Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals 07-1995CIT17 OF 7�-MUSKEGO May 1, 1995 Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Golembiewski W192 S6783 Churchill Court Muskego, WI 53150 RE: W192 S6783 Churchill Court Dear Mr. & Mrs. Golembiewski: 1 C'� DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING Matthew G. Sadowski, Plan Director (414) 679-4136 The Board of Appeals wishes to advise you that your request for a variance has been approved regarding the allowable height of 33.5 foot height for a principle structure pursuant to Muskego Ordinance 17:6.11. Please be advised that permits may be required from the Building Inspection Department prior to any construction. Sincerely, GrolY to M. Kl�� 1. � e cc: Chairman Pionek W132 S8200 Racine Avenue * Box 903 • Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0903 • Fax (414) 679-5614 CORRECTED CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD ON APRIL 27, 1995. Meeting called to order at 7:00 PM. PRESENT: Chairman Don Pionek, Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker, Mr. Gerald Fohr, Mr. Terry O'Neil, Mr. Dan Schepp, Mr. Matt Sadowski, and Mr. Carlos Trejo. ABSENT: Mr. Darryl Rowinski and Mr. Dave Warhanek. MINUTES: Mr. Fohr made the motion to adopt the minutes from the March 23, 1995 meeting. Mr. Schepp seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion to adopt passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Appeal #03-95 - John Guida, S76 W16105 Bridgeport Way, Muskego, Wisconsin. Chairman Pionek read the appeal for Mr. Guida. Requesting a variance from Section 4.05(2)G which allows a maximum height of eight (8) feet for accessory buildings 120 square feet or less in floor area. The petitioner requests a ten (10) foot height for a 120 square foot accessory structure. The petitioner's stated hardship was that the size of the shed would be advantageous for his personal storage use, being that this height permits for a secondary storage loft space. Furthermore, the shed could not meet the required rear yard offset as stated in the ordinance due to the topography of the site. Appeal #04-95 - James & Marie Hansen, W171 S7350 Lannon Drive Muskego, WI.- Chairman Pionek read the appeal for Mr. and Mrs. Hansen. Requesting relief from Chapter 17, Section 4.05(2)E which requires a minimum driveway offset of three (3) feet to an abutting property line. Petitioner requests a zero (0) foot driveway offset. Zoning is RS-2/OPD. The petitioner requested a concrete drive to be set along southern property line with a zero (0) offset leading to his garage in the rear of his yard. There is only 8.8 feet between the residential structure and property line, thus the request for a zero (0) foot offset. The petitioner stated that the property south had an easement crossing, thus making the area unbuildable and not immediately effecting parcel south. The petitioner's hardship cited was that the needed to access the garage in the rear of his yard. Director Sadowski mentioned that if the petitioner installed a concrete driveway, he would also need a variance from the open space requirements of the said district. Appeal # 5-95 - Kids Kampus Day Care, Sue Krienitz, S84 W18473 Enterprise Drive, Muskego, WI. Chairman Pionek read the appeal for Mr. Bob Bently, the petitioner's representative. Requesting a variance from Chapter 17, Section 4.05(2)B, said section allows a Page 2 Board of Appeals, April, 27, 1995 maximum outdoor lighting height of 15 feet. The petitioner seeks permission to allow twenty (20) foot light poles on a three (3) foot pier base. Mr. Bently's stated hardship was that these lights were similar in character to other light posts within the industrial park and if the posts were placed lower, light would spread out to the surrounding area. Mr. Bently further stated that the original petitioner, Sue Krienitz, intended that the application for the Board was to include a variance to permit a dumpster within the required fifty (50) foot setback area. Appeal #_6-95 - Jeff Jahnke, S69 W18004 Muskego Drive, Muskego, WI. Chairman Pionek read the appeal for Mr. Jahnke. 1) Section 4.05(2)C.4. permits a detached garage structure no greater than 604 square feet in floor area, petitioner requests a detached garage structure 672 square feet in size. 2) Section 4.05(2)C.6. permits an accessory structure no closer than ten (10) feet to the principle building, petitioner requests an accessory structure (subject garage) to be eight (8) feet from the principle structure. 