Zoning Board of Appeals 09-1999CITY OF
SKEGO
T
0
August 27, 1999
Mr. Paul Stankevich
WI91 S7397 Bay Shore Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
RE: Appeal9-99
Dear Mr. Stankevich:
The Board of Appeals wishes to advise you that your appeal from Chapter 17--Zonin
Ordinance: Section 5.02(3). Offsets: (3) Offsets: The proximity of a building to any
other lot line than a street line is regulated by offset provisions was approved as
submitted.
Please be advised building and zoning permits are required prior to commencing work
on your property.
Should you have any questions, please contact Dustin Wolff at 679-4136.
Sincerely,
Susan Schroeder
Recording Secretary
BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVED
CITY OF MUSKEGO AUGUST 26, 1999
Meeting was called to order at 7:15 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Henry Schneiker, Terry O'Neil and Michael Brandt.
ABSENT: David Conley and Chris Wiken
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: Secretary reported notice was given August 12, 1999,
in accordance with the Open Meeting Laws.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE DULY 22, 1999 MEETING. Terry O'Neil made a
motion to approve the July minutes as presented. Dan Schepp seconded. Upon voice vote,
motion carried. 3-0 (Mr. Brandt was not present at the July meeting).
OLD BUSINESS: Signing of the July decision letter.
NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #08-99 Petitioner: Richard T. Nelson Residence: 715 East Main
Street, Waterford, WI 53185 Location of Appeal: Vacant Property Tax Key No. 2242.996
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 17:3.08(1)
Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variance: Chapter 17--ZoningOrdinance:
Section 6.01(3)E.1. Sanitation and Water Supply: In districts designed for potential Municipal
sewerage no structure involving human occupancy or habitation shall be permitted prior to the
installation of municipal sewerage facilities serving such structure except as follows: Where a
single lot meets double the lot area and open space requirements of the district in which it is
located and has a minimum average width equivalent to that required for a lot of such area in an
unsewered district, a single principal building may be permitted. Petitioner seeks a 13,961 square
foot and a 30' lot width variance to permit construction of a single-family residence. The
Ordinance requires a 60,000 square foot lot and 150' lot width.
Zoned: RS-1, Suburban Residence District.
Henry Schneiker administered an oath to Mr. Richard Nelson, property owner. Mr. Nelson is
proposing to sell this parcel of land. Mr. Nelson was informed the City has no intention of
serving this area with sewer within the next 10 to 15 years. In addition, the Public Utilities
Committee waived the requirement for a residence on the site to be connected to public sanitary
sewer. Mr. Nelson is seeking a variance to erect a mound system within a sewered district. Mr.
Nelson provided documentation indicating that the site has the appropriate soils and percolation
for a mound system, and that Waukesha County has approved of said system.
Henry Schneiker administered an oath to Mr. Jeff Corra, the buyer. Mr. Corra stated he is able to
meet both the offset and the setback requirements when constructing his home.
Assistant Plan Director Dustin Wolff stated that staff has no objections with this variance. He
reiterated that the City has no intention to offer sewer south of the High School in the foreseeable
BOA 9/245l99
Page 2
future. He added that without this variance, the property is unusable for a residence.
Appeal #09-99 Petitioner: Paul Stankevich Residence: W191 S7397 Bay Shore Drive, Tax
Key No. 2189.141
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section
17:3.08(1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variance: Chapter 17--
Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02(3). Offsets: (3) Offsets: The proximity of a building to
any other lot line than a street line is regulated by offset provisions as follows: No
building shall hereafter be erected, structurally altered, or relocated so that it is closer to
any lot line than the offset distance hereinafter specified by the regulations for the district
in which it is located. Petitioner seeks a 12.5 foot side offset variance to permit the
replacement of an existing detached garage along the southeast property line. The
Ordinance requires a 15 foot side offset. Zoned: RS-2, Suburban Residence District.
Henry Schneiker administered an oath to Mr. Stankevich. Mr. Stankevich stated the garage is
approximately 50 years old and built on a slab without footings. The plate is rotting away and the
building is leaning. To correct the problem, he needs to remove the slab and replace it with a slab
built to Code. He understands the garage could be built behind his house, however, it would take
up one -quarter of his backyard and would not be pleasing to look at by the neighbors. The
petitioner has proposed to construct a garage identical to the existing structure.
