Zoning Board of Appeals- - Minutes 09/22/2005ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FINDINGS OF FACTS
A dimensional variance is hereby granted to Susan M. Hamer, by the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the City of Muskego in Appeal #07-2005 to permit a 4.8-foot variance from
the side property line, permitting a 2-foot offset from the side (eastern) property line, in
order to reconstruct a new garage at S110 W20438 South Denoon Road/ Tax Key No.
2284.989, 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 not cause a dangerous situation
associated with building near a gas line while also keeping a clear view from the house
to the road for the view and safety of the petitioners children. Also, the location will
preserve the trees on the lot. Additionally, the property rights of other property owners
are preserved, and no detriment is caused to adjacent properties.
Dated this 26h day of September 2005.
7) _)w-
Signed
Dan Schepp
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
Signed V"Qpae'
Kellie Renk
Recording Secretary
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
CITY OF MUSKEGO
SEPTEMBER 22, 2005
Meeting was called to order at 7:15 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Vice Chairman Schneiker, Mr. Horst Schmidt. Mr. William Le Doux
and Associate Planner Adam Trzebiatowski.
EXCUSED: Dr Kashian and Dr. Blumenfield
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: The Secretary stated the meeting was noticed on September 16,
2005, in accordance with Open Meeting Laws.
NEW BUSINESS: APPEAL #07-2005 Petitioner: Sue Hammer, S110 W20438 South Denoon Road/Tax
Key 2284.989, 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 6.8-feet is required from one of the side property lines on the
above mentioned lot. The petitioner seeks an offset of 2-feet from the eastern lot line to permit the
construction of a detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 4.8-foot variance from the eastern
property line.
Randy Stevens was present to speak on behalf of Sue Hammer. Vice Chairman Schneiker swore in
Adam Trzebiatowski and Randy Stevens. Mr. Stevens stated he is the contractor for Ms. Hammer. Mr.
Stevens explained there is a water issue where water flows from both neighbors properties onto Ms.
Hammer's property. Because of this water issue the garage will have to have footings. The proposed
garage will be one -foot father off the lot line than the current garage was placed. Mr. Stevens stated he
and Ms. Hammer are concerned with the aesthetics of the property. If the garage were to be located
conforming with the setbacks it would be in the center of the property and would not allow Ms. Hammer a
view from the house to the road to see her child at the bus stop or playing in the yard. Mr. Stevens noted
the neighbors house also has a similar setup with the garage being close to the lot line. Mr. Stevens also
noted there is a gas line running through the property and an underground electrical easement running
through her property to service her neighbor. Mr. Stevens stated the gas line would be near the garage if
it were built within the current setbacks and the gas Sines curves across the property so even if he would
move the garage to the south to stay within the setbacks it would still come in contact with the gas line.
Mr. Stevens noted the gas line could be moved or hand digging could be used around the gas line, but
Mr. Stevens feels there is a hardship of digging around the gas line and potentially hitting it.
Mr. Schneiker asked what the hardship is. Mr. Stevens stated the hardships are lack of visibility to the
bus stop and road to see her child, aesthetics and to have a place for storage.
Mr. Schneiker asked if trees would be lost if they could not put the garage in the proposed location. Mr.
Stevens stated yes, trees would be lost to access the side service door.
Mr. Schepp questioned when the gas line was installed. Mr. Stevens thought it was when the house was
built.
Mr. Trzebiatowski gave the City's opinion based on the Zoning Code. Mr. Trzebiatowski stated an offset
of 6.8-feet is required from one of the side property lines, which is already a reduced setback from the
district for a narrow lot. The petitioner seeks an offset of 2-feet from the eastern lot line to permit the
construction of a detached garage, and is therefore requesting a 4,8-foot variance from the eastern
property line.
ZBA Minutes
9/22/2005
Page 2
The neighbor to the east has submitted a letter stating she is in favor of the variance because the
proposed location is the best location strategically for both functionality and to preserve the surrounding
trees.
The gas line has been shown on the revised survey and is approximately 6 feet away from the proposed
garage location. Upon contacting Mark Robinson with WE -Energies, he stated that no structure can be
placed on top of a gas line but can be very close to the structure. He noted that the gas line could be
moved. The charge would be for labor time and material. Any excavating within 18" of a gas line must be
hand dug. if the garage were placed at the conforming distance of 6.8 feet off of the eastern lot line,
there would still be 23.36 feet between the garage and the western lot line. The gas line identified on the
grading plan by the surveyor may not have to be relocated. With the dimensions given it appears that if
the garage were constructed at the 6.8-foot conforming offset location, there would be approximately 1.2
feet between the garage wall and the gas line.
Additionally, the garage could potentially be moved to the south (closer to the road) since there are fewer
trees in this area. Staff was not presented with any documents showing the gas line curving to the south.
The zoning code allows a garage in this zoning district to be as close as 25 feet to the front property line.