3) Section 5.02(2)D. does not permit accessory structures such as garages in the setback area, petitioner requests to construct a garage in the setback area. 4) Section 9.07(3) requires a 40 foot setback for all structures, petitioner requests to construct a garage with a 26 foot setback. The zoning is RS-3/QED The petitioner's stated hardship was that the location of the garage would prevent the elimination of any trees, additional storage was needed are since his house did not contain a basement, the existence of garages in the area within the permitted setback, and that Muskego Drive makes a sharp curve around his parcel, thus giving the parcel an awkward front yard. The Board asked why the garage structure could not be placed in the rear of the yard or be connected to the residential unit. Mr. Jahnke cited costs, the elimination of trees on the site, and the existing slab on grade where the proposed garage structure would be located. Appeal V-95 - Bruce & Dorothy Golembiewski, W192 S6837 Churchill Court, Muskego, WI. Chairman Pionek read the appeal to Mr. and Mrs. Golembiewski and Attorney James Hannika of Lakewood Development Group. The petitioner is requesting an appeal to Sections 5.03(1) and 8.06(6) which specifies a maximum height of 30 feet for a principle structure (house) to construct a house with a 33.5 foot height. The zoning is RS-2. The petitioner's stated hardship was that that the house has a 10/12 roof slope for proportional appearance and to permit adequate snow loads and drainage, met the required subdivision constructions standards for the subdivision, and was approved by the subdivision's architectural review board. Appeal t8-95 - Mark & Deb Weissbrodt S98 W12904 Loomis Road, Muskego, WI. Mr. Pionek read the appeal for Mr. Mark Weissbrodt. Page 3 Board of Appeals, April, 27, 1995 Requesting a variance from Sections 5.02 (3)A.1. and 8.04(3) which require a 13 foot sideyard offset, the petitioner requests to construct a deck with a 3.5 foot side yard offset. The zoning is R-3. The petitioner's stated hardship was that a septic tank is currently placed eight (8) feet from rear of residential structure. If deck complied with zoning regulations, the deck would be placed in the middle of the rear yard, thus being useless as an accessory to the residential structure and near by pool. The petitioner also seeks not to connect the deck to the pool to avoid the costs involved of bringing pool in compliance with the zoning ordinance. Appeal #9-95 Robert Sindic, S74 W17522 Lake Drive, Muskego, WI. Mr. Pionek read the appeal for Mr. Sindic. Requesting a variance from: 1) Sections 4.05(2)C.4., which permits a detached garage structure no greater than 754.2 square feet in floor area. Petitioner requests a garage structure having 1,204 square feet in floor area. 2) Sections 5.02(B) and 9.04(3) allow a garage structure to have a minimum setback of 20 feet. Petitioner requests a garage structure with a setback of 10.5 feet. The zoning is RS-3/OLS. The petitioner's stated hardship is that the home is the second to the last lot in a dead -end -street, only his neighbor utilizes the street for access. Addition to the existing garage structure would not effect the character of the neighborhood. The Board questioned the petitioners survey submittal. The survey was not a certified plat map and current garage structure and previous house addition was not included. Petitioner stated that at time of applying for the Board, no indication was made about the validity of his survey. Appeal #10-95 Joseph Wysocki, S70 W14412 Catalina Drive, Muskego, WI. Chairman Pionek read the appeal for Mr. Wysocki. 