Zoning Board of Appeals- - Minutes 07/27/2006ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FINDINGS OF FACTS
A dimensional variance is hereby granted to David & Debra Woida, by the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the City of Muskego in Appeal #05-2006 to permit the construction
of an addition connecting the existing detached garage to the existing house and also
the removal of two concrete areas permitting a 7.8-percent variance at S75 W 18650
Kingston Drive / Tax Key No. 2195.031.002, based upon the applicant having met the
specifics of the City Ordinance with respect to granting variances.
It was found that the variance preserves the intent of the Municipal Code because there
were exceptional conditions applying that do not generally apply to other properties.
More specifically, the granting of the variance will allow the property owners to connect
the garage to the house creating a larger kitchen for their growing family. The hardship
to the property is the existing location of the garage with respect to the house. The
property rights of other property owners are preserved, and no detriment is caused to
adjacent properties.
Dated this 4th day of August 2006.
Signed
Dan Schepp
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
Signed _ 't [ �'�
Kellie Renk
Recording Secretary
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
CITY OF MUSKEGO
July 27, 2006
Meeting was called to order at 7:07 P.M
Those in attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker, Mr. Horst Schmidt. Mr. Richard
Ristow and Associate Planner Adam Trzebiatowski.
ABSENT: Dr. Barb Blumenfeld, Dr. Russ Kashian and Mr. William Le Doux
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The secretary stated the meeting was noticed on July 21, 2006 in
accordance with open meeting laws.
NEW BUSINESS:
APPEAL #05-2006—Petitioner: David & Debra Woida, S75 W18650 Kingston Drive/ Tax Key
2195.031.002. 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 5.08 Existing Substandard Lots. The open space requirements
in the case of such lot may be reduces without appeal provided the open area is equal to at least 75% of
the actual lot area.
The minimum open space required for the property is 6,427 square feet (75% of the 8,570 SF lot). The
current open space is 5,802 square feet, resulting in 67.7-percent of the lot area being preserved as open
space, which is non -conforming. The Appellant is proposing to construct an addition connecting the
existing detached garage to the existing house and also the removal of two concrete areas, resulting in
67.2-percent of the lot area being preserved as open space, and is therefore requesting a 7.8-percent
variance to the Code requirement.
Vice Chairman Schneiker swore in David Woida and Adam Trzebiatowski. Mr. Woida explained he
bought the house in 1996. The house has a small kitchen and is not large enough for his family. Mr.
Woida is requesting to add about 250 square feet to double the size of the kitchen and connect the house
to the garage. Due to the location of the stairway to the second floor, they are unable to add onto another
wall. Mr. Woida explained there is a 75% green space requirement that the property currently does not
meet even without the addition. Mr. Woida has proposed to take out an existing parking slab and replace
with brick pavers or grass and cut out an existing area of the driveway for landscaping. With the
proposed addition and removing existing concrete Mr. Woida stated he will only be a half of percent over
what he currently has for open space. Mr. Woida feels removing all of the driveway to be in compliance
with the open space requirement would be dangerous to his young children who ride skateboards and
roller blades on the driveway if it were pavers.
Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City's opinion based on the Zoning Code. In reviewing the permit request, it
was discovered that the petitioner is over the allowed amount of open space with their proposed plan.
When the garage was originally approved the contractor installed a driveway without permits. The
driveway puts the property over the open space requirements. In the petitioner's submittal they stated
they would be willing to remove the section of concrete that is currently in front of the garage measuring
180 square feet and a section of concrete 16-square feet for landscaping. With the removal of 196
square feet of concrete, the open space total would be 5,761 square feet, which is still 666 square feet
over the open space limit and would require a 7.8 percent variance. With the removal of the concrete
areas the site would be 51 square feet over the current amount of open space on the site.
Mr. Trzebiatowski noted there is an option to replace concrete/asphalt with brick pavers, grass, gravel or
woodchips. Staff does not feel that a decrease in the amount of open space for this site is appropriate.
The site is already over the 75-percent open space limit. If this project/permit were to proceed, and a
variance would not be granted, the petitioner would need to bring the site into the 75-percent open space
compliance.
Mr. Trzebiatowski also noted since these structures are already non -conforming, the typical 50% rule that
ZBA Minutes
7/27/2006
Page 2
applies to the total cost of materials for the addition still applies for this proposal. The total cost of the
materials is not to exceed 50% of the current value of the house and garage.
