Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals 04-1992City O0 91j(l�i?E'C�O March 27, 1992 Mr. Dale Bahringer W166 S8324 Kurtze Lane Muskego, WI 53150 Dear Mr. Bahringer: BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT W182 S8200 RACINE AVENUE • BOX 903 • MUSKEGO, WI 53150-0903 • (41-: E,a-411C The Board of Appeals wishes to advise you that your request for a size variance and a setback variance been denied. If you have any questions, please contact the Building Inspection Department at 679-4110. Thank you. Sincerely, BOARD OF APPEALS Jill Blenski Recording Secretary 7mb cc: Chairman Gerald Fohr (.illy o/ Mine Jfnduitria! anal Recreational _tacifaie.' CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD ON MARCH 26, 1992. Chairman Gerald Fohr called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: Chairman Gerald Fohr, Vice Chairman Terry O'Neil, Lloyd Erno, Thomas Berken, Donald Pionek, and Chuck Dykstra, Sr. ABSENT: Darryl Rowinski and Robert Vitt. MINUTES: Mr. Berken made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 20, 1992 meeting and Mr. O'Neil seconded. Upon a voice vote, the motion to adopt the minutes passed unanimously. APPEAL 4-92 - Dale Bahringer, W166 S8324 Kurtze Lane, Muskego, Wisconsin. Chairman Fohr read the appeal requesting a 337 square foot size variance and a 2' 6" setback variance from Kurtze Lane, as well as a variance from the requirement of a fire wall to construct a 20' x 24' garage addition. Zoning: RS3/OLS. Mr. Dykstra explained the variance requests. Mr. Bahringer is allowed 60% of the size of his home for garage space and other outbuildings. The original figure Mr. Bahringer gave to the Building Inspection Department regarding the size of his house proved to be incorrect. When Mr. Dykstra actually measured the house, he arrived at a figure of 814 square feet. This would mean that Mr. Bahringer would be allowed 488 square feet for garage and outbuildings. The existing garage measures 352 square feet and a small storage shed measures 70 square feet. The square footage of these two structures must be subtracted from the 488 square feet that the homeowner is allowed. This leaves him with 66 square feet allowed for additional garage and/or outbuildings. The proposed garage addition is to be 480 square feet. When the 66 feet is subtracted from that, a size variance of 414 square feet remains. This is a larger size variance than originally figured. The Board expressed concern that this proposed garage addition was excessive and would block access to the lake. Mr. Bahringer appeared before the Board. He stated that he believes the eight feet along side the proposed garage addition would provide enough room to get around the garage structures. He plans to install a rear door in the garage addition to provide lake access. When asked why he needs this additional garage space, Mr. Bahringer stated that he has snowmobiles, and other items on the property site that he would place in the garage addition. He would also like to have a workshop in his garage. He has a side driveway where the garage addition would be built. He does not believe the garage addition would be excessive. He would like it large enough to park two vehicles inside. There was discussion regarding the requirement of a fire wall. Some of the Board members felt that this requirement was important since all of the garage structures in this area were very close together. Mr. Bahringer was asked if he gave any thought to removing the old garage and constructing a completely new structure. He stated that the existing structure is sound. He believes this would be cheaper for him. The garage Minutes of Board of Appeals March 26, 1992 Meeting Page 4 regarding lot size. Mr. and Mrs. Peterson did attempt to purchase land from neighbors to the east, but were refused. They believe the land division would not represent a problem to the city and would improve the site, as a new house could be built. The house would not require any variances. An existing garage would have to be relocated. She believes that the size of their lots is close enough to those divided to the west that the Board of Appeals should consider her appeal of the Plan Commission decision. APPEAL 10-92 - Ray Vees, W183 57682 Kingston Drive, Muskego, Wisconsin. Chairman Fohr read the appeal for Mr. Vees requesting a 4' setback variance from ordinary high water mark to complete a deck. Zoning: RS-3/OLS. Mr. Dykstra explained that the contractor came in to the Building Inspection Department to take out a permit for the deck. One corner of the deck, however, is closer than 50' to the ordinary high water mark. Chuck did issue a building permit for the construction of the deck with the contingency that the northwest corner of the deck not be squared off unless the Board grants the variance. If the variance would not be granted, the contractor would be required to complete the deck by not squaring off the corner that was too close to the water. Mr. Mike Peterson from Callen Construction appeared on Mr. Vees' behalf. It is the contractor's belief that the deck would look better if it could be completed with the corner squared off. The deck will not be enclosed. It is a second story deck and is to be constructed on existing concrete retaining walls. Mr. Berken made a motion to adjourn into Closed Session. Mr. Erno seconded the motion. The Board of Appeals adjourned into Closed Session. APPEAL 4-92 - Dale Bahringer, W166 S8324 Kurtze Lane. Mr. O'Neil made a motion to deny the appeal as submitted. Mr. Pionek seconded. Upon a roll call vote, the motion to deny the appeal passed unanimously. APPEAL 5-92 - James Hansen, W171 S7350 Lannon Drive. Mr. Berken made a motion to grant the variance. The hardship being the location of the well and the existing building, as well as a need for storage space. Mr. O'Neil seconded. Upon a roll call vote, the motion to grant a 3.5' offset variance from north property line and a 6' offset variance to east property line passed unanimously. APPEAL 6-92 - Irene Masch, W145 S7644 Durham Drive. Mr. Berken made a motion to grant the variance as requested. The hardship being the present location of the existing structure and the need for additional living space. Mr. Erno seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote, the motion to grant a 4' 8" setback variance from Durham Drive passed unanimously. APPEAL 7-92 - Gerald Moran, S104 W15043 Loomis Drive. Mr. O'Neil made a motion to grant the variance increasing the offset variance to 13' S". The hardship being the lack of appropriate —71 r' CFNTEF - --- ----- --- -- - --- - 50 ' 8324 KuRTZL LgNI rx- M WT 5315'0 71-1 PROPORD 40' Giv ADD1T1 !0:11111 -+ i 3 20 25 1 �— wclt {�cclSf �w m 7C1 O