Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals 10-1998CITY OF MUSKEGO August 28, 1998 Mr. Scott Salentine S79 W 16111 Bay Lane Place Muskego, W153150 RE: Appeal #98-10 Dear Mr. Salentine: DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING Matthew G. Sadowski, AICP Director of Planning (414) 679-4136 The Board of Appeals wishes to advise that your appeals from Chapter 17, Section 5.02(2), Building Location: Setbacks was approved as requested. Your appeal from Chapter 17, Section 5.02(2), Building Location: Setbacks: was approved as requested. Your appeal from Chapter 17, Section 4.06(2) A.l ., Legal Nonconformity: was approved as requested. Your appeal from Chapter 17, Section 4.06(2) A.2., Legal Nonconformity: was approved as requested. Please be advised a building permit is required prior to commencing with construction at this location. Should you have any questions, please contact Carlos Trejo at 679-5674. Sincerely, Susan J. Schroeder Recording Secretary W 182 S8200 Racine Avenue - P.O. Box 749 - Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0749 - Fax (414) 679-5614 Appeal #10-98 Scott Salentine S79 W 16111 Bay Lane Place Muskego, WI 53150 Tax Key No. 2217.986 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following four (4) variances: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a 21 foot variance to erect and structurally alter the second level of an existing structure 34 feet from the center of the Bay Lane Place right-of-way. (zoning requirement is 55 feet) 2. Chapter 17--Zoning_ Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) B Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot closer than 50 feet to the base setback line. Petitioner seeks a 16 foot variance to erect and structurally alter the second level of an existing structure 34 feet from the center of the Bay Lane Place right-of-way. (zoning requirement is 55 feet) 3. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.06 (2) A. 1. Legal Nonconformity: No structure shall be expanded or enlarged, except within conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located. Petitioner seeks to expand a second level over a legal nonconforming structure within the setback area. 4. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.06 (2) A.2. Legal Nonconformity: Said regulation restricts expansion or enlargement of a nonconforming structure to no more than 50% of its current fair market value. Petitioner seeks to repair, alter, and expand said structure over 50% of its current fair market value. Zoned: RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Motion to approve as submitted. After much deliberation regarding the interpretation of the 50% Rule, the hardship was defined as: 1. The City taking ownership of an easement creating a road which made the residence nonconforming, 2. The unique property limitations of this property 3. Allowing this variance would not cause an adverse affect on public safety. /- p I / L� Approved •CAL- -//t/ O'Neil Vice Member Approved Denied Approved Member SCne—pp Approved Member Brandt Approved Conley (1st Approved Member LeXrouk-(2nd Alt.) BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES CITY OF MUSKEGO AUGUST 27, 1998 PRESENT: Chairman Terry O'Neil, Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker, Dan Schepp, Mike Brandt, James Ross and alternates David Conley and William LeDoux. Also present, Carlos Trejo, Planning and Zoning Assistant, STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: Secretary reported notice was given August 14, 1998, in accordance with Open Meeting Laws. MINUTES: Minutes of the July 23, 1998, meeting were deferred until the September meeting_ OLD BUSINESS: Signing of decision letters for the July 23, t998, meeting was deferred to the September meeting. