Zoning Board of Appeals- - Minutes 06/24/2004ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
CITY OF MUSKEGO
J U N E 24, 2004
Meeting was called to order at 7:08 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker, Mr. Horst Schmidt, Dr. Russ
Kashian, Mr, William Le Doux, Plan Director Jeff Muenkel and Associate Planner Adam Trezbiatowski.
ABSENT: Dr. Barb Blumenfield, Mr. Steve Whittow
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The Secretary stated the meeting was noticed on June 18, 2004, in
accordance with Open Meeting Laws.
OLD BUSINESS: APPEAL #04-2004 — Mr. Schepp stated the Petitioner, Mr. Richard Knudsen, has
withdrawn his appeal through a letter dated June 18, 2004, to the Board of Appeals Committee. Mr.
Knudsen discussed his options with staff and agreed he would not need a variance.
NEW BUSINESS: APPEAL #05-2004 Petitioner: Terri Roberts, W 139 S6993 Sherwood Circle 1 Tax Key
2163.994. REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal
Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variance: Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 Building
Location (1) 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.
An offset of 15-feet is required from the south property line for an accessory structure. The petitioner
seeks an offset of 11-feet from the south property line to permit an existing 20'x14' accessory structure,
and is therefore requesting a 4-foot variance from the south property line.
The Petitioner was not present to speak.
Mr. Muenkel gave the City's opinion. The petitioner has had the existing structure on their lot long before
they bought the property. The Assessor's record shows it existed since 1969. A recent Point of Sale
inspection by the Building Department found that this structure was not permitted. Upon applying for the
permit the Planning Department found the building non -conforming due to the 15-foot offset needed.
Staff believes, that due to the structure existing on the property since 1969 between four previous
owners, prior to the petitioner, results in a non self-imposed hardship. The structure is fenced in from
surrounding view and a similar non -conforming structure exists on the south abutting property. Staff does
not feel this variance will cause a detriment and will not adversely effect the neighborhood.
Mr. Muenkel noted the new owners stated in a fax to the City they are aware of the zoning appeal
DELIBERATIONS:
APPEAL 05-2004 — Mr. Schneiker moved to approve the appeal allowing the existing 20'x14' structure to
have a 4-foot variance from the south property line; citing that the variance preserves the intent of the
Municipal Code because a non -self imposed hardship exists since the accessory structure has existed
between four previous property owners. Also, the accessory structure wiil not cause detriment to the
surrounding properties as it is fenced in and there are similar structures of a possible non -conforming
nature nearby. Seconded by Mr. Le Doux. Chairman Schepp agreed the hardship was not self-imposed
because the structure was existing since 1969, before the owners bought the property. Upon roll call
vote appeal 05-2004 was approved 5-0.
ZBA Minutes
6124/2Q04
Page 2
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Le Doux moved to approve the minutes from May 27, 2004.
Seconded by Mr. Schmidt. Upon voice vote, motion carried.
MISCELLANEOUS: None.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this Board, Mr. Le Doux moved to adjourn.
Mr. Schmidt seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 7:33 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kellie Renk,
Recording Secretary
City of Muskego
Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 04-2004
For the meeting of: June 24, 2004 UPDATE
REQUESTING:
Chapter 17—Zoning Ordinance: Section 6.01(2) Engineering Regulations
(C) Building Restricted Adjacent to Drainage Channels or Watercourses: No building other than a
bridge dam, boathouse, or revetment subject to the aforesaid approval, shall be erected,
structurally altered or relocated within 10 feet of the ordinary high water line of surface
water, drainage channel or 20 feet of the ordinary high water line of a natural watercourse
nor so that the lowest floor of said building is less than 3 feet above possible flood stage
as determined by the City Engineer.
APPELLANT: Richard Knudson
LOCATION: Janesville Road / Tax Key No. 2198.984,005
PREPARED BY: Jeff Muenkel
UPDATE FOR JUNE 24, 2004 MEETING
The petitioner has had meetings with staff as directed by the Board of Appeals and has decided to
withdraw Appeal 04-2004 (See supplemental letter). During the staff meetings the petitioner was able to
find a building pad that would fit the needs of the intended future business.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Denial of Appeal 04-2004, allowing a 4.5-foot variance from the natural watercourse on the rear of
the property; citing that the petitioner withdrew the petition as per the letter enclosed in the appeal
supplement and that the petitioner was able to find a building pad that would fit the needs of the
intended future business.
