Zoning Board of Appeals 12-1996F CITE' nF
XUSKEGG
r
April 30, 1996
Mr. Mark Schultz
N66 W35049 Lapplan Crossing
Oconomowoc, W1 53066
RE: S70 W20473 Tyler Drive, Muskego
Dear Mr. Schultz:
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
Matthew G. Sadowski, Plan Director
(414) 679-4136
The Board of Appeals wishes to advise that your appeal from Chapter
17, Section 5.03(1) Height: Maximum Height Restricted has been
denied, due to lack of a sufficient hardship and due to concerns
by neighboring residents and the withdraw of Architectual
approval by the Kimberly Estates Architectural Control Committee.
Sincerely,
�'.
21.
r
Susan J. Schroeder
Recording Secretary
W182 S8200 Racine Avenue • Box 903 * Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0903 a Fax (414) 679-5614
DATE April 25, 1996
NAME Mark Schultz
CITY OF MUSKEGO
BOARD OF APPEALS
a
APPEAL # 09-96
ADDRESS S79 W20473 Tyler Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
TELEPHONE 966-3836
PROPERTY LOCATION ON WHICH VARIANCE IS REQUESTED
ADDRESS S79 W20473 Tyler Drive
TYPE OF ZONING RS-1
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal
Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance:
1) Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.03 (1) Height:
Maximum Height Restricted. Said section restricts the
maximum height of any residential structure to 30 feet.
Petitioner seeks a 4.2 foot height variance to permit a
residential structure with a maximum height of 34.2 feet.
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
CHAIRMAN O'NEIL
VICE-CHAIRMAN SCHEPP
MEMBER SCHNEIKER
MEMBER HERDA
MEMBER BRANDT
FIRST ALTERNATE
SECOND ALTERNATE
APPROVED DENIED
Secretary
Date 4
CITY OF MUSKEGO
BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD ON APRIL 25, 1996.
PRESENT: Chairman O'Neil, Dan Schepp, Henry Schneiker, Mike
Brandt, and Ed Herda.
MINUTES: Mr. Schepp made a motion to adopt the minutes of March
28, 1996, meeting as corrected. Mr. Schneiker seconded. Upon
voice vote, the minutes of March 28, 1996, meeting passed
unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:Appeal # 10-96 Carl Bergmann, W177 S6975 Wildwood
Drive, Muskego. REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section
3.08(1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance: 1)
Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.05 (2) CA Accessory Uses
and Structures: Permanent Structures, Garages. Said regulation
limits the size of a detached private garage to 60% of the floor
area of the primary building. Petitioner seeks a 221 square foot
variance to construct a 648 square foot accessory structure (91%
of primary floor area).
Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Carl Bergmann and Mr. Jack
Bahr, his builder.
Mr. Trejo described the RS3--OED zoning and the variance
requested. Mr. Trejo stated that RS3-OED zoning takes into
consideration the lot's nonconformity, but neglects to take into
account the size of existing structures in existing developments.
This, in effect, limits the permitted size for accessory
structures, since most of the primary dwelling units do not meet
the minimum required building size.
Mr. Bergmann stated he intends to remove the existing shed. He
explained the access would be from Wildwood. The garage would be
located 817" from his home and will contain a firewall. It is not
feasible to locate the garage on the side lot because of the
mature trees in the area.
Appeal f 11-96 Dale Karpinski W183 S6581 Jewel Crest Drive
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal
Provisions, Petitioner seeks two (2) variance: 1) Chapter
17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.06 (2) A.1 Legal Nonconformity:
Nonconforming Structures. Said regulation restricts the expansion
or enlargement of a structure, except within conformity of said
district. Petitioner seeks to expand the existing legal
nonconforming home with an additional 560 square feet.
2) Chapter 17--ZoningOrdinance: Sections 5.02 (3) A Building
Location: Offsets. Said regulation requires a 7.5 foot offset on
the western property line. Petitioner seeks a 2.5 foot variance
to permit an addition with a 5 foot offset to an existing legal
nonconforming home.
Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Mr. Karpinksi and his builder,
Steve Beres.