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal #10-98, Scott Salentine, S79 W 16111 Bay Lane Place, Tax Key No. 2217.986 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following four (4) variances: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a 21 foot variance to erect and structurally alter the second level of an existing structure 34 feet from the center of the Bay Lane Place right-of-way. (zoning requirement is 55 feet) 2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) B Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot closer than 50 feet to the base setback line. Petitioner seeks a 16 foot variance to erect and structurally alter the second level of an existing structure 34 feet from the center of the Bay Lane Place right -of --way. (zoning requirement is 55 feet) 3. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.06 (2) A. 1. Legal Nonconformity: No structure shall be expanded or enlarged, except within conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located. Petitioner seeks to expand a second level over a legal nonconforming structure within the setback area. 4. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.06 (2) A.2. Legal Nonconformity: Said regulation restricts expansion or enlargement of a nonconforming structure to no more than 50% of its current fair market value. Petitioner seeks to repair, alter, and expand said structure over 50% of its current fair market value. Zoned: RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay Mr. Schneiker administered an oath to Scott and Cindy Salentine. Ms. Salentine explained they wish to add a second story to their property within the footprint of the existing home, and expand the foot print the building by adding a foyer to the west end of the building, within the approved sideyard offsets. Prior to the construction of the original structure, the existing Bay Lane Place right-of-way was a private easement and the home was conforming. The City took over this street in 1984, when sewer was installed. The ultimate setback is currently running through the existing home. Mr. Salentine stated that a new home west of his was built in 1994, within the setback area and his proposed addition would not be any closer to the road than the new home. The addition would increase the property values for the City. This home does not have a basement, also space is needed to raise a family. Mr. Trejo explained the noncomforming lot and the reductions given to this lot, being a lake shore overlay. The actual location of the residence is also nonconforming, being that the residence is located to close to the existing and ultimate right -of --way. The existing right-of-way is 20 feet and was acquired by the City when sewer service was provided around 1982-83. Mr. Trejo explained how the residence is affected by both the existing and ultimate right-of-way of 60 feet. In situations when a property owner wishes to alter and/or replace an existing structure lying between the Base Setback Line and the existing street right -of --way, the Ordinance allows for the property owner to seek approval via the Planning Commission. In this appeal, however, the petitioner not only seeks to alter the existing structure with a second floor, but also expand the footprint of the building for a foyer, Also, Mr. Trejo question the extent of the cost of the renovation, stating that total costs of the renovation, both within the existing structure and the new second floor and foyer would exceed 50% of the assessed value as a whole. BOA 08/27/98 Page 2 Mr. O'Neil asked if this is a dead end road. Mr. Trejo stated it is a T shaped road, with the area being questioned servicing 8-10 lots. Mr. Trejo stated Plan Commission has the ability to set conditions for alterations within the setback area, subject to determination of whether the addition would meet the criteria of Section 6.10, Architectural Control. Thus the only issues before the Board of Appeals would be the foyer and the cost of the renovation. Mr. Trejo distributed the ordinance regarding the use of the 50% Rule. It is his interpretation that the entire cost of work being done to create the new second floor comes within the confines of the 50 % Rule. Mr. Brandt reviewed the proposed cost for the addition with the Board members and stated the amount would only be $6,000, all other expenses are not structural and therefore do not count. Mr. Trejo questioned the hardship relating to the addition of the foyer. Mr. Salentine stated the hardship is the substandard