Jwh,e/ Y 8, 2004
WAS
I wo-ut& Lake/ ta- walub/ cuw w my request li)-r
Appeal 04 -2 004 fir ottr- Ja.vve S vi, & /iZoa&
prapefty.
2 6chc v'dl M Er Terrb L K
W198 S7380 H' [7ru'vel
Wl 53150
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
CITY OF MUSKEGO
MAY 27, 2004
Meeting was called to order at 7:07 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker, Dr. Barb Blumenfield, Mr. Horst
Schmidt (7:13PM), Dr. Russ Kashian (7:07PM), Mr. Steve Whittow, Mr. William Le Doux, Plan Director
Jeff Muenkel and Associate Planner Adam Trezbiatowski.
ABSENT: None
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The Secretary stated the meeting was noticed on May 20, 2004, in
accordance with Open Meeting Laws,
NEW BUSINESS: APPEAL #01-2004 Petitioner: Roy Knickelbine, S66 W18477 Jewel Crest Drive 1 Tax
Key 2174.141.002, 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 space is equal to at least 75% of the actual lot area.
Minimum open space for the property is required in the amount of 5,403 square feet (75% of the 7,204 SF
lot). The current open space is 65 square feet less than required, resulting in 76-percent of the lot area
preserved as open space. The Appellant is proposing construction of an attached garage (672 SF) and
to pave a 616 SF driveway, resulting in 58-percent of the lot area preserved as open space, and is
therefore requesting a 17-percent variance to the Code requirement.
Petitioner also seeks the following variance: Chapter 17- Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 Building
Location (1) 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 front (northwest) property line. The petitioner seeks an offset of
16.19-feet from the front property fine to permit the construction of an attached garage, and is therefore
requesting an 8.81-foot variance from the front property line.
Mr. Schneiker administered the oath to Mr. Knickelbine, Mr. Knickelbine explained he is trying to build a
3-car garage that matches the roofline of the house. Both him and his wife are legally handicap, and his
wife requires a wheelchair. A wheelchair lift will be installed in the garage. The 3-car garage would also
provide storage for jet skis and snowmobiles.
Mr. Schepp questioned how much room the wheelchair lift would take up in the garage. Mr. Knickelbine
stated the lift is 3 112 feet.
Mr. Schneiker asked if the neighbors were opposed to the garage. Mr. Knickelbine stated he asked the
neighbors and they had no problems with it.
Dr. Blumenfield asked if the building to the right has any other buildings on the property. Mr Knickelbine
stated the property has a new house and garage on the property.
Dr. Kashian asked when the house was built. Mr. Knickelbine explained he built the house last year and
at that time he planned to build a garage. He ran into some problems and an Alderman told him to build
the house with the 25-foot setback and then request a variance from the Board of Appeals.
ZBA Minutes
5/27/2004
Page 2
Dr. Kashian asked if there was an existing home on the lot at that time. Mr. Knickelbine explained there
was not an existing house on the lot at that time. He owned both the vacant lot and the lot to the
southwest where he previously lived.
Mr. Le Doux stated the storage area is helpful to keep items inside and out of view of the neighbors,
which is beneficial to the neighborhood.
Mr. Muenkel gave the City's opinion. This property does have a hardship being the setback requirements
from the public right of way. Although the setbacks for lake properties are already 25 feet where most
residential parcels are only allowed to be outside of 40 feet. However, many lake properties in the area
do have detached garages located less than the required 25-feet from the right of way. The neighbor to
the west has a garage only 13.83 feet from the front property line. Due to this, the addition to Mr.
Knickelbine's property up to 16.19 feet from the right of way will not adversely affect the neighboring
properties and will still preserve the nature of the surrounding area.