BOA 04/25/96
Page 2
Mr. Trejo described the RS3/OED zoning. In this case two lots are
under the same ownership. When the dwelling unit was built on the
western lot, the structure meet the required offsets for the
single lot and was considered conforming. When the existing
garage was built, it was built over the joining property line with
the lot to the east. This eliminated the use of discounts on the
offsets and made the primary dwelling unit legally nonconforming
There had been a variance granted previously for the garage in
1986. None of the neighbors contacted the City with concerns.
Mr. Beres explained the addition cannot go to the north because of
the location of the garage and well. The home is built on a slab.
The variance would allow the house to look architecturally correct.
Appeal # 12-96 Mark Schultz, S79 W20473 Tyler Drive REQUESTING:
Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions,
Petitioner seeks one (1) variance: 1) Chapter 17--Zonin
Ordinance: Section 5.03 (1) Height: Maximum Height Restricted.
Said section restricts the maximum height of any residential
structure to 30 feet. Petitioner seeks a 4.2 foot height variance
to permit a residential structure with a maximum height of 34.2
feet.
Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Mr. Robert Schultz (the father)
and Mr. Tim Sidel, the builder.
Mr. Trejo explained the City received a letter from Ms. Carol
Yeager, the Architectural Control Board for Kimberly Estates
withdrawing her Architectural Approval for this home. Mr. Trejo
explained he received two telephone calls in regards to the appeal
that opposed the height request and one that was not concerned.
Mr. Sidel, the petitioner's architect, explained the bedroom
layouts are based on the excess ceiling heights and the
proportions of the home and the structural integrity of the home
are also based on the excess pitch. Changes to the height would
effect the costs and looks of the structure.
Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Mr. Wayne Salentine and Mr. Jim
Ellis, neighbors in the subdivision. They did not oppose the
variance, however, both commented that their intention is to build
ranch style homes.
Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Mr. James Szalacinski on
Monterey Drive, he was not concerned.
Appeal # 13-96 Mark R. Pfuehler, S75 W13901 Bluhm Court
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal
Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance: 1) Chapter
17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (3) A Building Location:
Offsets. Said regulation requires a 15 foot offset on the eastern
property line. Petitioner seeks a 3 foot variance to permit a
deck with a 12 foot offset.
Mr. Schepp administered an oath to Mr. Pfuehler. Mr. Pfuehler
stated he has had many builders look at his home to design a deck
BOA 04/25/96
Page 3
with the limited shape of the lot. He has received Architectural
Approval from the Subdivision Control Board. Mr. Pfuehler stated
his hardship is the location of the house on his lot and the pie
shape configuration of the lot.
DELIBERATION OF APPEALS
Appeal #10-96 Mr. Herda made a motion to grant the variance as
requested. Hardship being the size of the pre-existing
nonconforming house, the lack of storage, and that the request
would not be harmful or jeopardize public safety or welfare. Mr.
Schneiker seconded. Upon roll call vote, the motion to grant the
variance was approved unanimously.
Appeal #11-96 Mr. Schneiker made a motion to grant the variance
as requested. Hardship being location of the existing structure,
the location of the well and the topography. Mr. Brandt
seconded. Upon roll call vote, the motion to grant the variance
was approved unanimously.
Appeal #12-96 The Board of Appeals feels the Plan Commission
should review the height ordinance due to the fact two variance
have appeared before this Board within two months. Mr. Schepp
made a motion to deny the variance due to lack of hardship, the
Architectural Approval being withdrawn and the impact it would
have on the surrounding area. Mr. Herda seconded. Upon roll call
vote, motion to deny was approved. Mr. O'Neil voting against the
motion.
Appeal #13-96 Mr. Brandt made a motion to defer this item until
Mr. Pfuehler is able to review his options with Planning Staff and
amend his request. Mr. Schepp seconded, upon roll call vote,
motion to defer was approved unanimously.
