
isa7
r r m
m
fil
n
0.
z
37.60
W
�
W
ON _.t
' a
'o
3$ 4¢COMP.�
J5
I49 zo
�
„
94.p7
G.15
r
5.10 � �NOk
° o p
fwZt p
�
y, 6.0240
So NO"07W
l28.60 PLRT
/� m
/28. $5 coMP.
Ze .0,0 Irv, ry
41 /' 43 `3s 0
C
C
rn^
�
n
3
126, 6g/��Y.9r l,p l
�Z
Z
e
�
3
co
ri
C
ro
k<
z
0
!�J
rn
r
n •�
F-• lr
a o M Z
0
r M
x
(DM,�
°LdZ .�
� x
Q fD ^' n
th 0 LmQ
7r e r rr n
;D t;) rt
y rp lD
O `•h � N•
f3� C
�5 Cn
rt .p
FC c) o
rt 3
r• r• �
E 0
0- Z
La �-3 :A
H.
E HO E
• �J z co
a M 0
'a 0 w
z u.
L
}i 7q
�� ca
a,
tin �
iD ►••i
3v 1--1
o�
^rr, o
W z
CDC
Ir z
0
r+
In
U?
C
37.62
1
� 1
34,07
w 4,02
N N�
1 i
r
w�� 0
3.90
ji.'SY
COd A
14 ?4v 00
5
moinisim
l28.85 CON?o
Alto 43'35lG'
-
I
I a
LJfs
If I
Ir
0
! I
I I
I I
I
I
}I I
I
I I
I I
I
I
� I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
f I
I I
I I
I I
I I
i
zQ
�t mss^off EaAr
EY15T
FR. DW..
Ex►5r.
FR.
GAR.
3Q
nor 4*
Z�
13. LI
02
M ExrsT.
BRK. -4
/94 001 DW.. 3.52
3 5Z
32.51
4.4�'
N
h
4.00 Z4,co
Z2. V
a
0
N
2c.4r
3 A4
1 vim 5�
2 pip
IFa
14
VZ
IN
r -.� ems. �� ' �`a -
4 �, ! IJ
66 y� � ' _
3
N
Rio, .5fg
� ♦'Att �t Tf.. \ r�
'� \
C
� a ,
d�yH 0-
�.. - s4`r
���A f , fi r. 1 Y
�.�'��•'*•�1��y�1Y�i4t�� .,f�.re,��ir��/l+rF +`•����Vii, —-� f_'ai 4���i i�.'o�+r -�- A•}r
_ r ,yam, 'rY,�.ill�,� •a
AID-
° -,��� sail ,.;,•'rY •e+ s : ..�iy►r .. Zt-. 7•a'
4 :q_�_' a •'..'.i !w A���1 �.,. - "F1'. a N '
�-
�� •..� r'r a 77�gn
- � 1 h 10� •!� 1 y � iP
two
N� Ai
Nil���77ffff
4CYJ
K
"�-
71-1
t, -
�
i �
-
��"'�� 1 JF• 7f�iTYaTT .�xa-�...�a�r w.ti -
!� i� 1: '�
'
. � � �
'
•s
Y�
Ili '�" '
- � T
� y .,,.� ' tea+►''
# •r��i M. s r '
ix
ql+taq��