Staff is recommending denial of this appeal, citing the variance does not preserve the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance. Also, a non -self imposed hardship is not found for the appeal. The only hardship that is
apparent is economic, due to the possible cost to the owner to relocate the gas line, which may not be
needed. Economic hardships are not grounds for grating a variance. There is the option to place the
garage in close proximity to the gas line or to relocate the gas line. There also is the option to place the
garage to the south of the property where there are fewer trees present.
Mr. Stevens stated he did not feel comfortable working with tools near the gas line and felt the safety
issue with the gas line is a hardship.
Mr. Schmidt requested to include the attached letter from Ms_ Hammer in the minutes.
DELIBERATIONS:
APPEAL 07-2005 —Mr. Le Doux moved to approve the appeal as presented. Seconded by Mr.
Schmidt. Chairman Schepp stated all other garages in this area have the same offsets as the proposed
garage and are tight to the lot line. The gas line and a view to the road for her child are safety issue.
Vice Chairman Schneiker agreed that the gas line is a safety issue and if the property were sold the new
owner could try and do the same thing and not know the gas line is there. Also, by preserving the trees
they will soak up the run-off water from the neighbor's property. Mr. Le Doux stated We Energies
prediction could be off a little which would be dangerous for the contractor who would be hand digging.
Upon a roll call vote Appeal 07-2005 is approved 4-0.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Schmidt moved to approve the minutes of June 23, 2005.
Seconded by Vice Chairman Schneiker. Motion carried 4-0.
MISCELLANEOUS: None.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before this Board, Mr. Schmidt moved to adjourn.
Mr. Le Doux seconded. Upon voice vote, meeting adjourned at 7:59 PM.
Rewectfuliv Submitted,
a_out r--
Kellie Renk, Recording Secretary
CITY OF MUSKEGO
ZON[NG BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA
September 22, 2005 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 above listed appeals.
The Board of Appeals will then reconvene into open session. Detailed descriptions are available for public
inspection at the Clerk's office. All interested parties will be given an opportunity to be heard.
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
1. APPEAL #07-2005
Petitioner: Susan M. Hamer
Property: S110 W20438 South Denoon Road / Tax Key No. 2284.989
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 6.8-feet is required from one of the side property lines on the above mentioned lot. The petitioner
seeks an offset of 2-foot from the eastern lot fine to permit the construction of a detached garage, and is
therefore requesting a 4.8-foot variance from the eastern property line,
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 23, 2005 MEETING
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
/_151 rellu-7,
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
Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 07-2005
For the meeting of: September 22, 2005
REQUESTING:
Under the direction of Chapter 17—Zoning Ordinance: Section 6.02 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.
APPELLANT: Susan M. Hamer
LOCATION: S110 W20438 South Denoon Road 1 Tax Key No. 2284.989
PREPARED BY: Adam Trzebiatowski
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is proposing to construct a new garage on her property.
The parcel is zoned RS-21OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay. The lot is
located on South Denoon Road, which is on the southern shore of Lake Denoon. The petitioner
seeks the following variance:
An exception to the side (east) offset requirements for the district.
An offset of 6.8-feet is required from one of the side property lines on the above -mentioned lot. The
petitioner seeks an offset of 2-feet from the eastern lot line to permit the construction of a detached
garage, and is therefore requesting a 4.8-foot variance from the eastern property line.
NOTE:
The original survey that was submitted for this variance showed the garage being placed 1-foot off
of the lot line, which the homeowner informed the Planning Department is incorrect. The intentions
per the owner are to have the garage wall 2-feet off of the lot line and the overhang for the roof
would be 1-foot from the lot line. A new survey has been submitted to the Planning Department,
which is included in your packet. You will see three surveys in your packet. #1 is the actual
property survey with the proposed garage, #2 is the grading plan, which also includes the gas
line/lateral that runs through the property, and #3 is the hand revised survey the petitioner modified
illustrating the existing trees.
DISCUSSION
There currently is no garage on the property but there is a boathouse along the lakeshore. At one
time there was an older garage located some where in the vicinity of the proposed garage. The lot
in concern is about 50 feet wide and has an average depth of about 400 feet. The existing
boathouse measures 138 square feet in area and the proposed garage measures 720 square feet in
area, totaling 858 square feet. Based upon the 15t floor square footage shown on the survey and
applying the 75% adjustment for the half story, the total house square footage is 1,442 square feet
Appeal # 07-2005
ZBA 9-22-2005
Page I
(This size was not taken directly from the Assessor's records). This allows them 865 square feet of
total accessory structures on the lot.
The colors of the proposed garage will be "Pebble Clay" which is a dark tan color. The house will
also be repainted to match the proposed garage if approved. The proposed garage will also have
white trim. The roof color is unknown at this time, but the color of the shingles will have to match on
the garage and the house.