road, the setback in the middle of the residence and no basement, (lack of storage). Mrs. Salentine also stated conformity would be burdensome, they would be required to move the foundation of the entire house to make it conforming. DELIBERATIONS: Mr. Le Doux made a motion to approve Appeal #10-98 as submitted. Mr. Ross seconded. After much deliberation regarding the interpretation of the 50% Rule, the hardship was defined as: 1. The City taking ownership of an easement creating a road which made the residence nonconforming, 2. The unique property limitations of this property 3. Allowing this variance would not cause an adverse affect on public safety. Upon a roll call vote, the motion was approved 6-1 (Mr. Ross voting nay). ADJOURN: With no further business to come before this board, Mr. Brandt made a motion to adjourn at 8:45 P.M. Mr. Schneiker seconded. After a voice vote, the motion to adjourn carried. Respectfully submitted, Susan J. Schr 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 Hall, W 182 S8200 Racine Avenue, at 7:00 P.M., Thursday, August 27, 1998, to consider the fallowing 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 23, 1998, MEETING. 5. OLD BUSINESS • Signing of decision letters for the July 23 1998, meetings. 6. NEW BUSINESS Appeal #10-98 Scott Salentine S79 W 161 11 Bay Lane Place Muskego, WI 53150 Tax Key No. 2217.986 REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) AppeaI Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following four (4) variances: 1. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except within conformity with the district it is located. Petitioner seeks a 21 foot variance to erect and structurally alter the second level of an existing structure 34 feet from the center of the Bay Lane Place right-of-way. (zoning requirement is 55 feet) 2. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02 (2) B Building Location: Setbacks. No structure shall be iffMted, structurally altered or relocated on a lot closer than 50 feet to the base setback line. Petitioner seeks a 16 foot variance to erect and structurally alter the second level of an existing structure 34 feet from the center of the Bay Lane Place right-of-way. (zoning requirement is 55 feet) 3. Chapter 17--ZoningOrdinance: Section 4.06 (2) A. 1. Legal Nonconformity: No structure shall be expanded or enlarged, except within conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located. Petitioner seeks to expand a second level over a legal nonconforming structure within the setback area. 4. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.06 (2) A.2. Legal Nonconformity: Said regulation restricts expansion or enlargement of a nonconforming structure to no more than 50% of its current fair market value. Petitioner seeks to repair, alter, and expand said structure over 50% of its current fair market value. Zoned: RS-3/OLS, Suburban Residence District with a Lake Shore Overlay BOA 08/27/98 Page 2 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. 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 Terry O'Neil, Chairman Dated this 14th day of August, 1998 NOTICE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MEMBERS OF AND POSSIBLY A QUORUM OF MEMBERS OF OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BODIES OF THE MUMCIPALITY 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 Marenda at City Hall W 182 S8200 Racine Avenue, (414) 679-5625." Lc1 An Re55 �tSC... unitve grefat:r li. ulk+ren in* net vipl tv toW-4 wet�its �oy5 —�a� to a•�trr� y,ppv. as s�l�,r++r� �r� CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS Application for Variance Applicants Name 4 Subject Property Address: `o_ Telephone-t-C�iC� Lt)n, • 4aa--6 100 (SeZ4) Property Zonin A, Key # Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable): own lessee other Fees: $195.00 Date inspector denied permit: Requesting variance to Section To allow: A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section would result in practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship because: Il The variance, if granted, will not be contrary to the public interest and will be in accord with the spirit