Secondly, the Board has taken the position that all properties should be afforded the opportunity to install
paved driveways. Paved driveways enhance the property, reduce the effect of dust on surrounding
properties and further the best practice and management practices and policies of the City by reducing
sediment and run off. The only problem staff foresees is the amount of garage space and impervious
surface proposed. Although property owners have been afforded the right to have an enclosed two -car
garage, three is above the norm. Staff feels a two -car garage could fulfill the needs of the appellant and
would also reduce the amount of open space used by 12%.
APPEAL 02-2004 Petitioner: Randy Barant, S103 W20711 Kelsey Drive 1 Tax Key No. 2281-998.
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.08(1) Appeal Provision,
Petitioner seeks the following variances: Chapter 17-Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 Building Location
(1) 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.
An offset of 16.8-feet is required from the west (side) property line. The petitioner seeks an offset of
10.29-feet from the west property line to permit the construction of a new attached garage, and is
therefore requesting a 6.51-foot variance from the west property line.
Mr. Schneiker administered the oath to Mr. Barant. Mr. Barant explained he bought the house without a
garage. He would like to store his snowmobile, ATV and custom truck inside. The property is
substantially wooded and if he were to build the garage in a different location on the property he would
have to cut down large trees. The proposed garage is about 12-feet away from a large tree trunk.
iv1r. Le Doux questioned the staff supplement stating the property being omitted from a rezoning for all the
properties in the surrounding area.
Mr. Muenkel explained this parcel is zoned RCE and all the surrounding properties from Kelsey to Lake
Denoon are zoned RS-2. The Appellant's property and the property 1000 feet to the west were both
omitted from the RS-2 zoning. When the supplement was originally written staff included this property in
with the Lake Meadows subdivision where the zoning is RS-2. RS-2 zoning has an offset requirement of
only 10 feet from the property line. Based on this zoning change from RS-2 to RCE and the hardship of
the 40-foot offset of the RCE zoning district, the City is changing their recommendation to approval of the
appeal as submitted. Staff does not feel the garage will affect the surrounding properties.
Appeal 03-2004 — Petitioner Ronald and Suzanne Hammond, S76 W 18130 Janesville Ct 1 Tax Key No.
2195.995.003. REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 3.080)
Appeal Provision, Petitioner seeks the following variances: Chapter 17 — Zoning Ordinance: Section
ZBA Minutes
5/27/2004
Page 3
9.04(7)(B) Lake Shore Overlay District. (1) No building shall be permitted closer than 50 feet to the shore
line of a lake shore lot except that no offset shall be required for piers, boat ramps, terraces or similar use
areas and a boat house as permitted by 17:9.04(7)B.3. (Ord. #1082- 10-18-2001). An offset of 50-feet is
required from the OHWM (ordinary high water mark) of a lakeshore. In the case of the parcel in concern,
Little Muskego Lake is to the north, which requires a 50-foot offset. The petitioner seeks an offset of 48-
feet from the OHWM of Little Muskego Lake to the north to permit the construction of a new 3-Season
Sunroom, and is therefore requesting a 2-foot variance from the OHWM.
Mr. Schneiker administered the oath the Mrs. Sue Hammon. Mrs. Hammon explained the City is using
the OHWM on the neighbor's property to determine the offset of the screen porch. The screen porch will
go over existing cement patio. Staff suggested angling the corner, but because these screen rooms are
pre -built at the factory it would be difficult to match the roofline. There is a creek on one side of the
property and easements on all sides of the property.
Mr. Schneiker questioned if the roof overhang would be included in the offset. Mr. Muenkel explained a
2-foot overhang is allowed.
Dr. Blumenfield questioned the setbacks for three houses to the east. Mr. Muenkel explained surveys are
not available for these properties but any new structure would have to be 50 feet from the OHWM.
Mr. Muenkel explained to measure OHWM the measurement is taken from the closest point. Therefore,
measuring across the property line is valid.
Mr. Muenkel gave the City's opinion. This property is in the Lakeshore Overlay District (OLS) and all
structures must be 50 feet away from the OHWM of the lake. The 50-foot offset only applies to the
lakeshore; the creek would only need a 20-foot offset. There is not an exceptional circumstance that
exists and all other parcels must also conform to this ordinance. Mr. Muenkel noted concrete must also
be approved by the Planning Department and could be up to three feet off the property line and OHWM.