The reasons the petitioner is requesting a variance to be 4.8 feet closer to the eastern lot line are as
follows:
1. "The location of 7 feet off the line would conflict with the tree line and existing driveway. It
would place the driveway and approach into the trees and make it impossible to enter from
the side."
2. "There are buried gas lines there (in middle of yard)."
3. "Because the total lot width is 50 feet. It would also place the garage right in the middle of
the yard and obstruct view to the road and over all aesthetics. Also, this would preserve the
view of her children when waiting for the bus."
The neighbor to the east has submitted a letter that states that she is in favor of the variance
because the proposed location is the best location strategically for both functionality and to preserve
the surrounding trees.
The gas line/lateral has been shown on the revised survey and is approximately 6 feet away from
the proposed garage location. Upon contacting Mark Robinson with We -Energies, he stated that no
structure can be placed on top of a gas line but it can be very close to the structure. They do not
recommend gas lines/laterals within close proximities of structure, but there are no formal rules
against it. They do see people building very close to these lines in some cases. They noted that
We -Energies could relocate the gas line/lateral. They charge for their labor time and materials to
relocate a line. Further more, any excavating within 18" of a gas line/lateral must be hand dug.
They also noted that if the gas line/lateral is in close proximity to the proposed structure, We -
Energies could install a pipe rap (free of charge) to protect the pipe during back filling. They also
recommend the use of smooth stone or washed stone when back filling to help avoid any damage to
the gas line/lateral.
In looking at other options and the reasons for the variance (as submitted by the petitioner) there are
still ways to make a garage function while still following the required offsets. If the garage were
placed at the conforming distance of 6.8 feet off of the eastern lot line, there would still be 23.36 feet
between the garage and the western lot line. The gas line/lateral identified on the grading plan by
the surveyor may not have to be relocated. With the dimensions given it appears that if the garage
were constructed at the 6.8-foot conforming offset location, there still would be approximately 1.2
feet between the garage wall and the gas line/lateral.
The petitioner also states that there would be an access issue to the side (western) garage door due
to the trees and shrubs that exist along that lot line. Upon a site visit (see attached photos) it was
noticed that the trees that are present appear to have a minimal effect in the placement of the
garage. However, these trees could be trimmed and/or cut to accommodate access to the side door
and/or the side garage door could be eliminated since there still will be a 16 foot wide main garage
door on the front of the garage (south side). The side garage door is not necessary in order to be
able to use the garage. Additionally, the garage could potentially be moved to the south (closer to
the road) since there are fewer trees in this area. The zoning code allows a garage in this zoning
Appeal # 07-2005
ZBA 9-22-2005
Page 2
district to be as close as 25 feet to the front property line. The attached photos show the existing
tree locations along with the open area for a possible garage towards the south of the property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Denial of Appeal 07-2005, allowing the new construction of a detached garage with a 2-foot
offset, a 4.8-foot variance, from the eastern lot line; citing that the variance does not preserve
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Also, a non -self imposed hardship is not found for the
appeal. The only hardship that is apparent is economic, due to the possible cost to the
owner to relocate the gas line/lateral, which should not even be needed. Economic
hardships are not grounds alone for granting a variance.
There is the option to place the garage in close proximity to the gas line or to relocate the
gas line/lateral, which would then allow the garage to be placed in a conforming location.
There also is the option to place the garage to the South of the property where there are
fewer trees present.
Appeal # 07-2005
ZBA 9-22-2005
Page 3
Appeal #07-2005
Supplemental Map
LEGEND
Agenda Item(s)
Property
^� Right-of-way
Hydrography
CITY QF Preparrd by Cily of Maykego
MUSKEGUPlanning Department
Petitioner:
2287.989
Susan M. Hamer
S110 W20438 South Denoon Road
Zoning Board of Appeals Supplement 07-2005
(Taken September 16, 2005)
Look North from Denoon Road
Looking North from Driveway (closer view)
I of 4
Looking North — Close up of Western Tree Area
Looking North — Tree Areas and Proposed Garage Site
2 of 4
*f u `sic►a i..
`.+ may, � •�. j i'
IE
It
�"&/16/2005
r� '§;, �
1 �-
_ ' �-
� �:
.�"'
�_ ..
.. : w � Y . -
..a7r
�
`
.
T:
�-
r� ,
JJ
a
•�FT•
�
C `� f����
��
a � • � � - -
�
"_ �
_ _ -
�� .a.. ft f
.�.
; �.. k
}�
Wit. _s' - Y -' .
•r�
.-
=,+
�
�
air
.` _
-
.- � c•
����
F. .
y ,
R
,-,
_
_
�
'y^��..�� _ A�i Y.L'
�.� �.Y1_�r
f �� �����
CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICATION FOR DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE
Appellant's Name: aarAJ
Subject Property Address:���
Evening -
Telephone.