Mr. Wolff stated the City has no concerns with this appeal, there are pre-existing conditions with
the construction of the existing garage that are beyond the control of the petitioner, It would
cost less to replace the garage than to repair it. Staff feels no alteration to site should be
necessary and the utility of the rear yard should stay intact to minimize disruption to the
neighbors.
Appeal #10-99 Petitioner: Bill Engelking, Residence: W 188 S7642 Oak Grove Drive,
Muskego, Tax Key No. 2192.062 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zonin
Ordinance: Section 17:3.08(1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variance:
Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.08 Existing Substandard Lots: Where a lot has less
land area or width than required for the district in which it is located and was of record at the time
of the passage of this Ordinance, such lot may be used for any purpose permitted in such district,
subject to the regulations governing substandard lots set forth under sec. 18.28; provided,
however, that in no case shall the setback, or offset requirements be reduced except by order of
the Board of Appeals after due hearing, or as otherwise herein provided. 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. Petitioner seeks a 2,298.75 square foot (21.4%)
variance from the open area requirement to construct a single-family residence, driveway, and
patio. The Ordinance requires 8,045 square feet of open area. Zoned: RS-3, Suburban
Residence District as modified by the Lakeshore Overlay District
Henry Schneiker administered an oath to Bill EngeMng. Mr. Engelking stated they had a home
custom designed to fit within the setback and offsets of this lot. However, they never took into
BOA 8/26M
P%m 3
consideration open space and the size of the driveway and patio. The hardship is not being able to
pave their driveway. They would not be afforded the use their lot as neighbors have.
Mr. Wolff stated tearing down and putting back up a homes meets the setback and the offset
required. To afford the greatest utility of this lot, a variance is required to pave the drive area.
The driveway, as proposed, exceeds the minimum required open space and the City encourages
paved lots. Staff feels that a 45 foot wide driveway at the right-of-way, including a large parking
area in front of the garage is excessive. Staff believes that the total impervious surface should be
reduced by 425 square feet.
DELIBERATIONS
APPEAL 8-99 Terry O'Neil made a motion to approve the variance as requested. Approval of
this variance is within the spirit of the code. Henry Schneiker seconded. Upon roll call vote,
motion carried 4-0.
APPEAL 9-99 Mike Brandt made a motion to approve the variance as requested. Hardship
being the pre-existing conditions. Terry O'Neil seconded. Upon roll call vote, motion carried 4-
0.
APPEAL 10-99 Terry O'Neil made a motion to approve the appeal as submitted. Hardship
being the substandard lot and the City's request to have paved driveways. Mike Brandt seconded.
Henry Schneiker amended the motion to allow only 1,874 square feet of impervious surfacing.
Upon roll call vote, motion to approve amended motion passed 4-0.
ADJOURN: With no further business to come before this board, Terry O'Neil made a motion to
adjourn. Mike Brandt seconded. Motion carried, meeting adjourned a 8.30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. Schro r
Recording Secretary
BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA
CITY OF MUSKEGO
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to Wisconsin State Statute 62.23 (7) (e) 6, that a Public Hearing will be
held in the Muskego Room at the Muskego City Hail, W 182 S8200 Racine Avenue, at 7:00 P.M., Thursday,
August 26, 1999, to consider the following petitions for appeals to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Muskego:
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JULY 22, 1999 MEETING.
5. OLD BUSINESS
• Signing of decision letters for the July 22, 1999 meeting.
6. NEW BUSINESS
Appeal #08-99
Petitioner: Richard T. Nelson
Residence: 715 East Main Street
Waterford, WI 53195
Location of Appeal: Vacant Property
Tax Key No, 2242.996
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 17:3.08(1) Appeal
Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variance:
1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 6.01(3)E.1. Sanitation and Water Supply: In districts
designed for potential Municipal sewerage no structure involving human occupancy or habitation
shall be permitted prior to the installation of municipal sewerage facilities serving such structure
except as follows:
1. Where a single lot meets double the lot area and open space requirements of the district in which
it is located and has a minimum average width equivalent to that required for a lot of such area in
an unsewered district, a single principal building may be permitted.
Petitioner seeks a 13,96I square foot and a 30' lot width variance to permit construction of a
single-family residence. The Ordinance requires a 60,000 square foot lot and 150' lot width.
Zoned: RS-1, Suburban Residence District.
