Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals 05-1998"--CITY OF MUSKEGO May 29, 1998 Mr. and Mrs. Timothy Dunn S67 W 18775 Pearl Drive Muskego, WI 53150 RE: Appeal #5-98 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Dunn: DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING Matthew G. Sadowski, AICP Director of Planning (414) 679-4136 The Board of Appeals wishes to advise you that your appeal from Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance, Section 5.02(2) Building Location regarding your spa was approved as submitted. Your appeal from Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance Section 5.02(2) Building Location regarding your porch was granted as submitted. Please be advised building and zoning permits are required prior to commencing building on your property. 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 Appeal $005-98 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: 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--ZoningOrdinance: 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 DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Approve item #1, as submitted. The hardship cited was the unique shape of the lot, the existing location of the residence and the topology of the site off Muskego Drive. Approved Chairman O'Neil Approved Vice Approved Ross Approved Member Schepp Absent Member Brandt Approved Member Conley (1 st Approved Member Le oux (2nd t.) Approve item #2, as submitted. The hardship cited was the unique shape of the lot, the existing location of the residence and the topology of the site off Muskego Drive. Chairman O'Neil Vice 14Ross I Member Schepp Member Brandt Conley (1 st Member Le D66)r2nd Alt.) Approved Approved Approved Denied Absent Approved Approved CITY OF MUSKEGO 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,W180 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--ZoningOrdinance: 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. Rock returned to the Board of Appeals with an amended appeal; he is still under oath. Mr. Reck stated three hardships for allowing a variance. L) 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. Rock 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 nonconforming 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 S11091 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 05/28M 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. ArbeneIla stated if a variance is not granted, Mr. Love would be required to cut down trees to accommodate 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 lot 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 W18775 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-2/OED, 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--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 1 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 11 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 15 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 lots 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 OS/ SM Page 4 roil 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 caII 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 weII 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, SC�� 6-pl-4� Susan J. 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, W 182 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. Reek 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 1 l 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 I 1 feet from the base setback line. Zoned: RS-3/OLS, 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--ZoningOrdinance: 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 05/28/98 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 005-98 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--ZoningOrdinance: 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 W18650 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 Iine 3. 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) 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 CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS lication for Variance Applicants Name 1 1 H d i+!j E- Tu_ 11 E_ u n II Subject Property Address: Telephone & 19 - 16 .SS Property zoning TZ5-3 fpfp Key Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable): caner, lessee other Fees: $195.00 Date inspector denied permit:-�-�� Requesting variance to Section To allow: 0 T ke. oi,r c. h .exIS�rnq aecl� A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section would result in practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship because: why sic l � r�� flt does nvi— L" e n Sep oThe!r Prn/o-e-r-fiec Pa1sa'xt 7� f-fode-ve.lop se A, 01teck, ?vv�, o-fe- The variance, if granted, will not be contrary to the public interest and will be in accord with the spirit of the code because: i� Tim Spy. L% 6- View ea 3 S,aQ�S PP1?,.xrIL J� � 1 0., ti«� c_P f{�v 1&AA_Ct�.Oe -►-'il SPrA All A L Le CH 'i`-e exfAka;vn L,Ml 6e w1i4t'.1/r a.l'p<<do"197a P&.G/,c_ The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize public welfare because: C4_: cam% TV-0W♦ iT`C V_AI..'$f&V4,J A%r%;L-AVMr--a • a Vial of Surupu EldreJ H. Jen�cn Survey For ' Location: Gold Drive Dtsclytlon: Lot 1,' E_loek I in JE Cr�EM SUBDIVISION a curt of the of the S.t•].1/4 of Section 4, Torn 5 North, 'range 20 last, also a part of the S_i4.1/4 of the Iv.U.1/4 of Section 4, City' of Iktske;-o, iJati<. so County. !•]isconsin. 4) V � s qu Iw :INMAN HOMAS. LI UKEE. fir Wis. �Q�s INMAN ENGINEERING OF MILWAUKEE, INC. FP4m0gFFt7S - R119rvFVAFtc i R /p ED Arm 15 000 "'LSD w+itti, 100 15 4 cgx+ 10115 -i.5/11.3 BUILDING PLAN,"-) CONDITIONALLY APPROVED CITY OF MUSKEGO DATE Z .