2- (Q
ay:
Property Zoning: Tax Key: In EKG 2Zgq �g9
Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable):
Owner D Lessee Other
Date inspector denied zoning permit. -
Requesting variance to Code Section
To allow: 4- V o- i-OLIT
A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced ecti`oonn would result in
practical diffrculfy and unnecessary hardship because:JJ
'
��- ssi s `c�c — Z'�✓E' cirE bccr,'c�! 9qs I, ��s`►►c��9
wi t- % �- r�J Aso a.C.e_
LGI(oSfrccc� �/r��sf ,`� 7h2 rQacQ
The variance, if granted, will not be contrary to the public interest and will be in accord
with the spirit of the c Ve because:
The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize ublic
welfare bwause: _ f�
/
0
!tee,a-Ad, a,.l )0/_cue e e 74�—'�c /,ram-�
haP
I
t
t
S:1CITYHALL\Planning\FORMS%BOA-Dimensional Appeal Application.doc
Last printed 6I24/2DO4 8:47 AM
Lynn Abram
S 110 W20424 Denoon Rd.
Muskego, WI 53150
August 31, 2005
To: City of Muskego — Board of Appeals
I approve of my neighbor, Sue Hamer building her garage 1 ft. off the lot line we share.
I think the garage is being best strategically located for both functionality and to preserve
the surrounding trees.
I have no objections to her request for the variance, or the variance being granted.
Sincerely,
ki�j
y Abram
Property Owner
S 110 W20424 Denoon Rd.
To: City of Muskego Board of Appeals
September 21, 2005
From: Susan Hamer, Property Owner
5110 W20438 Denoon Rd., Muskego
RE: Appeal 4 07-2005
Dear Zoning Board:
This letter is to inform you that I will not be able to appear personally at the meeting on
September 22, 2005. 1 have a mandatory meeting for work that is out of town. I have
Randy Stevens, of Stevens & Associates, who is my builder, appearing on my behalf.
I do however wish to state a few things via this letter as I totally disagree with the "Staff
Recommendation" of Adam Trezbiatowski, that you deny my appeal.
I wish to state further reasons below, and respond to his recommendations of relocating
the gas line, or moving the garage further south on the property. I am told you look at the
following things (In bold) and I am responding to each via the bullet points below.
Exceptional Circumstance — "there must be exceptional, extraordinary or unusual
circumstances or conditions applying to the parcel."
Economic Hardship (not a grounds) — you state that it should not be the "sole" reason,
but why is it necessag to cause financial hardship to a property owner?
Preservation of Property Rights — to preserve other properties in the same district
Absence of Detriment- if it creates a detriment to the adjacent property, or be contrary to
the spirit of the zoning ordinance
The lot itself is exceptional and unusual in that it is ONLY 50 ft. wide! This is
why both my neighbors to the east were granted variances of 1 ft. and 3 ft. We
have very limited space to work with and putting garages in the middle of our
yards is not visually pleasing or functional. Using the 6.8 ft. setback would set
the garage right in the middle of the yard. It also would obstruct the view of the
kids playing in the yard and getting on and off the school bus.
Setting it further south would place it right on top of the existing driveway
(see picture) and come closer to a new easement WE Energies has on an electric
line to my neighbor to the east. (see attached) I could also have water in the
garage, as the yard is lower closer to the road. Not to mention all the kids in the
neighborhood play in that area.
Setting it further west (6.8 ft) would cause me to re -do the existing driveway
approach and rip out an existing sidewalk to the house. (see attached picture).
MY original plan was to repair the roof on the existing garage, but it was not
repairable and started coming down as we began the repairs. If the new garage
isn't close to where the old structure was, the driveway and sidewalk have to be
relocated. (again see picture).
• As for the side entry. This will be my only garage as there is not a garage
attached to the house. This was so I don't have to make the garage a normal
width of 24-26' because of the narrow lot. This garage will be very similar to my
east neighbor who also has a side entrance for the same reason.
• There is a gas line we would come within 12"of — NOT good! It's unnecessary to
get THAT CLOSE just because we can hand dig. While I realize the decision is
not solely on economic hardship, relocating would cost over $6,000 and we don't
know until we start digging for the foundation/footings. I got a quote from WE
Energies of $1,500 for 10 ft. of reloate in the drive way and the gas line isn't just
a straight line, it could potentially be closer in some spots.
MY neighbors would rather I have a garage then junk laying every where. They
have submitted a Ietter saying they are okay with a variance being granted. I
think that more that supports the spirit of the ordinance. She does not see this as a
detriment, but an improvement.
If the spirit of the ordinance is to protect substantial detriment to the adjacent property,
then there is no reason is should not be granted as detriment is not occurring.
I would appreciate your favorable consideration here. To avoid substantial difficulty and
delay of this project until next year by waiting for another appeal meeting, I am only
asking for a 2 ft. variance, which is 4.8 feet difference from the ordinance. Even if a
3ft variance could be approved, it would help. I originally asked for 1-2 because I
thought it was from where the roof line ended, not the side wall of the garage.