Appeal #09-99
Petitioner: Paul Stankevich
Residence: W 191 S7397 Bay Shore Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
BOA W26/99
Page 2
Location of Appeal: Same
Tax Key No. 2189.141
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 17:3.08(1) Appeal
Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variance:
2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02(3). Offsets: (3) Offsets: The proximity of a building to any
other lot line than a street line is regulated by offset provisions as follows:
A. No building shall hereafter be erected, structurally altered, or relocated so that it is closer to any lot
line than the offset distance hereinafter specified by the regulations for the district in which it is
located.
Petitioner seeks a 12.5 foot side offset variance to permit the replacement of an existing detached garage along
the southeast property line. The Ordinance requires a 15 foot side offset.
Zoned: RS-2, Suburban Residence District.
Appeal #10-99
Petitioner: Bill Engelking
Residence: W 188 S7642 Oak Grove Drive
Muskego, Wl 53150
Location of Appeal: Same
Tax Key No. 2192.062
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 17:3.08(l) Appeal
Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following variance:
Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.08 Existing Substandard Lots: Where a lot has less land area
or width than required for the district in which it is located and was of record at the time of the passage of
this Ordinance, such lot may be used for any purpose permitted in such district, subject to the regulations
governing substandard lots set forth under sec. 18.28; provided, however, that in no case shall the setback,
or offset requirements be reduced except by order of the Board of Appeals after due hearing, or as
otherwise herein provided. 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.
Petitioner seeks a 2,298.75 square foot (21.4%) variance from the open area requirement to construct a
single-family residence, driveway, and patio. The Ordinance requires 8,045 square feet of open area.
Zoned: RS-3, Suburban Residence District as modified by the Lakeshore Overlay District.
7. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS.
None
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.
BOA 9/26/99
Page 3
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.
Board of Appeals
City of Muskego
Dan Schepp, Chairman
Dated this 7`s day of duly, 1999
NOTICE
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.
NOTICE
"Please note that, 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 Jean Marends at City Hall, W182
S8200 Racine Avenue, (4t4) 679-5625."
m Q
�3
IQ
CV
f 24
1 �
- - 120` -
9 ■
1�
00,-, ' .sue y •��'
G
El
' A !
_ . � 11� i��i r �_ r . •
City of Muskego
Zoning Board of Appeals
Application for a Dimensional Variance
Submitted by:
Paul Stankevich
August 3, 1999
CITY OF MUSKEGO
BOARD OF APPEALS
Application for Variance
Applicant's Name RL wt R . � t c-tA l< e u L C,�)
Subject Property Address LV L 91 S -7 3 9 7 'j?) 0L J ��'� Qre_
Telephone
(o-Pt --Ug29
Property Zoning
Tax Key # 21,f f /¢/
Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable):
owner lessee
Fee: $197.00
Date inspector denied zoning permit:
other
Requesting variance to Code Section /7 X'C_Y�3)
To allow: S 4 4 a t, L S k e
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:
S ��, She_
The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize public welfare
because:
Response to Statement No. 1:
The requested variance is to allow for the removal of an existing garage and replacement
of that garage with a new garage. The replacement garage will be located in the exact
same place as the existing garage, and will have the same shape, size and color.
Response to Statement No. 2:
A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section would result in
practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship because it would require the placement of
the new garage in the existing backyard. The resulting practical difficulties and
unnecessary hardships would include the following:
l . A decrease of between approximately '/4 to 113 of the size of the existing backyard.
2. An increase of approximately 30-feet in length of the existing straight 60-foot
driveway.
3. The addition of curvature to an existing straight driveway.
4. Loss of the existing patio.
5. Modification of existing site drainage.
6. Diminished esthetic views from the western windows of the home and surrounding
properties.
All of the above referenced impacts would result in the loss of the currently esthetically
pleasing property associated with this home. This home is located in a unique part of the
City of Muskego. It is situated on a parcel of property, which is approximately %-acre in
size. The surrounding properties are also of this size, which is an attractive feature of this
neighborhood, and more specifically, the property in question. The existing layout of the
home and garage result in an esthetically pleasing yard which fits in well with the
surrounding properties, and one that affords nice space and recreational area.
To relocate the garage, in accordance with the minimum 15-foot property and 10-foot
building setback requirements, would require placement of the new garage within the
boundaries of the existing backyard. It would also require, at a minimum, an additional
30-feet of curved driveway on the property. The resulting 90-foot curved driveway,
leading to a garage located in the backyard of the home, would result in the loss of of
the existing backyard property. Further, the resulting view from the western windows of
this home becomes the garage, and not the backyard green space.