� G------_ ---------------. Gerald P. Lee Building Inspector Scale: / Go Af Wf r� G am. - r44--4-4 `4&c-� 604.ra s f�dill Zq" 1�5Ae- C r�eh �� �' `� i � � 1 cj a V � V-p Y., T p�cc�. te SPECTRUM® 200 SERIES SPECIFICATIONS STRUCTURAL FEATURES MODEL 260 MODEL 255 MODEL 250 MODEL 247 MODEL 208 MODEL 204 All -heart, premium HDPE Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal Diagonal redwood cabinet Dimensions` 79J'2'x89L'-'x34r'4' 90V8'x89V2'x34-' 90WX89L'r'x34y9' B9ss'x77T-2'x341s' 905-1'x74''4-x29,',e' 74V4'x63V4'x2978' Seating capacity 5 5 6 4 4 2 Totallusable gallons 430/337 440/335 444/331 410/320 305/232 2261176 )ADE weight (empry/full) 583/4154 677lbs/34671bs 643 34D4 Ibs 6501bs/34231bs 605 ibs<2534 lbs 4661bs/19311bs MARBLE Eleccrical requirements: 3 wire 240V, 3OA/50A 240V, 30A/50A 240V, 3OA/50A 240V, 30A/50A 240V, 30A/50A 12OV, 30 A _ — — — 240V, 30A/50A POWERWORKS• SYSTEM FEATURES Pump 2 Speed, ILOA 2 Speed. ILOA 2 Speed,11.0A 2 Speed.11.0A 2 Speed. 11.0A 2 Speed, 13.8A (120V) Cont. duty HP/Max duty bHP 25/4.8 2.5/4.8 2.5/4.8 2-514.8 2.5/4.8 1.5f2.6 MYSTIC Blower 1HP,1 Speed 1HP,1 Speed 1HP.1 Speed 1HP,1 Speed 1HP. I Speed 1HP,1 Speed EMERALD Stainless steel heater 5.5 kw. 240V 5.5 kw, 240V 5.5 kw, 240V 55 kw, 240V 5.5 kw, 240V 5.5 kw, 240V — -- — — --- 1.3 kw, 120V Jets Luxury Therapeutic 4 5 5 5 5 4 Luxury Turbo Swirl 3 2 2 2 2 2 Micro Therapeutic 6 6 6 6 6 4 )ADE Micro Turbo Swirl 6 - - G RAN ITE Furo Turbo Swirl - 4 4 4 4 Euro Ozone 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total jets 20 18 18 18 16 11 Air injectors 14 14 14 14 14 14 Powerwotks ozone ready 240V 240V 240V 240V 240V 120V CHARCOAL STANDARD FEATURES GRANITE Deluxe Coleman' cover Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Top loading,100% filtration Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Filter size 75 square feet 75 square feet 75 square feet 75 square feet 50 square feet 50 square feet Filtration cycles Programmable Programmable Programmable Programmable Programmable Programmable 4-hour cleanup cycle Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ergonomic lounges — 2 1 1 1 ALSO Foot jets Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes AVAILABLE Neck jets Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes BUT SUB)ECr Thermo -Lock' insulation Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TO EXTENDED LEAD TIME Underwater lighting Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes AND Lounge keeper ribs — Yes Yes — Yes — POSSIBLE UPCHARCES ARE: SAFETY FEATURES UL' listedAVH' listed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes WHITE G RAN IT[ Overheat protection system Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Dual freeze protecrion Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MIDNIGHT Non-skidfootwells Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes GARNET TROPIC OPTIONAL FEATURES TOPAZ Powerworks ozone system Available Available Available Available Available Available COASTAL BiO Sanitizing System Available Available Available Available Available Available CABINET STAINING 'Allow V4' variance on all dimensions e Victorian"(LiPmount) A special thank you to Joseph Ramos Photography Gazebo Works Too, Inc' Building better custom gazebos and enclosure systems has been a company tradition. Our attention to detail and exclusive use of quality redwood materials has enabled us to become one of the fastest growing gazebo manufacturers in the nation. Today, we offer our customers the widest range of styles and features available any- where through our custom built modular designs. The Dynasty Collection® This series is one of the most popular design con- cepts available from Gazebo Works Too, Inc. Dynastys come with the very best features.of our enclosure line, including many unique options , found exclusively with this model. From custom formed corner wind ws to solid brass door locks, the Dynasty colle n exceptional value in contempor ity. s his lipmount model is custom designed to fit over N tour exist- ing hot tub. The Victorian will enhance your outdoor spa DEALER IMPRTNT AREA enjoyment with solid redwood paneling, a shylite roof dome and all the privacy and comfort an enclosure can offer. ir Accommodates any size spa. Cupolas, Sktilii�bt Donres, Double Doors, Bar lark s. Decorator Overt Windows indows ram. The bold and striking look of the Dynasty series is accented by acrylic corner pieces, cupolas and solid brass hardware. These modem enclosures provide classic interior warmth and beauty, along with our firm commitment to excellence and continuing customer satisfaction. • .lows,'- i cus�roim Ft.ATLJREFS 100% REDWOOD -panel construction is used in all our enclosures RADIUS CORNER WINDOWS -vacuum formed acrylic for strength and durability (in your choice of clear or smoked) ROLLER TRACK SYSTEM -for easy operation with our sliding doors and windows e ACRYLIC ROOF DOMES -for enhanced interior illumination (not available on all models) CUSTOM FINISH -available in your choice of Heart Redwood or Coastal Grey ROUTERED WINDOW FRAMES -inset with 1/8 inch acrylic panels (in your choice of clear, white or smoked) SOLID BRASS HARDWARE -includes Iocking doors and windows for added privacy and security OVAL WINDOW PANELS -standard with this series, (in your 0hoice of clear or smoked) i TRANSMISSION LEVELS f AND 2 STANDARD SIZES IRRUGATED = Clear PVC � � (82% light transmission ) iw\ White Opaque (no light transmission) =' Green Opaque (no sight Transmission) ®10 Times Stronger Than Fiberglass • Clarity of Glass... Won't Turn Cloudy or Milky Like Other PVC • !deal for Temperatures from 150OF to -20OF • Resistant to Chemicals • Much More Attractive than Fiberglass 8' long x 26" wide 12' long x 26° wide •••GREAT FOR DO -IT YOURSELF PROJECTS We, the undersigned, have reviewed the Plat Survey with the Spa and porch inclusions, the spa and structural design, materials and drawings for the Spa and Porch extension at S67 W18775 Pearl Drive Muskego, WI 53150 and agree that there would be no harm to public interest. Also, the Spa and Porch extension will enhance the appearance of the Jewel Crest subdivision. Name Address Phone Date ON �i