Sincerely,
Susan Hamer
Property Owner
Pictures Submitted by the Petitioner (Via E-Mail)
.qantPmhar 71 9nn.s
"Curve of Existing Driveway and Garage Approach"
"Driveway and Sidewalk"
1 of 2
sot, w
4-4 4-) C G rc c
0 41 x a)c�
G V,, 4 Y1 • f-'; y�:
C a 4-J 0
U) W • 1 6�
(nC c•-'�
a) rl 41 U) U ai 1-4
N
•H U 4j r4 , •r1 0
a) xMM-P+1
LS) 4-� r1 •ri_. 0 a)
V
`
C' C• r-( CN (n 4-) 4-4
LI
ri r-I S✓ C' Ul + a)
C
U r- -P rG 50-1 —1 (C
fc c
1~ C,
tea+)
C U u r-1 C 41
a) v 1~ a) a)
144
3
a) cr, U • 1 \. 41 ,Q fri
-�4, � 9m fd �.
e
p
r1 0
41 r 4-)
ti
�'i 1"i • 4J 4J (t Ul
• •
E� i I U) r-I w r-4
C 1114 r^ 0 C c 0
C
a) U G �+
2
w
r G () 1)
H
41 41 rl O Q r 1 C -
P..
M -H U a) 4-J 4-4 4J
H
fC t1 4.1 5--: r 0 (n
C)[-, it a) G�
Q
Cr;
C .s~ T U; 4_.1 �4 54
C:•
r,, 4-J C (C Cr U C
V
r-1 G -1 4- G 4 (C CN
G C 'rr C G
< �JH r. C �44J r-!(CC: Ca) 3 G C G 41 E- r1 U: rn U,: O (2�
or v�, Wiri
Za
9'Z2
m
a: u7 Uj u
C u:
7 C •r1 1 r3 C
P 4-J f-i 4-4 .!�:: rC + 4-J CJ O
W rn G�4 U) rtS 0 0 G U 4J (1) C 4 J o m
E+ U U) /Q) as m♦ rtl a� G^1�1 tr 0 M
W h1 a) V ro v •�CC�G+J�r-:0W0 4-)U)(nG� G �'3. >6uj
> > )4 �4 M o o., � U 0 -P 41 r � ,1 0
r � >4 M. G. 4J 44 .Q -,--1 4J 1~ 1~ �-, s4 � 0 >a ` o n � N :� q o
w a) 4 � � o Cl) (D (1) 0 0. 0 a) �4 = N
E-1 Cri •C Z 4-4 l4 C: (n 4� 4 -1 4-: � h 4, � � _
�; [n a) a) O G O 0 C 0 0 a) 14 41 Ql `�'`yS„ii„ ir,,,7!!!!/IN ? .� �� W W UA� 3
{} a) r 1 •ri )1 b4 —1� b A rCS 14-)R N 4J M a) l'ti f�/i ItJ +J " W
-1 •r'
G a' > 4-J i4 C +3 0 75 4-) a) •,--I RS 0 U) Q .,� i � CC fY � z
GL;l •rn s~ G G U) (0 � U X rC -P -1 C P- .c C -j !U 7 = v y Ztn w
v G Cr A G E C a) G x; G> u U •-) C- a. 1 = LU y z ' +N
r . C C f= (5 � a) •rC a) C .-4 -1 a) /+ �?/- F-- cr
U U Q) a a) U U) U) 1y G ^ u) (D 2, CJ l.i C - n 5 fl a x
U. U G 4 1 a) ,� rl ri7 +� G rC G rC r' i� C 34 c V r 3 u
rs •r: a 0 +-) G •r1 o a) C. It 0 4-) a) ,~ G
r; 4-) c 4 (C rC H S`' 4-; > 0 4•4 0 1;
4, 1 a) a) r: G 0 it -ri a
G x U a) a! N 4J C) U1 I ([S Er Ci) U: z G 4 C
Q) ra •: 41 �4U' Q r-1 > U r-r•1 U r-C C-
(C ri + U rU r- (1) 0 C S C Q X S4 •,-1 (1) f -
(r., : H a) AC W4-) Q4-� l '- T
as �
K
v �
b
J h
4
Fv
o "
r4 i
14 a sa fyz
vt b
Op s�t�
O LE1O
� j�1+J�, �+ •� G � J _vim o!„ � � 1• � �
• •S S7
4
OG pf' �
LF F Z
N
N
� 0
Y �•
v
5
(.moo iv�avg) »rd rre•��Z.� t•re
C9
—� — 2
Z
J
rl
Q
ui
W
I
1 Lf)
4
�z
Cf)
_
R
EV
.0
LQ
W 40
� z �
Z Q
a w o
I
z
LLI
Ul W
3 to
w a
to
h
0
ti
t7
Q
(n
Ot,
Qv
i
tr
�
-
6 -4 r•
11
W
rlll"fillllitl11O
4
Q
a
W
ti'l0�
�r11 r!O b-Z 77/�
V
C
q
U
L
., o
�z
x
'AAG o� 'ONOD Or
�� = `
�.