ADJOURN
Mr. Herda made a motion to adjourn, Mr. Brandt seconded. With no
further business to come before this board, meeting adjourned at
9:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan J. chroeder Recording Secretary
CITY OF MUSKEGO
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to Wisconsin State Statute 62.23
(3) 6. that a Public Hearing will be held at the Muskego City
Hall, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue, at 7:00 P.M., Thursday, April 25,
1996, to consider the following petitions for appeals to the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Muskego:
Appeal # 10-96
Carl Bergmann
W177 S6975 Wildwood Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1)
Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance:
1) Chapter 17--ZoningOrdinance: Section 4.05 (2) C.4
Accessory Uses and Structures: Permanent Structures,
Garages. Said regulation limits the size of a detached
private garage to 60% of the floor area of the primary
building. Petitioner seeks a 221 square foot variance
to construct a 648 square foot accessory structure (91%
of primary floor area).
Appeal # 11-96
Dale Karpinski
W183 S6581 Jewel Crest Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1)
Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks two (2) variance:
1) Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.06 (2) A.1
Legal Nonconformity: Nonconforming Structures. Said
regulation restricts the expansion or enlargement of a
structure, except within conformity of said district.
Petitioner seeks to expand the existing legal
nonconforming home with an additional 560 square feet.
2) Chapter 17--zoning Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (3) A
Building Location: Offsets. Said regulation requires a
7.5 foot offset on the western property line.
Petitioner seeks a 2.5 foot variance to permit an
addition with a 5 foot offset to an existing legal
nonconforming home.
Appeal # 12-96
Mark Schultz
S79 W20473 Tyler Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.06 (1)
Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance:
BOA 04/25/96
Page 2
1) Chapter 17--ZoningOrdinance: Section 5.03 (1)
Height: Maximum Height Restricted. Said section
restricts the maximum height of any residential
structure to 30 feet. Petitioner seeks a 4.2 foot
height variance to permit a residential structure with a
maximum height of 34.2 feet.
Appeal # 13-96
Mark R. Pfuehler
S75 W13901 Bluhm Court
Muskego, WI 53150
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1)
Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1) variance:
1) Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Sections 5.02 (3) A
Building Location: Offsets. Said regulation requires a
15 foot offset on the eastern property line. Petitioner
seeks a 3 foot variance to permit a deck with a 12 foot
offset.
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
Donald Pionek, Chairman
Dated this 17th day of April, 1996
PLEASE NOTE: 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 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 Jean K. Marenda, City Clerk, at Muskego City Hall, 679-5625.
Also, Board of Appeals members may conduct site visits for informational purposes.
APR-12-96 FRI 0$:21 AURORA HEALTH CARE FAX NO. 896 N25 P,02
94/ 11 / 1996 98: 58 4146795614 M[;SKEGO PL4�HING DPT PAGE 55
CITY or XUSTEca
80JUW of AM ALS
A lication for variance
Applicants Name tii�.t'���•�`%-
Subject Property Address:_ vJZ ;` t'j �LEC D1
Telephone
Property Zoning Key # �Z a a 9 - C ,�Q
Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable):
(owner
Fees: $125,09
lessee other
Date inspector denied permit:
Requesting variance to Section
A 1
yftz)�
To allow! Construction of new a4n2 a story rp�;,aQ;jf-pith Hz�c�;�c joef
Highest ' _ Peak is 3�'-? in heighfr���s„*grar?P �..-, top , � Pp3k
A literal enforcement of
the terms of
the above -referenced section
would result
in practical
difficulty and unnecessary hardship
because: (1)
A decrease of
the Roof Slope
would require a re -design
of Second Floor Bedroom area
(
A dedrease of
the Roof Sloe
would de=7.natel�- affect the asthetics
add a t;moo ad.di_tional
neaf:s
an,j Kocf Lin_e_s•_ The entry arch .ould
be. o f-center
indi .3ri o
- �a�- a I n
QL
The 12/12 Roof
SlnDes reflar.f-
C.,►rrAn-_„n-scal Rpsi�?nrac_
The variance,
if granted, will not be Contrary to the public
intsrest and
will be in accord with the spirit of the code because:
(1)
The Hip Design creates interesting lines and the ends reduce the
amount of roof ^when com2ared to a Gable De sir.