To maintain the same usage of the backyard, the existing sidewalk and patio would also
need to be relocated. However, given the minimum location requirements for the garage,
there is no reasonable location to replace the patio, without needing to remove additional
existing sidewalk, porch, and greenspace, and resulting in an overall additional loss of
approximately 113 of the existing backyard.
An additional practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship that results from the
relocation of the garage and associated features, is the alteration of the existing drainage
patterns from the property. Drainage patterns are altered due to an elevated driveway and
garage, and the increased surface area of concrete on the property. These two impacts
would result in an increase in the amount of drainage from the property, potentially
disrupting the existing surface water conditions of the property and surrounding area.
In summary, the relocation of the garage results in multiple difficulties and hardships.
The resulting impact would be an overall loss of approximately 1/3 of the size of the
existing backyard. In addition, the relocated features would not be esthetically pleasing
to the property, and as well, would not be esthetically pleasing to the neighboring
properties and could potentially impact them as well. Further, as a result of all of the
change in the aesthetics of the property and the reduction in useable backyard space, the
property in its entirety, would become less desirable for resale.
Response to Statement No. 3:
If the variance is granted, it will not be contrary to the public interest and will be in
accord with the spirit of the code because the request is to simply replace an existing
structure with a new structure. It will have the same appearance as the old structure.
Further, a replacement in kind, does not disrupt the existing neighborhood in any way.
Response to Statement No. 4:
If the variance is granted, it will not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize public
welfare because, once again, the request is to simply replace a structure which has been
in existence since 1953, with a newer and safer structure in the same location, and with
the same appearance.
77
r'I
rIj V'
r
317.67' 7—. 2ll.OG M; T-�T !gyp=
17
�.09 n.0o' rOD.Co ?lf CS. '-' i- avoe' iq.as 'v�.oe' Ji
. I E1
x s •<li"
�
139:R9R .969V� F /
?
sy ss. wD.Do' sr.sf Y n I J _
2a2D0 _ J 6'4,t�
sas. � I Q 23
:an BAY )�Zl
Q� [ 1 4 6� C: 4t L' : _�
.1Ss A 69
QQ
b y �I•
.ad-.p Ekn 792.4
12
4.154
S 47 is.sn�
z< IS3 Roov
ate/ 4 ft ' ?°1 .214 ti 'Fis
OfvDII 4 21S 1
• • Whll (SpiE9r` 0 4 -�--
A3 cy i
qp
r�/ L BLOCK 2 Ix �� 2 7
i 4 n 7%'__, U_
b �' ° 22
_ 14 ci0+ AY
•.o �i /y3 fi
€bsr HORS
o G, xl 141 / , 2 h A I r i 221 .2E2 '
P06 ,.�'��.. C 4e�s �Js�f21 a'.22Q,_a�-L1 t+ /
l
vb �+COW
�J
143 f 3 SnY�il
225
�L 3// 2 f,.
ESTAT
171 M � 7 166 \
1ti p 4 0 .16T t \� SHORES M11 C
iTQ .16D ti`7 �,
I �
4 t4 :T
�y� I6 \ 930
PROPERTT LINU 0 TAX Parr RAMM FMOW'ED FEVUART. Wo
3T
Ru[XEUT D NWLXI.INC.,-WAM98MA.WIS00nial
SE 5rC r `% tz CL"Vff AS OF FEOINJART ,pM
SCA I- I'• OW,CONT" svTERVAL 2, PREPARED FOR
CITY OF MUSXEGO
BY
HERO -METRIC, ENG.,-SHEBOYGAN# WISCONSIN NE Cw:
INMAN , INC.,- HALES CORNERS, IonWISCONSIN-�'Ow�sH�
'ppu�_. %� AM-41ETRIC EEPI. PREPARED • HORIZONTAL SURVM, CADASTRAL
— —•'fir t? TOPOCRAPHE NAP►M,
GAAFwC SCALE W FEET
►AM. INCORPORAT'f6 PREPARED: •'EMONUMENTATNNNI • VERTECAL W4
-_ CONTROL S!.RVEYS.
E—
141
120'
Xn
IP
"aft,
Sp
Y&wb