W a
7/d
7/VO
j
vS
d
y
_
11 dOtld
N
+�
m />. q Q
^
1
1
77,— _ —
- —". �/✓ofr of �rr� 3JiiID'.�f' rba�
Ln
a
�\
.r
��-3A18G
-
,Or
�-
�.
to
L
Sri � .10 7
0
a 7 61
d•
Y
a
N
Cl
0
N
W CA
w O
r
Z.ALIRRo
ch
W N
W W 19-cl
=wa
Z t�Nz
z�
J ywoo
U
W W-w
Z �¢
x
N
O
•
l
N
M
V
U�r �
0 4-) o I::
c Iq u 1 E0
Q; 4-1UnU��
U: �i: 4J x �+
x C r�c•r1
0. 4-) •r1
r 1 0 43 -4
H r� —4 CP r-1 • ri
N -C. G r- �-: U
U•! aJ r-1 'rl r. 0 (1)
a) r1 - 0 U cr_
tri Cr 4-) -H
rI C♦] Cr •-) rC 4-r
tCS CC RS \ ro U G
r I W a) CG
•r�ir�Gc Nv �S-4
Rj C'7 �' a) 4• 4-3
z (BCcu
U �•u� �4
C U ch C 4-'
0 a) I~ d{ 0 T
C', V. U •,I \ 4j Q (,�
,1 4: Q T.rn 4 - .
as r- 4J
0 9 U C
CC� 4J 4J itM
.. E-1 S-1
Z c M c c c cs
E-! -P 4) C a) r-1 [:
In.. Cn •1-I U 0 4-) 4=
H �7, � 4-) r, r-i c in.
U C) rw C co
Cr M
0 H �l • r1 44 G 4 CC C♦:
9 c r-i C •�
a � r1: a; �; •r� � a)
C
rr ^`
f O T C •H r� G r- 4-4 (r,
a PC a.) E-: r-1 Ir U) Ln C Z
{o_,sri
�a
1
9F—%el
Lz �� a
J
vi
v'
c '�
rm-!i
d
1>
C1�
n)
r+
�j
U] d G
0
i-r V
4--`
(1) a)
4J
•'��
Ou)�)
(2)ril�
a)zfil
a;ZrOtY.�4M
U
.0T4
=- Z U)
s4
p
_C: w
(V) mru
ru
C)
C:
::1 4-1 �J f.
0
U) C
4J W
CC
b' J
ej
0
O
0
Cr,'
"i3
T 4-4 �4
�4r-
0
r
Ui
4-J
� r-!
4-
rd
c�
a)
G I« c (1)
(D
a) a)
a)
�4
4-)
m
?
rn C) 0 I
S4
U) -A
0
Q)
�4
S a
> +]
;-i
0 43 (1) '0
4-�
(2) -H
0
c
co
C)
�
�-1 [Cj
I_7
I`, X� rO 4-)
U
U)
E 4-1
S4
(� a)
>
_
I �4
�:l:
m
U x'0
�
41 •r-I
C
C
4 4
�•
r-I C
cr: 41
Cu
C (1) r�
r. >
U:
U 41
--.
C
.S
•--1 Cl�
4-J
a)
•-' G)
a)
r1
—4
a a)
G) 0 U)
U)
f4 '4Z1 f--
ca
G)
`-'
•r-I •.--;
:"
0 4J C� -r1 0
0
G'-- rC
U
41
0
�j
Q) C)
C,
c 0 > CC
?
r •r!
W
4J C•)
a) 0 CAI 4_1 Ci
(n
- CG
U: CL
Cr
0
r. 4-
C
v
30
4cri� qa
7/lFfl1ff41N)4��1i .
H + -'' 4 Q) Ir r! ✓
a) ~
4-)
Cr, r1
a) Cf,
L- r, C (I'
• ,� c
U r;
I~
- -� U
C
4-) �4r
-U �c a)Ocr,�c0
�x
Cr.
r:E!
�4r
N a)
E-+ 0
G 4J
0 _ J—
H Ca �4 -P {' 4J tr
Z N J�1 d/ sa i7 '-P
O
-
I • 'y3•� 1 ®ram
il
h�
4 �
0
0 �0771:7) 0V'E�t1
i6 g �7z
.7srar =`
�
Q O
� � �
Q 0
� o
i.,•y [r1
V
cn
> Ln
W 'a Z
u
7 W
arZ gZ
00
o
u
a�
N �- so
,',
a
zocr
�7 L.w
z
qa
V K
}Jjj•-N
ry U
y
Z
W
a
*Lj
0
4
M s
i Ci Q
O y
U
ci
N
� O
V
N
y 1
�
r C)}
3iL-
c7a -c? -0
® �N
I
N
0
�
1
rr�o NPYs!'iFy�
9ti)d J•IbY�
The Home Depot # 4902
11071 W NATIONAL. WEST ALLIS, WI 53227
414) 329-1366
Sat Aug 27 15:20:46 2005
RANDY STEVENS
GARAGE 10FT
220414
The materials in this garage will cost $23615.06
This Price does not include any Special Order Items.