of the code because: IL The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize public welfare because: t1 Scott and Cindy Salentine are requesting a variance to allow remodeling of an existing non -conforming structure. The present structure meets all setback requirements with exception of the roadside which is 13 feet off the road rather than the required 25 feet. However, any remodeling that would enhance the structure would take place at least 25 feet off the roadside. In remodeling the structure we would be raising the roof on the lake side of the house for additional and feasible living space upstairs. This would not interfere with the 30 foot height restriction. This remodel would keep us within the footprint of the current structure with exception of a 6x 10 foyer to be added where the current porch is to enter the house. Although our current estimate shows us to be within the 50% rule we are also requesting a variance for any hidden costs or issues that would cause us to incur extra cost and take us over our allowed amount. We would like to set up a time that is convenient for Carlos Trejo or anyone on the Board of Appeals to come and view our home prior to the date of the appeal. If this is possible please let us know- (Scott)Work 422-0100 or Home 422-1734. We are trying to obtain a variance due to the setback limitations on the roadside of our home. According to the setback standards we need to be 25 feet off the road however, our house is only 13 feet off the road. The hardship we are claiming is based on the fact that the road is placed through the middle of our property. This forces our parcel to become non -conforming according to the city standards. If the road would have been placed 12 feet to the South we would be conforming. This hardship gives us a unique property limitation which prevents us from remodeling in compliance with the zoning standards. Also, the road that the offsets are being measured off of is a substandard road. According to John Lockne a standard road with curbs and gutters is 60 feet wide (65 feet including Right-of-way) and a standard paved road is 24 feet wide. Due to the substandard road width, which is only 15 feet, this seems to skew the ability to accurately and fairly justify the offsets which causes another unique property limitation. We are merely trying to acquire more living space upstairs without going outside of the current footprint of the home. At this time we have an A -frame shaped house and the upstairs walls are knee height with slanted ceilings. This space is not feasible for living because you can't utilize :;ny of the space unless your standing in the middle of the room. We also have no basement and remodeling will give us teasible storage space. If this variance is granted it would be within the spirit of the code because it would increase our property value and would also enhance the aesthetic beauty of our home in comparison to the surrounding lake properties. There are very few houses on Bass's Bay that are still small cottage like homes. And we would like to have an opportunity to make our home more complimentary to the neighborhood. Also, if the variance was granted it would not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize public welfare because it is not interfering with adjoining properties or obstructing anyone's view. The only affect granting this variance would have is a positive one. We would like to put log siding on the house giving it a log home look without the brand new log home price. Since we are not financially able to build a brand new home this remodel would give us feasible living space along with enhancing the character of an already beautiful neighborhood. CRAIGS REMODELING S94 W14554 Groveway Lane MUSKEGO, WI 53150 ESTIMATE w yContractor A sl S ; II pTZ,grl.;IN;%RY I�s`.Cll4A r, roR -CO"f"x �- CT- Tu Owner " � � T Job Address RL;S 11AV 7/TKE 15/4F� ' "Q-70 .1.16111 Date ouAsrrrir . MAHMAr osscuri3Orr +►Asuus MOB i 1�410 /IT FY1.`�1' ROOF SE(TTON 01 ;;,R coil QF[NA ON "ours ur[ cosy T (�'ar;i) 100 00 3 men 8 7c).0 632 GC APPROX. 