Appeal 04-2004 — Petitioner Richard Knudsen, Janesville Road 1 Tax Key No. 2198.984.005.
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 6.01(2) Engineering
Regulations. (C) Building Restricted Adjacent to Drainage Channels or Watercourses: No building other
than a bridge, dam, boathouse or revetment subject to the aforesaid approval, shall be erected,
structurally altered or relocated within 10 feet of the ordinary high water line of surface water, drainage
channef or 20 feet of the ordinary high water line of a natural watercourse nor so that the lowest floor of
said buiiaing is less than 3 feet above possible flood stage as determined by the City Engineer.
An offset of 20-feet is required from the OHWM (ordinary high water mark) of any natural watercourse. In
the case of the parcel in concern, there is a natural watercourse on the northwestern portion of the parcel,
which requires a 20-foot offset. The petitioner seeks an offset of 15.5-feet from the OHWM of said natural
watercourse to permit the construction of new commercial building, and is therefore requesting a 4.5-foot
variance from the OHWM.
Mr. Schneiker administered the oath to Mr. Richard Knudson. Mr. Knudson presented the history of this
appeal. The Plan Commission approved the Building Site and Operation plans in 1989. Mr. Knudson
purchased the land with the intention to build. In September 2001 the Zoning Director determined that
the plans were invalid because they were not re -submitted to the Plan Commission. The Board of
Appeals then overruled the administrative decision of staff citing the plans were approved before there
were expirations on Building Site and Operation plans.
ZBA Minutes
5/27/2004
Page 4
Mr. Schepp explained the appeal was approved in 2001 that the plans would not have to go through the
Plan Commission again but they would have to meet all the requirement of the current building, zoning
and engineering codes.
Mr. Knudson explained he could meet every other engineering and building code but is requesting a
variance to construct the building within the 20-foot setback from the natural watercourse.
Mr. Schepp explained because this parcel does not have a structure on it he does not feel there is a
hardship.
Mr. Knudson explained he bought the property under the premise that he could build what he wanted on
the site. When he purchased the property the 20-foot setback rule did not exist. Then he was told there
was a 50-foot setback and recently staff informed him that it was not a 50-foot but a 20-foot setback. Mr.
Knudson is concerned it will return to a 50-foot setback. Mr. Muenkel stated it is possible.
Mr. Knudson stated he will be building the entire plan in one phase instead of the future additions and that
he would like to begin building within six months.
Mr. Muenkel gave the City's opinion. Overall, Staff cannot find why an appeal should be granted for this
property. Although the watercourse consumes a substantial area on the parcel, creating an exceptional
circumstance, there is still sufficient area to construct a building of the same size proposed. The future
additions may be affected by this decision, but the intent of this ordinance should be upheld. The
appellant notes a hardship for time and money, although hardships are not warranted for financial
reasoning. The other hardship noted by the appellant is in regards to the BSO being previously approved
without the offset requirement, however, even the Findings of Fact for appeal #06-2001 states that "all
Building, Site, and Operation Plans must still comply with all current zoning codes, building codes and
engineering requirements. The City recommends denial of the appeal.
DELIBERATIONS:
APPEAL 01-2004 — Dr. Blumenfield moved to approve the appeal as submitted for a three -car garage.
Mr. Schmidt seconded. Dr. Blumenfield stated the circumstances of limited mobility and storage concerns
and the difference of a two -car garage to a three -car garage of 3-feet and 5% for the open space was not
significant compared to the hardships. Chairman Schepp agreed on the hardships and the open space of
5% not being significant and noted the other properties on Jewel Crest are close to the road and this
property would not be any closer. Upon a roll call vote Appeal 01-2004 was approved 5-0.
APPEAL 02-2004 — Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the appeal as submitted. Seconded by Dr.
Blumenfield. Dr. Blumenfield felt because staff has revised their recommendation and the configuration
of the lot and the location of the well and the trees there is no other location for the garage. Mr. Schmidt
noted other properties near the appellants have structures within the 10-foot offsets by code. Upon roll
call vote appeal 02-2004 was approved 5-0.