Staff is respectfully requesting denial of Appeal 05-2006 as submitted, allowing the proposed addition
which will consume additional open space on the property, requiring a 666 square foot variance (taking
into consideration the removal of 196 square feet of concrete/asphalt).
Staff does recommend approval of a variance that does maintain the current amount of open space,
which is 5,802 square feet (67.7 percent open space). This would require an open space variance of 625
square feet (7.3 percent). Since there are options present to bring the open space into compliance, no
additional open space beyond the current amount should be consumed.
Chairman Schepp questioned if the garage needed a variance. Mr. Woida stated a variance was granted
to build the garage closer to the road.
Appeal 06-2006 — Petitioner: C.I. Banker Wire & Iron Works, S84 W 19120 Enterprise Drive/ Tax Key No.
2228.999.005. 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 6.04 Off -Street Parking. (4)D. Setback: In any off-street parking
area no vehicle shall be parked closer than 10 feet to the existing street line.
A setback of 10-feet is required from the right-of-way line (lot line) on the above -mentioned lot. The
petitioner seeks a setback of 5-feet from the right-of-way (southern lot line) to permit the relocation of a
parking lot, and is therefore requesting a 5-foot variance from the right-of-way (southern lot line).
Vice Chairman Schneiker swore in John and George Boxhorn, co -owners of C.I Banker Wire and Adam
Trzebiatowski. John Boxhorn explained the plans were originally approved with the fire street located on
the west end of the building. The owners and the fire department would prefer the fire street at the front
(south end) of the building for safety reasons. The proposed fire lane and the parking lot in the front of
the building would be located 5-feet within the 10-foot required setback. Mr. Boxhorn stated they need
another five feet closer to the street for the fire lane.
Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City's opinion based on the Zoning Code. The petitioner received Planning
Commission and Building Permit approvals to construct a 12,000 square foot addition onto their existing
industrial building. The location of the fire lane was not the ideal location per the Fire Department. Phil
Dibb of the Fire Department sent an email to the Planning Department stating his opinion on the matter.
Mr. Dibb stated they are in favor of the fire street relocation for the following reasons:
• This is the safest area having dual access and direct city street access
• This area has multiple access points to the building
• This its area will not i iaVC ISi iuV-v iSSucs to dcai 'vViih
• It is the most logical area — matches all other buildings
Mr. Trzebiatowski also noted there is no ability to shrink down this fire street.
A variance from Plan Commission and Board of Appeals would be required to allow the 5-foot setback.
Plan Commission did approve the variance from the General Design Guide requirement under Resolution
PC 09-2006 at the July 18, 2006 meeting. Their approval also recommends approval of the variance
from the Board of Appeals.
Staff representative respectfully requests approval of appeal 06-2006, allowing a 5-foot setback from the
right-of-way for a parking lot, requiring a 5-foot variance, citing there are safety concerns relating to the
placement of the fire street and that the placement along the front of the building is the safest option and
this should not hamper the surrounding properties.
ZBA Minutes
7/27/2006
Page 3
Appeal 07-2006 — Petitioner: Phillips, Milewski & Associates, Inc. and Mickey Ripp, Willow Pond
Apartment/ Tax Key Nos. 2195.981.005 & 2195.981.004. 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 5.02 Building Location. (1) Location Restricted: No building shall
be hereinafter 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.
The following are the two variance are being requested within the appeal:
A. 2195.981.006 (Parcel 6) — An offset of 20-feet is required from the side property lines on the
above -mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks an offset of 7-feet from the southeastern lot lie to
permit the construction of an additional detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 13-foot
variance from the southeastern property line.
B. 2195.981.004 (Parcel 3) — A setback of 40-feet is required from the font property lines (right-of-
way) on the above -mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 30-feet from the southern lot
line (right-of-way) to permit the construction of an additional detached garage, and is therefore
requesting a 10-foot variance from the southern property line (right-of-way).
The petitioner was not present as staff is recommending deferral.
Mr. Trzebiatowski explained this item is also up for discussion at Plan Commission. This item was
deferred at Plan Commission on July 18, 2006. At the Plan Commission meeting the Commissioners had
questions for the petitioners. The petitioners were not present to answer their questions. The item was
deferred to allow the petitioners to answer the questions. The outcome at Plan Commission will
determine how this appeal will go forward. Staff representative respectfully requests deferral of appeal
07-2006.