Drawing: 3-Dimensional View
The Home Depot # 4902
11071 W NATIONAL. WEST ALLIS. M 53227
(414) 329-1366
Sat Aug 27 15:20:46 2005
RANDY STEVENS
GARAGE10FT
220414
Drawing.- Plan View
2C"
o
5
o ,
c
o .
C
I
1
The Horne Depot # 4902
11071 W NATIONAL. WEST ALLIS, WI 53227
414) 329-1366
Sat Aug 27 15:20:46 2005
RANDY STEVENS
GARAGE i OFT
220414
Front Side
0
WIM
The Home Depot# 4902
11071 W NATIONAL, WEST ALLIS, WI 53227
414) 329-1366
Sat Aug 27 1520:46 2005
RANDY STEVENS
GARAGE 1 OFT
220414
Right Side
0
The Home Deraot # 4902
11071 W NATIONAL. WEST ALLIS, WI 53227
(414) 329-1366
Sat ALJg 27 15:20:46 2005
RANDY STEVENS
GARAGE 10FT
220414
Left Side
0
3C'
The Home Depot # 4902
11071 W NATIONAL, WEST ALLIS, WI 53227
414) 329-1366
Sat Aug 27 1520:46 2005
RANDY STEVENS
GARAGE 10FT
220414
Sack Side
�u� I rn to 0000000 xo 0 000 000 0 0
m o m .w u7 0 0 o W o r o 0 0 l o 0 0 t o 0
urn m m r M o
r+l .-1 n m M r1 re O� O O
rn m , r O 9-v P W k6 v .-1 , 0% T -0 P
W N n O m
a a W F x x > ❑
IL Q d '+
O In .+ A ❑ ,
10
x o u n W w p H a
U a wcn 5,w7 .035E pO
H .a ti a s ❑❑ 1�-1 ,❑j a d o d� a o F
U aurna u caw runs 9uUpZ�[�7(oEnaNw o
ytQd3x 5 40Ewwa.❑],u]�Md
.] .] p W E� F m U w F F q w ❑ a UZ W 1 •F] . 4 C1 ❑ a n
w W W z 4 F 7C pO❑ m 4 .71 O a Z TI O o f [ppA rn F d
0 cn � m m m Pa. 4 0 4 N 0 u u at PW a O Ca,7 €+ � U U F W 0
fk H
O
Z
.. w
L] E.
H In o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o a s 4 ,7.
2
P dr M ❑ M
rn a a ❑
m H x m a
0 w ❑
z a ¢ 0 m
O. a x maz oz `WW4 aoWWOOoOcnoo Fm0
❑❑U D
P4 P W •• W i '.L Z Z ,-� 9 s-k Z N
U w a m Z Z of rq rn x 4 rn 4 a � rn
.�
Q a a X m U- 3 x q O OI OI m CY, «+
vl m o 4 n n F
•a,-� rgn cn (.WIZ o (Wj q �i ❑ xQ
a W F• O Fm 4 m r0, u py yq 4
z m x a M N a a?
W a W m W E U❑❑ O F
W a FF F W oo a r� O a W r� W U Y
TQ a zc7N y UFERO F r� ww F rn
U 3 W Z F % W rn 0 - • -+ N Z❑ Er) 3 4
C O WO ..4 m w F. 4 E 1U�1 x m'- O w m W F O O w' a V F 1W1 y
14
E W F a 4 m W N F m X z w0.' !ma 3 C6 W x£ z z a cn W m 0. Ed W W v3�m swwa wa
w
W
a
a �
d
m a ❑ 7 0 0
a w �" zM darov W
14-1 .a o ul ,gFq U p G7 .+
W tav F U o tY z Z
A x �� o u w
0
m oar a zw .7 .xo
w �d \ w- M p❑p a u u o o O o
OG N .Z-r W U rwn m N❑ O P O o
xx yU I N Q \ Ln O O
F N N ry z F u (A F o 0
E" N w F x A W m m o 0
m H m _ 4 U a o In
rn \ q r n
£ D
I ❑ O - U U C1 cil rq Q rA O O
W w w w l m m o 0
F F E+ E. li 1 In
a I ono 0 1
F a z z z Z l
w
o w x
z z
W ❑ 0 V a a
o al\\\ uH H
❑ F z
8 E,
o a pap P.
w v
IZ-I rn K W U w a W o 0
Z Fn o 3 W H 6 0
Ep.. WLd
a m E+ a F
S U «�1 F a h ID \\\ F.