APPEAL 03-2004 — Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the appeal as submitted. Seconded by Dr.
Blumenfield. Mr. Schepp noted the concrete is already there and would not be extended. Dr.
Blumenfield noted the neighbors did not have a problem with the three -season room. Mr. Schneiker
stated the structure could be altered to conform to the two feet. Mr. Schmidt was concerned with the
aesthetics if the structure was altered. Upon roll call vote appeal 03-2004 was approved 4-1 with Mr.
Schneiker voting no.
APPEAL 04-2004 - Dr. Kashian moved to approve the appeal as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Schneiker.
Dr. Kashian stated he would rather have a structure closer to the waterways than a parking lot. Mr.
Muenkel stated he would still possibly have to go through the Building Site and Operation process.
ZSA Minutes
5/27/2004
Page 5
The Board discussed moving the building to fit within the setbacks. Dr. Kashian stated soil borings would
be necessary to determine if the new location would be suitable to build on.
Mr. Le Doux stated because there is not an existing building he does not see the hardship.
Dr. Blumenfield questioned the lot sitting vacant since 1989 stating the building could have been built in
the past with a zero setback.
Mr. Schepp stated since there is not a building on the lot, now is the time to change the plans and make it
correct and conforming to the code.
Mr. Muenkel stated if there was substantial change to the Building Site and Operation plan then it would
have to go before the Plan Commission for approval. Common Council may have to decide what is
considered substantial change.
Dr. Kashian stated the hardship would then be the value of the Building Site and Operation Plan being
valid.
Dr. Kashian moved to withdraw his motion. Mr. Schneiker withdrew his second. Dr. Kashian moved to
table to the next regular scheduled meeting and the fees to appear at the Board of Appeals meeting will
be waived for the petitioner. Upon a roll call vote appeal 04-2004 is deferred. Staff will meet with Mr.
Knudson to discuss options before the next meeting.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the minutes from December 4, 2003.
Seconded by Mr. Schneiker. Upon voice vote, motion carried.
MISCELLANEOUS: None.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this board, Mr. Schmidt moved to adjourn.
Mr. Schneiker seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 9:50 PM.
Res ctfully bmitted,
Kellie Renk,
Recording Secretary
City of Muskego
Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 04-2004
For the meeting of: May 27, 2004
REQUESTING:
Chapter 17—Zoning Ordinance: Section 6.01(2) Engineering Regulations
(C) Building Restricted Adjacent to Drainage Channels or Watercourses: No building other than a
bridge dam, boathouse, or revetment subject to the aforesaid approval, shall be erected,
structurally altered or relocated within 10 feet of the ordinary high water line of surface
water, drainage channel or 20 feet of the ordinary high water line of a natural watercourse
nor so that the lowest floor of said building is less than 3 feet above possible flood stage
as determined by the City Engineer.
APPELLANT: Richard Knudson
LOCATION: Janesville Road 1 Tax Key No. 2198.984.005
PREPARED BY: Jeff Muenkel
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is proposing to construct a new commercial building on a vacant lot that was previously
approved by a Building, Site, and Operation Plan (BSO). The Board of Appeals granted an appeal for this
property as per Appeal #06-2001 to allow the BSO to remain valid, even though it was originally approved
back in 1988 and never completed.
The property is zoned B-410PDIOWP, Highway Business with a Planned Development District and a
Wellhead Protection Overlay District. The B-4 zoning allows for virtually any type of commercial business,
while the OPD zoning allows for decreased restrictions from the underlying district. The decreased
restrictions must be presented in the form of a BSO Plan to the Plan Commission and approved. The
OWP district doesn't apply to this appeal as it simply restricts certain uses from occurring close to a well
site. This site is allowed commercial uses as intended.
A setback of 40-feet is required from the front property line, offsets of 10' on one side and 15' on all other
sides are allowed from the side property lines, and a rear offset of 20 feet is needed from the rear property
line, or in this case, the natural watercourse. The petitioner seeks the following variance:
An exception to the offset requirement for the district.