(2
P,CRZo0S0
The proposed design will createan un-scare im c for the neu subdivision_
)cA40, (3)
Current Residential Desi r uses hi� er slopes in roofs,
(A'as q 5`a vc7(4)
Reducing the Roof Slone adds more small roof lines indicating a
design that is 'Iot,thought ntEt and complete
The variance,
if granted, will not adversely affect public safety
or jeopardize
public welfare because:
(1) The views of other Residences are not affected since the proposed
residence is at the end of a r.n„rr. 4
( ) the pro posed) has hZ °lh Lrccc Ii Ee5 .at*...i h�-..h a;;L: of '`he Lot
(• o -an Lti - „' i
(3) Other residence have higher slopes thercby only enhancing current
trends anddesigns
0
APR-25-1995 07 = 41 FROM TRANS COMPANY H ! LW TO 6795614 P . 02: '0Z
April24, 1996
Mr. Carlos Trejo, Asst. Pianner
City of Muskego
W192 S8200 Racine Ave.
Muskego, WI 53150
Dear Mr. Trejo:
As the developer of Kimberly Estates, I hereby recomniend that the City of Muskego does
not approve the height variance to Lot 916 at S.79 W20473 Tyler Dr., Muskego, WI
owned by Mark Schultz.
For obvious reasons of appearance compared to other homes in the development, I hope
the City of Muskego will agree the variance is not in the best interest of all !tome owners
in the development. I realize that I originally approved the plans, however, I was not
aware of the extra height of the structure at that time.
I would greatly appreciate your consideration in this matter
Sincerely,
I q?a�
Ilfs_) Carol Yaege
WI36 S6597 Conrad Court
Muskego, WI 53150
CY: dw
KMW.DOC
yjasl��
'PR-12-96 FRl 08:01 AURORA HEALTH GARE 17f�X 1Q.. G963925
04/ 11I 1996 08: 50 4146795614 WSKEW R U4NING DPT
CITY OF M17RAEGO
BOARD OF MME11LS
AAplication.for Variance
Applicants Names \-; . �-� _
Subject Property Address:�+
Telephone;`
Property Zoning _ Key # __. ..
Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable):
owner I essee cG?er - —
Fees: $125.60
Date inspector denied permit:_
Requesting variance to Section
F. 02
FAi5E 06
To a11[Yw: Constructic:n-of u.�,'iB,�,F stoLy rgZJ.d nf- ti ?-
ighestPeak is 3d'- it heigh_„frp,r�prar?P t top n Aar:
A literal enforcement of
the terms of
the move -referenced section
would result
in practical
difficulty
and unnecessary hardship
because: (1)
A decrease of
the Roof Slope
would require a rc-design
of Second Floor Bedroom area
t l•
A decrease of
the Rooi Sloe
would definatel1- affect the -asthetic�
_jg
�. dup a teidition.al
noels an.f Roof Line-. the entry arch ;.:oul,a
-
bP off -center
indi -�t-
-�� l n
(r
.-The 12)12 Roof
Slq,Lies rerlec_t_
The variance,
interest
and
(
The variance,
or jeopardize
(1
if granted, Will not be contrary to the public
wi11 be in accord with the spirit of the code because:
The Hip Design creates interesting lines ine the: ends redli ce the
amount of roof when compared to a (;able Design.
The proposed Ciebi n 4J1ic 1 reate an up-scaleup-scaleima for the nFu subcii\ is: ^.