DELIBERATIONS
APPEAL 05-2006— Mr. Schneiker moved to approve appeal 05-2006 as submitted. Seconded by
Mr. Ristow. Mr. Schneiker stated because the driveway is already not in compliance there will not be a
substantial change once the project is complete. By replacing the concrete driveway with brick pavers
there would not be much gain and there would be maintenance and up -keep for the property owner and
future property owners. There is also a safety issue for the children with brick pavers for the driveway.
Chairman Schepp stated the hardship is the location of the garage in relation to the house and the need
for a larger kitchen to facilitate the petitioner's growing family. Chairman Schepp noted the other houses
on the street appear to over the open space requirement also, and the proposed project will only be a half
of percent over what already exists. Upon a roll call vote Appeal 05-2006 is approved 4-0.
APPEAL 06-2006— Mr. Schmidt moved to approve appeal 06-2006 as submitted, allowing a 5ft
setback. Seconded by Mr. Ristow. The Board agreed there is a safety issue with the fire street being
on one end of the building. The best location for the fire street is along the front (south end) of the
building. Upon a roll call vote Appeal 06-2006 is approved 4-0.
APPEAL 07-2006— Mr. Schmidt moved to defer appeal 07-2006 until Plan Commission makes a
determination. Seconded by Mr. Schneiker. Upon voice vote appeal 07-2007 is deferred 4-0.
OLD BUSINESS: None
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the minutes of May 25, 2006.
Seconded by Chairman Schepp. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried.
MISCELLANEOUS:
New Zoning Code Information — Mr. Trzebiatowski explained staff has been working on a re -write of the
ZBA Minutes
7/27/2006
Page 4
Zoning Code. The current code was originally adopted in 1963 and revisions to it have been made from
time to time. One of the biggest changes will be the creation of new zoning districts. Included in the
packet is the re -write of the Board of Appeals section of the Code. If any members have questions or
concerns, they should contact staff as soon as possible for clarification. Once the Zoning Code is
completed and approved by Council, a copy will be distributed to the Board members.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this Board, Mr. Schmidt moved to adjourn.
Mr. Schneiker seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 8:12 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kellie Renk
Recording Secretary
CITY OF MUSKEGO
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA
July 27, 2006 7:00 PM
Muskego City Hall, Muskego Room, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
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 appeals described below. The Board of Appeals will then reconvene
into open session.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
1. APPEAL #05-2006
Petitioner: David & Debra Woida
Property: S75 W18650 Kingston Drive / Tax Key No. 2195.031.002
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 5.08 Existing Substandard Lots
The open space requirements in the case of such lot may be reduced without appeal provided
the open area is equal to at least 75% of the actual lot area.
The minimum open space required for the property is 6,427 square feet (75% of the 8,570 SF lot). The
a c or%"7 l ♦ I4'ee ' G7 f th Ini bclnn niyd a nncn
C..Uricil� vpenl Space i3 .J,uvf- 04Uarc Icci, ICOUIL)1iy ii� 6-7-percent of a of area being g pre e . s open
space, which is non -conforming. The Appellant is proposing to construct an addition connecting the
existing detached garage to the existing house and also the removal of two concrete areas, resulting in
67.2-percent of the lot area being preserved as open space, and is therefore requesting an 7.8-percent
variance to the Code requirement.
2. APPEAL #06-2006
Petitioner: C.I. Banker Wire & Iron Works
Property: S84 W19120 Enterprise Drive / Tax Key No. 2228.999.005
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 6.04 Off -Street Parking
ZBA 7/27/2006
Page 2
(4)D. Setback: In any off-street parking area no vehicle shall be parked closer than 10 feet to
the existing street line.
A setback of 10-feet is required from the right-of-way line (lot line) on the above mentioned lot. The
petitioner seeks a setback of 5-feet from the right-of-way (southern lot line) to permit the relocation of a
parking lot, and is therefore requesting a 5-foot variance from the right-of-way (southern lot line).
3. APPEAL #07-2006
Petitioner: Phillips, Milewski & Associates, Inc. and Mickey Ripp
Property: Willow Pond Apartments (Lions Park Drive) / Tax Key Nos. 2195.981,006 &
2195.981.004
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 5.02 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.
NOTE: There are two variances being requested within this appeal.
A. 2195.981.006 (Parcel #6) - An offset of 20-feet is required from the side property lines on the above
mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks an offset of 7-feet from the southeastern lot line to permit the
construction of an additional detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 13-foot variance from
the southeastern property line.