26rxl0s ' Deno exist. d1nette and bath cielin� 3 r ) men 8 79100 A 32 00 Construct ZOIX10i floor deck over 1.065 00 3 cxis inr* net a an bath an new men 16 79.0 1.26E 00 fn e aundation at new fover 6xin 1 SUB -Contract 4 over floor riot{ 6x10 190 00 3 1. zoo Sao men 8 7q.00 632 00 �nyer weds (2 246 00 3 men --- _ O 316 00 mo existing 2nd. ?l. r 'm� 2G 79.0 1-906 00 onst�ruct 2na fl. wall)s (2x6 _ l 3 b3 OO 3 mea00 et new trusses (36) Allowance in )-000 00 3 lden 8 i 7901 632JOn flit s.facl a and overhanes 5C7I 0011 16 179.001 1.264.b0 2._ f, el t n j 9651 n0 Window allowance Patio doors Skvliq o(4:000 00 16 79.00 L 1.100 cat ft. R-11wa s rnsu�at� n f690 00 16O 1 Drvwall (by others eV (Bv of hers)# riumn ster ( a M 24.356 TUrAL P:.-TTNRT77) COS^ Tn j:OiTC'j ^RI�i..; F- rooF WTIMUS. DOORS :VdD 1113ULAT TON I rTCL. _�c,�; QA1-1 0 SEC !CS 1U o r _. c ILtdr �rj Ot h s 1� IN own4s s _ 14.336 ,G + 10 D cent 01 s b 4 0C � o r a) d)+y a (1) m tc+) U H e () > c c t C 4- O •r a) O +J a) •r •r N 4- () O X r- 4- >,.o C C r- a O fo O Q r� Y +3 C3 4- >I LC) 3. O L U O (tl d b a) 0. r +j CO a) • ^ td 3 td J_- >, u :MC 4-1 r () -0 O +3 par- a) to a) S- C CL L 4- C S.. L .0 L ^ O •r o O fo 4- O a) +J +-1 (L) ++ +-) -C 4- O L ++ O z a) .X V) to a) M O 4- C) a) 3 CA a) VI -9-- •r s; N 'O •r ' C;.r •r +) S- r-L Ca S- 4- '0 •r S•. � t o O •r to U Z +a .0 O >, S- U [V to V1 to } 4 L +f U 4J r +J -0 UD to a) Ld O O a) •r L tn C .1 a -0 � Z OC .4J C) 0 0 C) M O. r .0 00 >, 4- 0 0 U) U +-3 M M O V) Sti a.) H 0 a) p'ow�� � ^�� CO < w td r• 4- r C) ' to Z a) +3 C) Q1 3 4J 4) 4- C) U tir C S-- N C C 41 ilL O .0 C r a) '►� OC U •r ' tJ1C _j a) .0 O 4-1W �� o ^ Q) U L r• O •r 0 '• t l 0)L) Z a) o io 0) V1 S- • ^ �n >1 41 Ln O a) 4-) � i-) C a) 3 4- 1 u d a) (n to to 0 _0 •r U -0 O }-- \ 4- fo O a) a) O C r Ut LU E:X a) a C) O >1 A C Ca C 4- :CS_ L •r i-) -0 N 'r 014- a) to 4-3 to •r •r C OLQ +41-0t,n3fatd c •r +�Na•^oC� t- 1 94 'r C N 4-)Y3 O O O 4- +) C C LU4- O ` (Vfif C 4-) 4- O C O 0 O +-) 0 -0a) O O O S- s S- CO +J V) C) C -0 r- t- V- 4.) t-- [.) B. C .r (1) C to S- a p•r t— U �t o LO o•r o r- Nt-r C +-3 >,C)Rd�4- fo.0 r- >1 (D cn 10 Ln +J r .0 C O $1: a O O 4- i) S_ 4-) •r +) -p Ln 4- O v S- a) a to +j - O N Cr V) O .0 -0 C +' O C ct b \ )o Z 4-) a.) •r U = .r r a) a) C7 O -0t- O � 1­ (D 4- 0 I w v)•s__a 0 O ar as0 Z .a (Vto 4- C)4- Z 1- >1 a) O CV 4 R to 01 0 Ed 01 3 G +� a) nc N C -G •r 4-5 4A a) 41 C L U M•r r 4- C - 40 (AO a) ro - io C O to O C O m +-) r m •r C V1 •r -0 w 4-) 4- cL> 4- U •r 41 cn 4.3 Cc td O C i-) 4- .0 a) S_ b o •r C () ° a) C O M.0 to U O •r L •O L O .r E Q.-O C CL a) +1 41 U a) S_ 4- td C d-) .0 to a) Z U .0 O O U C S- U LO C C C) C 0 i O .0 r r• 4-3 fo •r t •r 3: 4-1 3 4-3 CL mt—c4-1>10 s_ .-4-O (1) C> 'r O 4- (1) •r • ^ r- r- O Z L r-•+ ut -r J__ O a) +- ' F t; 4-) LO +-) a) C: C 4- U +1 a) n. O U CV .0 •r fo S_ C r 0 ► 4 U 4) c* 4- o V) to rn JP i-+ a) CC Vi (/') O C CL O to dr .X r 41 f- O +3 fo V) 3 4- ;m RS to -010 4- a) -A L I O- C m 4- a) a) ?, a) L] w ct•r 0 O C.0.or-414- O �1 xt . C +3 (1) - - •r L a) of J +•f \ C • w U S. S- a) a) CV a) Q C t o •r 4) 4J to V U L) 4- 40 yC CD O O 0) -le a) � 0 V) V) to w o w a) to 0)-0w a) a) 1r, 0 :3 wvzcn.0w4- tov~o3ctmr_ z to f.i 00,90 3 . i,1.0 N M.01.OS QJ QJ V k ) V v1 O V •t4 2 ce V 2! O H� Vl n r' 0 `g M 0 0 t tl e o� • - 00 90d 1 - V 00 •eai - - - j ;ll is - A 00>�' M .P,1.0 S--•-- --- 00'081 M .ti1.0 S gyp- i G 6 •* 4 T u 4 - _ A 0) M O rn z Eli In Q a r 1i.: a Q iui cc LU C7 W ff¢ I cn Z) W i J S En m Cl) m a g� c•• •� �� •s• • r •� d FIR ► ' c • - Ebw Ell i` — r i � l { J_ ' D Y � � � t � >, i "" �a p 00 CD � a-Y OF NEW d to � MUSKEGO -'--- TESS CORNERS 1 FIRE DISTRICT FIRE DISTRICT S e 14 ml lsr --------7 - sl +" f Gulae• DSSG` � [air C► � 4 ! cola i $0.00 CI } I ' � Y`�•1 �• p `� ry CI gi 3 f .x Y • „ ' ova � wr al O. ^i 'at Cl R i Little Muskega Lake ' Cl �b� ^20 CI C+ f .tea, x M Boy t-une C.U. n v School a - w • Q �P� a i t o V 3 $ Y cC wwiw n I t O �0A 0! C• V[ C1 S01n04er CI of �` w+ pwi v—�- f - --` • le.e 1 F^ r� Scenic Dr DOy• A �' aey �o.bo.c ♦1 r' I 9n.F�n CI ' • O r I IW11n Lx P Police Nf} o o.`^ o° i w I F Sass Bay I S Sa0+ City— f�Ull i n!r rl • Dr U Y 1, f Der t C' l r I l !^° �+• kar I ont IMuskego1 ! �{ x ,All t I ' 'k III i