Current Residential De_siSn- uses slopes
l es 'n roofs. .�
Reducingthe Roof Sloe adds more sna::rcof lines indicatir:g a
design that is not thoug�,t nut and r:"i'lpiete
If granted, will. not adversely affect public safety
public welfare because:
The views of other. Residences are not affected since -,he pr.>pfj-sed
residence is at the end of r, Cow-r-
(Z) The .Fr npQG.pri_rgai denc-4 h8a.131i1,"AG lire-►` at' thy+ hark of r_re Lot
i
(s) Other residence have higher slopes thcrcbv only :,nh�inci.n8 current
trends anddesigas
FD T IP
1%4
Lu
W
'o
FO r
} f SETBACK
1
14,W
7
297,56'
N $7�7,4
LOT 16
pRoP
Dirki ED
aft, aa2SR
i
/
/
/
• esssa /
/
W BLDGSETBACK
/
/
/
/
/
/ .easel
/
/
/
/
/ M291
/
50.00 \
SETBACK
VE DATA
'7�,M<67R 65.00'
6t26
= 6L75'
= I 6922'02' W
TYLER DRIVE
MANHOLE
RIM 88856
84S 877.15
6"N 877,31
r
FO T F
FD T IP
. eet3r
. erg
w
o
0
PLAT OF st?xvE1
LOT * IN REPLAT OF K1A39CY ESTATES BEING A F EDMSION OF
K 439 LY ESTATES, BONG A PART OF THE NOFf REAST V4 OF THE
NORTHEAST V4 OF SECTION 18, TOWNSW 5 NORTH, RANGE 20 EAST,
IN THE C(TY OF MU51 GO, WAUKESHA COUNTY, WISCONSK
AREA; 33,105 SgFt 0.75 Acres
L CEFM THAT f HAVE MRJEYF) 1K AODW O PFONMY, AND TFE AME MVP
6 A THE F8TES&iUT1CN TFS®F AND SFiOM TF£ WE AND LOCATION CF TF£ PROPMW
IFS EXfBVR 8"1. *M TF£ LOCATDN MD oFFNODhO OF ALL VI...,. r WRJCRiC5
7 OU041AW F&L3a 13 APPAFEW EASBAW MV ROADWAYS AND VME 04MgQA4luWM
M-M SLMEY F3 MACE FOR 7HE 84L OVE USE OF 7FE PFWE PROPERTY, AND ALSO THO
NO MilkiAhly F�� OR GLPPANrEE THE TIRE THSCM VKTm Ott (I YF/
Ri7i�
M OATS TI•F3M7F. �/�/V//
Dom' - L 19 �� - _
DATE
MAR( L, W+MM PLR ---'�—
FEO ERED LAND SURVEYM 3—W
01 /C
GRAPHIC SCALE
20 u 10 D
DRAWN BY;
1 inch = 20 ft CHECKED B'
J.D.R. DATE 03-18-96
MLW. JOB No: F 61037-01
Emil
LAND
INFORMATION
SERVICES
INC.
Elm, SURVEYOW
and CONSULTANTS
MO EASE KIO-MN STP&7
FLWALM WOOOtM M2M
4U-2?r- e
NEW RESIDENTIAL
Zoning Permit No.:
Date Submitted:
Tax Key No.:
Subdivision:
Address:
Zoning:
061-96 Bldg Permit No: 96-0467
040396 Completion Date: 041096
2229.022 Lot Number: 16
Kimberly Estates
S79 W20473 Tyler Drive
RS-1
ELEVATIONS:
Nearest Flood
Plain Elevation:
Final Yard Grade:
Difference:
none
891.5 per master grading plan
If near a flood plain, does one (1) foot of fill above the
flood plain elevation exist fifteen (15) feet from all
building sides: YES
Basement Floor Elevation: Basement habitable:
884.1 based on 12 course wail YES
COMMENTS:
SEWERED: YES
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: YES
ZONING REGULATIONS:
Lot Size:
Lot Width:
Set Back:
Off Sets:
1st Floor SF:
2nd Floor SF:
Total Sq. Ft.:
Max. Height:
Subdivision
Proposed Minimum
50.0
23.3/63/
1,321
1,327
2,648
34.2
40
20/20/50R
1.200
2,000
RS-1
Minimum
30.000
120
40
20/20
1,600
1,600
30
COMMENTS:
House exceeds height limit of 30', will require variance prior
to approval, message left on 041096.
Recommendation: APPROVAL, based on variance being granted.
Approval Date: 041096
Aw �Itv�rta� r �u�•M�tttd r/z/V f.ftl 4e�p4o-.