B. 2195.981.004 (Parcel # 3) - A setback of 40-feet is required from the front property lines (right-of-
way) on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks a setback of 30-feet from the southern lot line
(right-of-way) to permit the construction of an additional detached garage, and is therefore requesting
a 10-foot variance from the southern property line (right-of-way).
CLOSED SESSION
OPEN SESSION
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MAY 25, 2006 MEETING.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
i. ivcvv winiiy 11 U uiiviiva uvii
ADJOURN
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 body specifically referred
to above in this notice.
Also, 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 Janice Moyer, City
Clerk/Treasurer at Muskego City Hall, (262) 679-5625.
City of Muskego
Staff Representative Brief
Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 05-2006
For the meeting of. July 27, 2006
REQUESTING:
Under the direction of 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 area is equal to at least 75% of the actual lot area.
APPELLANT: David & Debra Woida
LOCATION: S75 W18650 Kingston Drive / Tax Key No. 2195.031.002
CITY'S POSITION PRESENTED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski, City Staff Representative
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is seeking building permit approval for an addition to connect their home and garage. The
parcel is zoned RS-3/OLS.. Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay. The lot is located off
of Kingston Drive on Little Muskego Lake. The petitioner now seeks the following variance:
An exception to the open space requirement for the district.
The minimum open space required for the property is 6,427 square feet (75% of the 8,570 SF lot). The
current open space is 5,802 square feet, resulting in 67.7-percent of the lot area being preserved as open
space, which is non -conforming. The Appellant is proposing to construct an addition connecting the
existing detached garage to the existing house and also the removal of two concrete areas, resulting in
67.2-percent of the lot area being preserved as open space. and is therefore requesting an 7.8-percent
variance to the Code requirement.
DISCUSSION
The petitioner is in the process of trying to get a permit to connect their existing detached garage to their
existing house. In reviewing the permit request, it was discovered that the petitioner is over the allowed
amount of open space with their proposed plan for their property. The petitioner has submitted a current
survey on which the surveyor calculated the existing open space amount. That calculation reviled that
4ly �hle !Ot t1here is 5,vv2 square feet of open space, vrhich iu -!ready 625 square feet over the
currently oii a is ivy a ici q p p r square r
allowed limit. The proposed addition brings the total amount of open space to 5,565 square feet, which is
862 square feet over the allowed limit. At this size a 10.1-percent variance would be required.
In the petitioner's variance request submittal they stated that they would be willing to remove the section of
concrete (parking slab) that is currently in front of the garage. This area measured 180 square feet in
area. They also stated that they would be willing to remove a concrete area of 16 square feet that would
be used as a landscape area. With the removal of the 196 square feet of concrete, the open space total
would then be 5,761 square feet, which is still 666 square feet (67.2-percent) over the open space limit.
This would then still require a 7.8 percent variance from the code requirement. With the removal of the
concrete areas listed above, the site would be 51 square feet over the current amount of open space on
the site.
Appeal # 05-2006
ZBA 07-27-2006
Page 1 of 2
As in other open space issues, there is the option to replace concrete/asphalt with brick pavers or the
option to replace concrete/asphalt with grass, gravel, and/or woodchips.
Based upon the information given. staff does not feel that a decrease in the amount of open space for this
site is appropriate. The site is already over the 75-percent open space limit (currently at 67.7-percent
open space). If this proiect/permit were to proceed and a variance would not be granted, the ipetitioner
would need to bring the site into the 75-percent open space compliance. Staff does not recommend the
additional increase over the current amount of open space. Staff would be receptive to allowing the
current amount of open space (67.7-percent open space) to legally remain if the Board feels appropriate.
Since there are options to remove concrete/asphalt areas or replace theses areas with brick pavers,
grass, gravel, and/or woodchips. there is no reason that a further increase from the open space limit
should be granted. The hardship is self-imposed, because there already is a functional driveway along
with a functional house and garage.
NOTE: Since these structures are already non -conforming, the typical "50% rule" that applies to
the total cost of materials for the addition still applies for this proposal. Regardless of what
happens at this Board, the total cost of the materials is not to exceed 50% of the current value of
the house and garage (excluding the land value), per the Assessors records. The "50% rule" for
non -conforming structures has no bearing on this appeal.
BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, THE CITY STAFF REPRESENITIVE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS:
Denial of Appeal 05-2006 as the petitioner has submitted, allowing the proposed addition which
will consume additional open space on the property, requiring a 666 square foot (7.8-percent)
variance (taking into consideration the removal of 196 square feet of concrete/asphalt), citing that
the variance does not preserve the intent of the Zoning Ordinance because there are not
exceptional conditions applying to the parcel that do not apply to other properties. Also, a non -
self imposed hardship is not found for the appeal because there already is a functional driveway
along with a functional house and garage.
Staff does recommend approval of a variance that does maintain the current amount of open
space, which is 5,802 square feet (67.7-percent open space). This still would require an open
space variance of 625 square feet (7.3-percent). Since there are options present to bring the open
space into the current amount, such as the removal of concrete areas and/or the replacement of
concrete areas with brick pavers, grass, gravel, and/or woodchips, no additional open space
beyond the current amount should be consumed.
Appeal # 05-2006
ZBA 07-27-2006
Page 2 of 2
Appeal #05-2006
Supplemental Map
LEGEND
Agenda Item(s)
Property
Right-of-way
Hydrography
CITY OF Prepared by City of Muskego
+ Planning Department
7/17/2006
ko.
Petitioner:
2195.031.002
David & Debra Woida
S75 W18650 Kingston Drive
Area of Interest
Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 05-2006
Woida Property
S75 W18650 Kingston Drive
Existing Garage, House, and Driveway
CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICATION FOR DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE
Appellants Name:
Subject Property Address: i VE
Telephone: Day-( Evening. 9 - 6 2-2-cl
Property Zoning: Tax Key: ��� (? 3 CC,-2-
Petitioner's relationshi to property (circle applicable):
Owner Lessee
Date inspector denied zoning permit:
Requesting variance to Code Section
To allow. S a T-s A G i-k Q—:7-N
Other
A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section would result in
practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship because:
The variance, if granted, will not be contrary to the public interest and will be in accord
with the spirit of the code because:
The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize public
welfare because.
S:ICITYHALL\PlanninglFORMSIBOA-Dimensional Appeal Application.doc
Last printed 1/21/2004 10:14 AM
Addendum to Application for Dimensional Variance
For S75 W 18650 Kingston Drive, Muskego, WI
To Allow: Appellant to exceed the current zoning requirement of a maximum 25% lot
coverage of improvements and other hard surfaces (concrete, etc.). The current lot
coverage is approximately 32.3% based on the survey recently_ prepared and submitted
with this application.. Based on the proposed addition, the lot coverage would increase to
approximately 35%. However, appellant is willing to convert a portion of the now
concrete driveway to either grass or other acceptable surface so as to count as green
Wace. The referenced section of the concrete driveway is directly south of the existing
garage and measures approximately 18.25 feet by 10 feet. Hence, this would give back
just over 180 square feet of green space. In addition, appellant is willing to cut out a
section of the current driveway that will be adjacent to proposed addition for a planting
area. Exact dimensions will be based on final plans, but should be somewhere in the
neighborhood of 16 ware feet (2x8). In total, approximately 200 square feet of current
hard surface will be reverted to green space. This will bring lot coverage back to
approximately 32.6% (about 30 square feet more than is currently considered hard
surface).
This would result in practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship because: Due to the
unique nature of a lake lot, meaning long, narrow, and typically substandard in size, the
buildable area is significantly restricted under a literal enforcement of the code.
This will not be contrary to the public interest and will be in accord with the spirit of the
code because: it appears that this section was added to the code to prevent excessive lot
coverage by a "sea of concrete". We are attempting to mitigate this bygivingback ack a
significant portion of currently covered land. This would result in almost exactly the
same lot coverage we currently have.