An offset of 20-feet is required from the OHWM (ordinary high water mark) of any natural
watercourse. In the case of the parcel in concern, there is a natural watercourse on the northwestern
portion of the parcel, which requires a 20-foot offset. The petitioner seeks an offset of 15.5-feet from
the OHWM of said natural watercourse to permit the construction of a new commercial building, and
is therefore requesting a 4.5-foot variance from the OHW M.
DISCUSSION
As per Appeal #06-2001, the Board of Appeals granted an appeal to Mr.Knudson to allow his Building, Site
and Operation Plan (BSO) to be valid even though it was originally approved more than 10 years ago.
The decision was made by BOA that the BSO is valid, however it must conform to the zoning
requirements that are in place when permits are to be taken out. The appellant would like to proceed with
building the structure but now needs another appeal to construct the building in the desired location.
The zoning code allows for structures to be built no closer than 20 feet from a natural watercourse. The
pond in question is directly connected to Little Muskego Lake via a connection of ponds and creeks, thus
warranting the natural watercourse.
Staff cannot find why an appeal should be granted for this property. Although the watercourse consumes
a substantial area on the parcel, creating an exceptional circumstance, there is still sufficient area to
construct a building of the same size. The proposed future additions may be affected by this decision, but
the intent of this ordinance is for the safety and well being of buildings adjacent to watercourses, and this
should be upheld. The appellant notes a hardship for time and money, although hardships are not
warranted for financial reasoning. The other hardship noted by the appellant is in regards to the BSO
being previously approved without the offset requirement, however even the Findings of Fact for appeal
#06-2001 states that "all Building, Site, and Operation Plans must still comply with all current zoning
codes, building codes, and engineering requirements."
No building elevations of the proposed structure accompanied the submittal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Denial of Appeal 04-2004, allowing a 4.5-foot variance from the natural watercourse on the rear of
the property; citing that the 20-foot offset is ample for the enjoyment of the property and a
substantial building footprint currently exists on the property that is sufficient for commercial use.
Appeal # 04-2004
ZBA 5-27-2004
Page 2
a
CCN
� C
N
E
_(D
() n.
a a
a =3
Q U)
LO
0
0
0
co
rn
G co
Z
W 3 m
(D
W CL r v
=
�,I •`f `'••
y
a
d
fiUm 19
t-nutI
LLpp
N
C �
C
1
CAI;
D
4
BMITTAL REQUIREM
IMENSIONAL VARIANCE
At the direction of the Zoning Board of Appeal each)-
following information is required to
be submitted with the application (10 copies )
For any variance pertaining to a parcel of land, a Plat of Survey, prepared by a
• Registered Land Surveyor, must be submitted. The Plat of Survey must be
dated, with no time requirements, and include the original seal of the surveyor.
Plat of Survey must contain the following:
1. The parcel in question with dimensions, bearings and a description of the
exterior boundaries.
2. Abutting streets, properties, lakes and/or rivers, etc.
3. Location and size (with dimensions and area) of any existing buildings or
structures.
4. Ordinary High-water Mark, 100-year Flood Elevation, 2-foot about the 100-
year Flood Elevation, Easements, etc.
5. Location and size of culverts, ditches, trees, wells, septic system, retaining
walls, driveways, sidewalks, patios, or any other items pertinent to the
variance requested —including area calculations.
6. Elevations at corners of parcel, building corners, grade breaks and any other
elevations pertinent to the variance requested.
7. Proposed building, structure or appurtenance for which the variance is being
requested.
• The scaled construction drawings of the appurtenance, addition, or structure for
which the variance is being requested.
Fee in the amount of $20 Account # 100.01.18.03.4327
DATE
SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT'
SIGNATURE OF OWNER (if different)
DATE
PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT ANY LEGAL, ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE
FEES INCURRED BY THE CITY, IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING A PROPOSAL OR
APPLICATION, BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THIS FEE OWNERED DLE, WILL EVELOPEREFOR QO D
BACK TO THE PETITIONER I APPLICANT l
RECOVERY. (Ch. 3.0851Ord. #909)
al Appeal Application
S:1CiTYHALLIPIanninglZoning Board of AppealslPpplicaUvnslZBA Dimension
Last printed 1115/2003 3:33 PM
May 7, 2004
City Planning/Zoning Board of Appeals
Per Lot 1 Of Certified Survey Map No. 5707
Address S73 W 16750 Janesville Road
Muskego, Wl 53150
To allow for the construction of a commercial building with an area containing 9120
square feet at the above address.
