Zoning Board of Appeals 08-1995..'� UTl' OF
JIUSREGO,
r�c
May 1, 1995
Mr. & Mrs. Mark Weissbrodt
S98 W12094 Loomis Road
Muskego, WI 53150
RE: S98 W12094 Loomis Road
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Weissbrodt:
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 3.5 foot side yard offset
for the deck 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,
Coll-ettefM. Lenz
cc: Chairman Pionek
W182 S8200 Racine Avenue o Box 903 a Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0903 • Fax (414) 6 7 9-5614
CITY OF MUSKEGO
BOARD OF APPEALS
DATE April 27, 1995 APPEAL # 8-95
NAME Mark & Deb Weissbrodt
ADDRESS S98 W12904 Loomis Road
TELEPHONE
PROPERTY LOCATION ON WHICH VARIANCE IS REOUESTED
ADDRESS S98 W12904 Loomis Road
TYPE OF ZONING R-3
1) Appealing Section 5.02 (3) A.I. Building Location,
Offsets, petitioner requesting a 13' side yard offset and
Section 8.04(3) R-3 Country Home District, petitioner
requesting to construct a deck with a 3.5' side yard offset.
80.00 FEE TO BE PAID AT TIME OF APPLICATION
DATE PAID 04-12-95 RECEIPT NUMBER 133165
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
APPROVED DENIED
CHAIRMAN PIONEK
VICE-CHAIRMAN SCHNEIKER
MEMBER FDHR ��,IJAWJlk)
MEMBER O'NEI% _", n /'"
MEMBER SCHEPP
FIRST ALTERNATE WARHANEK
SECOND ALTERNATE ROWINSKI
Secretary
Date
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/ODD
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 #7-95 - 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 #8-95 - 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
rcll 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
Application for variance
Applicants Name e-1 S ( 0
Subject Property Address: Sl ��t L'`I i..LL'ftil_t
Telephone - 5 t
Property Zoning: -� Key #
Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable):
owl lessee other
Fees: $80.00
Date inspector denied permit: 1�1�15
tip. y 13) R-3 Cvvgt•714"C ll�srr,ct6 4m
Requesting variance to Section . 5C Z 3) i! 1
To allow:
1556 5r
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
interest and will be in accord with the spirit of
h(=(-al1CP'
a zte,�
Zn
o 41,Y ,i_f.Ls� 1 s
r�h«f LIB _rr•E.rt
the public
the code
The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety
or jeopardize public welfare because:
Page l of 2
TXTFORM:BOAVAR
4-8-93
-Q nm'sR h
a � R pCo - r
7 g 7 a �c
p �
' In
7 4
M A
}ora�i3c' ?
fu m;
m r w
wwsp`�n
1� Sr
as�gc�
CB
j 3 t
S?2D° e
rS=goQ
K K i
7 P`
=
! 7 ar�4
� �
S
Igo=
,63a�•
a
axe
o i
emu'
24N
iz x
Af
-
Awl
Rim
!� R
,� Cc
`� s O!7
r
I p W� iT it 6
�b •1 :r r i, -� r� m
Z
cr V. C> ryqT to Zi jj3t�[
tlJi� fa �•+fb f, n � Y �
why £4 C�,��,:,
`i ff rr r �4 r' 9a ►C�+ v" "' G 9
V
� �Ma ��OsA �� H
a I.
VaN ZT
..�..
UU9
S F r, LA
Jrr�sAr«s n a
� n ##rp ���
mmn
�a
aqZit
4
. O
aR
;e
s'
`zii
a
Cl
=moo
11+ll
_
mznl t,t
_-
m
m
Xo� rr
F�
\�Y
ry
11
jig
`
\ 4
4
se4.ao• - - ---- -- -
w
r
O y
v
a i 4
a
O
0
31DfJTN StB.09 ' E
E:-1
1
j rr M tt r.01" +r.,rl�
4A a k few*
� y
00
.10
Ar f -
f,.
vf-
\ r
vey 18 r. Ada W the tr" of the pr I sent ownrrs of the
Md !60 tha" who purchtget 'cripege, or quar-
M14 thnrstO Within on* "air f data heteQf."
4TATION oY WRtTTEN A RgEMENT WITH
Ot NMED;UI!NT MAX NOT BEEN WAIVED IN
NC* VATH / E 5.01 (1) (b) 0 THE W SCONSIN
PAT1YII C006,
if
NOTE: THIS IS NOT AN
ORIGINAL SURVEY UNLESS
THIS SEAS. IS RED,
1,,..i ___- s ✓ t i _� rrp 0 to
IL"
men,
-
Imp
-Z.-:
Z..
7M
AL
Dal
I WZ
A
1-81