The variance, if granted, will not affect public safety of jeopardize public welface
because: it is consistent with current lot coverage and the proposed addition is on private
property, it is within the boundaries of the existing structures on the lot, and is consistent
with other neighboring properties
CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICATION FOR DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE
Appellants Name:
Subject Property Address: Imo` 1 VE
Telephone: Day: �,�—�:��q Evening. 2_ 9 -62-2—�
Property Zoning:
Petitioner's relationshi to property (circle applicable):
Owner Lessee
Date inspector denied zoning permit:
Requesting variance to Code Section
To allow. �S aC t-S FAG �Zj
Tax Key: 2J _ l S� ('N) 15 i � Z
Other
A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section would result in
practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship because:
The variance, if granted, will not be contrary to the public interest and will be in accord
with the spirit of the code because:
a
The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize public
welfare because:
�C i�t4C ri-c=1�
S:ICITYHALLIPIanninglFORMSSOA-Dimensional Appeal Application.doc
Last printed 1 /21 /2004 10:14 AM
CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICATION FOR DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE
Appellants Name: 1 )FlV 1 1) 4 JJ c
Subject Property Address: :�:)%S Inl\,) LXI',I V-
Telephone: Day: Evening.",-2 % - (,�
Property Zoning:
Petitioner's relationshi to property (circle applicable):
Owner Lessee
Date inspector denied zoning permit:
Tax Key: 2J �J S� C) 3 J CC % Z
Other
Requesting variance to Code Section
To allow: rs A c iA��n.'
A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section would result in
practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship because:
ter- � ���+✓ �
The variance, if granted, will not be contrary to the public interest and will be in accord
with the spirit of the code because:
a
The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize public
welfare because:
�G i/l4C
S:VCITYHALL1PIanninglFORMSIBOA-Dimensional Appeal Application.doc
Last printed 1 /21 /2004 10:14 AM
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE REQUESTS
At the direction of the Zoning Board of Appeals. the following information is required to
be submitted with the application (10 copies of each):
• 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 $200.00 _ Ac6ouj # 100.01.18.03.4327
i \ 1
SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT < DATE
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 SCHEDULE, WILL BE CHARGED
BACK TO THE PETITIONER / APPLICANT / OWNER / DEVELOPER FOR 100%
RECOVERY. (Ch. 3.085/Ord. #909)
S:\CITYHALL\Planning\FORMS\BOA-Dimensional Appeal Application.doc
Last printed 1 /21 /2004 10:14 AM
N
0 0
A
?oi O
Vf m m D
v Z
• 5m
�+mvZ
x
m c m
2 z _ m
'P>m'a
m
4c�v.
l
V N
- N m
U)
n
�_ 27
Z
h
Ompx-�
<�-;-
�Z�am
/9.53
m
FaAiimm
0•
/e.7S
t
> x s
mmm
, j m> m
Zr,�-4,
! 1
` L
00
xm<
9?Dcm
�
la aa►
�_�
moIr
>°pm�'�
o�O�
-=my•r
�� -
�
✓¢
mo
syi
x
io
> s
4-m--'
m. m m _
N
1io•,
;m
Z=mim
��
�OOic
ORS✓
�m
CD
>1
nr Om
w<x�
r{M
`
rn
s
O X
d
g m
?m
�i
mm
co mrn
Pp
Y�
"'
��Z.0
z
—O
im
cs
Dm rn
a
go
moo;
m
am
>
o�oo
�
9
o
m o
Orr�m
EnIN
Y �r►>
o
z
to 0
fQ
G ;n
C-4 M �Z
M ON
o G 'Ir __� Ln
% (D -::- + o
�t v+ n O r°r x
a1 O M Y
cn :q
� Q
G o rt �in
O �. Y rt
sr3 rn rr � O
r #.07
:E:
O V7
ts N
::5 y �-B `D o
Y• O z
0 op S' N G CA
En C
is f.Sa y vl..ff N F1ci.G.2. 9 75'
O2't 3 o
I U C
f O 0
Q �� C Q U)
Fl-
� � C
O
' N H
In
03
L1 p
lbw (� •
Y•
r` 'U
�v n
rr
v
O
0
m
o �
0
=000
m0m�
30D
v v Z
-nmaZ
xMUr) m
N o
to
4 n p
4 :e
� cn
Oam m=asvm
9
D S S R r O y=!
suo22A3
O v> = 2
?yei coz vmx-
» = A 9 A 2
p i?Aza
c
o� o�n9i<
T < > O O T
OA _>-4
m 'zo om
o
> o < 0 A
m
y vmm
v r 24 pe
S > A A f]
2 b m y as
A A
A
1 z -Z.0 A G
4z m
r
A y T m G m
0 m 005
>
cm w04
v s z a x
zS Opp S>
z v C O A
A S ; Z y m
O v
a >
A
so orr1m
iAQ 7A
A
a
0
�
7
h
z�u x v G G
w
iatErwFoQCYRC
FErt�rC�rtN�7'1rNFr'!C
L;
v:
to 1-•
G �'
•fQCrwEtrnND
m
Ln
co
rn
Ln
0
9
C