1) Request for relief of Section 4.05(2)C.4., which permits a detached garage structure no greater than 530 square feet in floor area. Petitioner requests detached garage structure totaling 936 square feet in floor area. 2) Section 5.03(1) and 8.8(6) allow a maximum 15 foot height for accessory structures. Petitioner requests a 18 foot height for an accessory structure (subject garage). The zoning is RS-3. The petitioner's stated hardship was that the existing garage structure had partially burnt down and that the current structure was structurally deficient in its current state. Chairman Pionek closed the session for deliberation at 8:25 PM. DELIBERATION OF APPEALS Page 4 Board of Appeals, April, 27, 1995 APPEAL #3-95 - John Guida, S76 W16105 Bridgeport Way, Muskego, Wisconsin. Mr. O'Neil motioned to approve appeal as submitted. The hardship cited was the availability of such structures in hardware stores and that they have become manufacture's standards, that the location of the structure will not effect the safety or welfare of the public or community, and that previous variances have been granted for such structures. Mr. Fohr seconded. Upon a roll call vote, the motion passes unanimously. APPEAL #4-95 - James and Marie Hansen, W171 57350 Lannon Drive, Muskego, Wisconsin. Mr. O'Neil made a motion to amend the appeal to state that a hard paved surface driveway be permitted and that the petitioner be allowed to build up the lot no more than fifty (50) percent of the total lot coverage. The hardship cited was that the legal non -conforming size of the lot reduced the amount of buildable space, the location of the existing structures restrained the location for the driveway, and that granting the variance would be advantageous to the community by reducing the amount of soil tracking on the street from the egress and ingress of vehicles on site. Mr. Fohr seconded. Upon a voice vote, the amendment to Appeal #4-95 passed unanimously. Mr. O'Neil motioned for approval of the amended Appeal #4-95. Mr. Scneicker seconded. Upon a roll call vote, the amended Appeal #4-95 passed unanimously. APPEAL #5-95 - Mr. Shepp made a motion to approve Appeal #5-95 as submitted and to permit the petitioner to apply for a second variance to the fifty (50) foot setback to permit the placement of a dumpster within a twenty (20) foot setback, the $80 fee for the appeal be waived, public notice be posted, and that no enforcement action be taken until the Board reviews the second appeal in their next session. The hardship stated for the lights was that it would be appropriate in terms of public safety to have well lit facilities within an industrial park and said lights would be in conformity of the area. The decision to grant a second variance at no fee was due to miscommunication between petitioner and Plan Department and that the permitted setback would be in the public's interest in terms of the health, safety, and welfare of the children of the day care. Mr. O'Neil Seconded. Upon a roll call, the Appeal # 5-95 passed unanimously. Mr. Schepp motioned to approve the amended Appeal #5-95. Mr. Fohr seconded. Upon a roll call vote, the amended Appeal #5-95 passed unanimously. APPEAL #6-95 - Mr. O'Neil made a motion to approve Appeal #6-95 as submitted. The hardship stated was that there would be no adverse effects in terms of public safety and welfare, the awkward shape and size of said lot limits its buildable area, and the lack of storage space since the petitioner has no basement. Mr. Schepp seconded. Upon a roll call vote, Appeal #6-95 passed unanimously. APPEAL #7-95 - Mr. O'Neil made a motion to accept Appeal #7-95 as submitted. The hardship cited was that other structures in the city have heights believed to be greater than thirty (30) feet and that the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance will still be observed in Page 5 Board of Appeals, April, 27, 1995 this subdivision. Decision on the observance of the Zoning Ordinance was based on discussion of the type of homes that would be located in the subdivision. This type of home would not be in spirit of the Zoning Ordinance if it was located in a low height residential subdivision. Mr. Fohr seconded. Upon a roll call vote, the decision passed unanimously. APPEAL #8-95 - Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve Appeal #8-95 as submitted. The hardship cited was the location of the septic tank would force the deck to be useless if it complied to the zoning offsets and that the legal non -conformity of the lot reduced the buildable area of said site. Mr. Fohr seconded. Upon a roll call vote, Appeal #8-95 passed unanimously. APPEAL #9-95 - Discussion ensued about what is required when a petitioner applies for a variance. The lack of a certified survey map does not give the Board enough information to make a decision based on good judgement. Mr. Fohr motioned that approval of Appeal #9-95 be permitted if the petitioner submits, or city has in record, an updated certified survey map indicating