A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section would result in
Practical difficulty and unnecessaEX hardship because of the enforcement of setback
of 50 feet from the OHWM of navigable waters.
The enforcement was not required when petitioner obtained permission for siteand
operational plan from the city Planning Commission in 1989.
This property was purchase on that approval and if that approval was not in place the
property would never been brought by Richard or Terri Knudsen for the sole purpose of
constructing the approved building on the site and operational plan.
The hardship fails in the resources of time and money to go through that approval process
and if a variance is not granted, the building could not be construced.
Never were the pond a problem in that process and never where there any restrictions on
the setback of the approved building in relations to the setbacks. All setbacks were
approved in the site and operational plan submitted to that Plan Commission.
Other point that's adds to the hardship is that this is a vested right because of the approval
process that was followed to get si*and operational approval for the City of Muskego.
The variance, if granted, will not be contrary to public interest and will be in accord
with the spirit of the code because of the pre approval that was obtain prior to
purchasing the property and all the requirement where mean at that time.
The variance if pranted, will not adversely affect public safe or 'eo ardize public
welfare because if the building was built, the building would stand today with all
conditions met.
The requested variance would be 33.5 feet on the northeast of the building, 34 feet on the
northeast of the proposed building and 16.5 feet from the northwest-ifnorthwest-Poifit Qfthe, building.
The variance varies because of the angle of the water e
��ti
O 0 Nr)
w w 04 c
LL O (n
— W Q r...
W�F-� 3 { 4
w—wLL `
U�<O
O �
s
OUZH W
JO�v II -
LLJ
L1 to F- w-
0r-<0
0a -z
a N U H
Z-o
-
�, z o a (C.S.M. 2999 PARCEL 1)
........ ...............
�
z —w
U o o>00Z
0N —¢00 c `o
aZ Sao Ln Ld two f o 1Q5.00'-------
w w z n u o �� 205.43' —--------^
WC�'� o� ¢ L-cn
S 34 11 52 E s s4°1i'S2" E— 151.38' W
27.00'
0 0 I z Z N W O 's , . • . . " . .... ia.00 ao
Ld
WO
--aa—
Ui
o� � aN(w0 0��x a ? INGRESS &EGRESS EASEMENT to p — w o
nOw ......tia........LO
U]
r n O�W
IN W Ja 0 C!)
5 U) Z>- w 151.38'
S 341152E27.00' ----------a C'i ~
O —on
z 0to Z w O LL LO
� > 000to
Cl
l
HW QOQ�
F� �N 1-6.25.00' HH+
C (D Z(0 0 w U'1 Z t j+ Q Q u a U)j rp �� -] d '
Ir O d' ��.
W Y-LO n � w z a. �`� M7 L N � ��11
a, aco � �ODWZ w Oz f 1
a ZN w �a wOU C7 A"Er � W z 8000' 27.00' � LO: CQ �
J V) - Z (n rCr) Ld, U N U Z2 74.00' �; F
U N > LLJ 0) 0 �' O W W d W p CO : v:
W V1 — N Z ' Illy
Q �a �04 Hy d" V� ,
Z w L� ZQ� �.y .a-. ----•�. a O U:
n .._... h .�
02
n � aZ -O�D Ctj�� Q 4 ! d,�o wd �: wN �N
w [n-0
Y
'i
�o27.00
QU a¢Uv 74.0.p
vi CO...............jl:l
U
rl-4i N CO )
n O
>•>-ww rr> 7 H Y CO
nO»L�Q r 115.00..........""...- x
J(ncn03
z / N 34011'52" W 246.60' d
O / Q
v
a / a,
Li U CD'.
W
W :
kf • �.
0 n : �E 6
O. ZO
¢ a: oz
w 0 LaHO
W Z
O ,1 c.�
Z w Q