Z Zop O - n 0
m VI W po O aW W .7 m •] wW� ,d F SE. F r� O
m Cri
K U U , h ry1 0. > 04 H 0 ❑� 1" v a P W
m m o w m m z z\ w a CA
m o a a a 4 c a a m o zz
a\zoo.�o
N 3 '8 :a m w 0 rn (K cK
Ix a R. W
0 o P o u m U W rX 0t
W W
ry ❑ H ry .� Q .� M n u: F F
rn F N w U P 3 In 3
W a cLY
n
N n {s W�� q w m 9 N
.wq7 2 QS p Er.+ F 0 z H
0 0
o
0 w a
n o
rr
Q
1
I
a O w
] Z Q N P
� m 4
7 D Ia4WIa4 M1 N
❑
m
❑ ❑
W '.p❑Z
4 N
14
❑ R I
H n
.-1
M i m
❑ O N
U rn
U I W o H
H O (L
E F a
W 1 M
❑ ..3
W
o
o
O I a N
Ei
O
m
z
w
❑�
w X: u Q
a
a M
w
Z ❑ co
0
W rn
> P O [7 U
❑
Z W a
p
❑ N .+
P
+n
m
U v1 Ix
43 w
IK x W m
"
W m C7
� H
a a o
En �
0 F I 04
[.. a ❑
MAIN Or
CLASS ADDITIONS
I
single Dwelling
Rooms_
)uplex flat
Baths_
iungolow Flat
Powder
Double Dwelling
CIOSets
Family
•ummer Cottage
Measured by
Calcurated by
Listed by
Reviewed by
Sub
Y
a s
a
a
FLOORS
Finisl
o ati
a T y
1 i= o f
v o a s
3
'�Y u UY !
trJ
tz C
STORIES
None
0
Liv. Rm.
Din. Rm.
Unfinished
Kitchen
Part Finish
Fam. Rm-
Finished
Bedroom
0
Gable
Hip
Bath
Gambrel
Powder
Shed
Liv. Rm.
Asphalt Shingle
Wood Shingle
.00
v
QKitchen
e
v
N
Din. Rm.
Dormers
Bedroom
Bath
Powder R
Insulation
1
3
Siding
F. Brk. Ven.
eo Q
C. Brk. Vert.
Stone Von.
--
s�~
i
Conc. Black
PLUMBING
OTHER FEATURES
-
Stucco
Laundry Tubs
iCitehen
Insulation
Z
O
~
�
G
Z
O
Conc. Block
Water Heater
Concrete
Stone
Sump Pump
B.I.Oven
Past —Piers _
Incinerator
Ran 9 e
Water $oftener
Conc. Slob
Disposal
Sink
Dishwasher
Foli
Water Closet
�
m
None
Tub
1 a E2 3-a
Shower O. T.
Fan
Shower Stall
Crawl Space
Lavatory
Fireplace
Stove
Colored Fixtures
Hot Air Pipeless
—
No Plumbing
ddYl F.P.
Hot Air, Piped
Sid. Plumbing
�p
Forted Hot Air
.70
U
Z
TILE
Rec. Room
Hot Wale,
W
S
Bath Rm. Floor
Steam
Walls
Wainscoting
Conv, Unit
Tub Area
Powder Ron. Floor
BsmT. Gar.
Wells
Gas Cl Oil Cool ❑
Wainscoting
WKnob
w
Conduit Bx
TOTALS 70
Romex
- Tube
GARAGE
ATTACHED
BUILT-IN
DETACHED
OT R
{,lone
fdtn.
Year Built
Remod
Walls
M
Floor
A
Roof
B
OBSERVED CONDITI
Roof Cover
Ext E
G
N
P
Int. Finish
- -
lot E
G
N
P
Lights
r
Rating: % Residual
O. H. Door
1
ADVERSE INFLUENCES
Area
Base Cost
Deduct
Com. Wall
Base Cost
local Mod.
x x x x x x
Repl. Cost
XXXXXX
%Res.
xxx xxx
Value
xxxxxx
r,
PLAN OF HOUSE
One Division = Feet
AREA
MAIN Q
-01
8
PRICING
Main Oq
Addition
Addition
Attic
Conversion Unit
Apt. Modification
Plumbing — Tile
Other Features
Heating 6
Insulation
Floors
Basement
Electrical
PERIMETER RATIO
Deduct Add
d
ADD OR DEDUCT TOTALS /
NET Z I Zp
Porches — Vestibule
Z k
says
Attached Built -In Garage
TOTAL BASE COST
Local Modifier
Current Repl. Cost
Percent Residual
NET VALUE
Add Detached Garage
Add Other
TOTAL
Deduct Adverse Influences
APPRAISED VALUE
Remarks
64,
t'7l