the correct foot print of the residential structure, the location of the current detached garage, any other accessory structure on the site, and said certified survey map is in agreement in terms of location of second garage unit and calculated square footages of new structure and the variance sought is no greater than what was published. The hardship cited was the non -conformity of the lake lot. Mr. O'Neil seconded. Upon a roll call vote, the approval of Appeal #9-95 passed four (4) to one (1), Mr. Schepp voting nay. APPEAL #10-95 - Discussion ensued over the height of the structure and whether the space on the second level would be used as habitable space. Mr. O'Neil motioned for approval of Appeal #10-95 as submitted. The hardship cited was the building was structurally unsound, thus a risk to public safety and welfare. Mr. Pionek seconded. Upon a roll call vote, Appeal #10-95 passed four (4) to one (1), Mr. Fohr voting nay. MISCELANEOUS BUSINESS Mr. Fohr made a motion to adjourn, Mr. Schepp seconded. Upon a voice vote, the motion to adjourn passed unanimously. With no further business to come before the Board, meeting was adjourned at 11:15 PM. Respectfully submitted, Carlos Trejo Recording Secretary CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS DATE April 27, 1995 APPEAL # 7-95 NAME Bruce & Dorothv Golembiewski ADDRESS W192 56837 Churchill Court TELEPHONE PROPERTY LOCATION ON WHICH VARIANCE IS REQUESTED ADDRESS W192 S6837 Churchill Court TYPE OF ZONING RS-2 1) Appealing Section 5.03 A.(1) Building Location, Offsets and 8.06(6) RS-3 Suburban Residence, petitioner requesting to construct a house with a 33.5 foot height. 80.00 FEE TO BE PAID AT TIME OF APPLICATION DATE PAID 04-11-95 RECEIPT NUMBER 133152 DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS PPROVED DENIED CHAIRMAN P IONEK GLc_ J'CI VICE-CHAIRMAN ��SC��HNNEIK.E�R] MEMBER FOHR MEMBER O'NEk MEMBER SCHEPP FIRST ALTERNATE WARHANEK SECOND ALTERNATE ROWINSKI Secretary Date r/I22 f �iS CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS Application for Variance Applicants Name !"uCE f 00wZa TNY 6oc'E-741r-lXk I _ Subject Property Address: [.6: O- L < < - c' k l l l Telephone E-) -73 Property Zoning: Key Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable): owned Fees: $80.00 lessee other Date inspector denied permit: Iq 5 Requesting variance to Section �f' ; 1 0& To allow: .a v c ' y✓ - Ne'�Af LY A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section would result in practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship because: Ole Si Gam✓ 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 // J' AV • - ,v C. ,.cam A Lya /N- =n0 -� (-IL, .Lv Cc .-T r7�1 "i U 4 �e- 4 The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize public welfare because: I'�y ✓ � .v / f �✓ [7 i Q' �^' A C c . � 1vE�. � U- —� C_ e t JC 0 / i Jc,4q Z-.,/ / S Page 1 of 2 xx ORM:BOAVAR 4-8-93 M e S. S e / MORTGAGE SURVEY SERVICE 6617 West Coldspring Road Greenfield, Wisconsin 53220 (414) 327. 4400 Prepared For Raysons / Golembiewski p _�# Location of Property Churchill Court j ""�� Jl —uyskego,- WI j Delcnr ptiOn of Property [)T C DFP`5 i�1 �'-i•. Lot 15 in Lakewood Meadows Addition No. 1, heinq a p he or{heast `/A and the Northwest 114 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 15, in Township 5 North, Ranee 20 East, ' in the City of Musk.e9o, 1''aukesha County. Wisconsin. H U RC H I LL Q� (MA/KFO rs rE�,p� C O U R epydsa F+� Y-!'). 7 �OBf 4 LE Dfi 7-,4 N 1} ARC .. 658- Jam' O BV70104c1Z ��� ii3n Ylll�e'38 C-A''g'� ` N. B7 ��"V.5 ,(� i � oenR�sEn � v n I { . 1t1 I 60 "�'r3 ' SE �• r/ lox ppF a 1 4 ESi SPrHG SY /i�6 �p L� 17`OD / "' V k •� � �Tir �• may/ F- ' p.P.q rwJAGE ts, NO -r S s �f1_Q•D - Euisri.vG Ec.E✓.a; � o..ir � CtEVAritl.../,5 TO T�i✓YNS R,Q�' 6',Ppu.�D EL,EV�T/o�S eENGHM.4R+C — N,� F4A.V/jg ®dL7 1YYDrQAw/T AWn/G GQMMO�1 LOT L r.vE LOPS /.5{/fe BH7.ra� �AS i,•re1RkE,7 ice/ FiEaD� -- - r - x � pRoPoSED 6Ros �o.•� co �✓T.PO L /C�NC/ NG' P.pO�OS�D I0WE[-Z"'16 i9 r 0 1;2"� Ac71"' L_ '041le•Q/.v6 �0 4 vERS LrXG Chi AS NOTg6D State of Wisconsin t'4e''•- l�r�%j 'y 08ULK6C'-'J!;1iU i � I have surveyed the above -described property and the above map is a true representation thereof and shows the size and location of the properly, its aMlefroi boundaries, the location and dimenSions of all structures thereon, (onus, apparent eassmanls and roadways and visible encroachments, if any This survey is made for the exclusive use of the present owners of the property, and also those who purchase, mortgage, or guarantee the title thereto within (1) year from data hereof. Dated at Greenfield, wT _!. this 25th day of Febua ry 19 95 NOTE: AN property corners vdN not be locabd, verified ■ndlor reel {per Section A-E7.01 Wisconsin Administrative �'� ``}•- - i Code) unless specifically requested. Regipefed Land Surveyor H 08/14/199-1 15:39 1-414-577-0335 ARG© INC PAGE O; LAKEWOOD MEADOWS DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS PAGE 9 3.14 Roofing Material and Construction. a. A dwellings propose to a erect d, altered or modified shall, on the construction plans, specify roofing acceptable in quality to the Committee and the construction shall be carried out in accordance with such roofing material as approved by the Committee. b. All dwellings shall have roof designs with 6/12 40 pitch or greater, or as approved by the Committee. 3.15 Exterior Building Materials and Dweliin ualit . a. All dwellings proposed to be erects , altered or modified shall, on the construction plans, denote natural material(s), i.e. brick, stone, wood siding or Other similar materials acceptable to the Committee and the construction shall be carried out in accordance with the materials) as approved by the Committee. b. The design, layout and exterior appearance of each dwelling proposed to be erected, altered or modified shall be such that, in the opinion of the Committee at the time of approving of the building plans, the dwelling will be of a high quality and will have no substantial adverse effect upon property values. C. The proposed color schemes for a dwelling to be erected, altered or modified shall be submitted to the Committee for approval prior to painting or staining. It shall be the aim of the Committee to harmonize colors for not only the dwelling proposed, but to consider the effect of these colors and materials as they relate to other dwellings. d. Where brick or stone is selected for the front of a dwelling, the same treatment may be required to be carried out in all other faces of the dwelling at the discretion of the Committee. e. Where shutter and muttons are selected for the front of a dwelling, the same treatment may be required to be carried out in all other faces of the dwelling at the discretion of the Committee. f. Aluminum and/or composition siding shall not bs permitted as exterior material fcr a dwelling, except that the Committee may approve aluminurr. for soffits only. g. All exposed faces of fireplaces constructed on exterior walls and those parts of interior fireplaces 3 � N c'S a7 Q r`7 p 1 FOR ZONING REV IMPORTANT NOTE about egress requirements for basements: Some building codes require a second means of egress from a basement. Before beginning constrvcfion, the owner must: 1) Defermine if such a code has been adopted bcally, 2) Deforming what method o/ egress w771 satisfy such code requirremeMs, and 3) provide an addendum to these plans lndicatkV what manner of ogress opening to lnstaR and whore to Instal! A. i I i LU + +• N C �LJ 46 cc Cn CD 0O� �C Ccnz�m� O e9 0 — 0 (A CD mcic Cairo R C Q r N O UCO �a riot c 2C�,C `= 0MMC2'am CD cu�Z,E_.a� A - O IU t: C'D. pr0gCCC �C]Nu�N�IGOt9 I I THE LF GARLINGHOUSE CO., INC. MIUDLETOWN, CT 3 TOPEKA,KS Z 140 PLAN NO. 34047 SHEET S-2 P3 ;v "Val l PLAN DEPARTMENT to r �c AL A& r< `� 3 3 I it 9 s K 1p ,.. ow It •iy Tom• �� _ } �` w� � •� _ ..+�. ti•' • .�.1,. � ! ��TIISvy- _rrFiY�i�l����.F/ � �1 '4�• �,;--.�'�-�;�• •ti ��,'+`•4T �,r •� _ -.T �•.�:i - � f� H p f ry� s-�t�+'-� 5.��6 •1 tom. -' ., •. �,�;, '-��,�IF».•%r� `r-.�1'r_-����.rl•'4��'� �rw ���;':�,� . +lt �•:" 1,�'f rs ��".n''_: . _.� ••s � •'1- t- fir. ► a r'.+. - _ ,t±a•fic-"� .i `i�r-If'- �Y � �r•� _♦ ■' ' r (' ? . 1a� r . 21 _ �:��• y f a`,� _ `'• � .� ::��.�=�-d' -(.a .� t -�-="ram r i�,.r 16. wpqA - � .� J _ •• _ +_�.+. 1 _ y y; l,..iY .. ! ' i ` ! "'1 yP, 4 h X= f� -�� i1' . ,r .{- a � R: '.q a- ' .. _ �. . at .l .. F�' • �a M1r.. .. Tti' �_ -?. _ i - �' r ,"�'^ r "r. ty�,�11 -�' '_i1 .r��� th+' � �-•'a �'.'� � • may. 4 - •�_• _ a r'�- �t ': r•'t'•• '''!•!!. µ�`H�,u,� h, r. LrY t! - 7> �� _ - �. � `F� - •! j '��'`'K�a+ .�a.R ".-,tea i.��:f rr-i�•}�,. •1�.. i•^y t1 .a.ry: �� JIi•: A+ y �'� -f r ..r. � •'� _ y _-r `�:.• :'{.'Y:_r ,..��r i�;: •1.�L'f; �r �'�a (;• 1