Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals 13-1995CITY OF MUSKEGO June 23, 1995 Mr. & Mrs. Teri Evans S69 W13830 Tess Corners Drive Muskego, WI 53150 RE: S69 W13830 Tess Corners Drive Dear Mr. & Mrs. Evans: 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 to allow 2.3% was amended to allow only 1.7% of the lot area of the proposed Parcel 1 to be covered by outbuildings from Section 8.07(7)B.1 and Section 8.01(7)B.2 and was approved as amended. Sincerely, Carlos Trejo cc: Chairman Pionek W182 S8200 Racine Avenue • Box 903 • Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0903 • Fax (414) 679-5614 }�r. tiZrt [�tCcSs �,r �,• C*T f� t'<< f !IC'C'l Ct eeei �c:r" L'���" ����ft ��t�JS• ���"ftic�.Z�� SCE�< S ,a�..�j,� 'ice C4-iilmco �jr f �1�� �`� ���� ��;4 Ol 5c )Af i p P)r- /-I C�-J C, Bret -17J X CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD ON NNE 22, 1995. Meeting called to order at 7:00 PM. PRESENT: Chairman Don Pionek, Vice Chairman Henry Schneiker, Mr. Frank Kerr, Mr. Ed Herda, Mr. Michael Brandt, Mr. Matt Sadowski, and Mr. Carlos Trejo. ABSENT: Mr. Terry O'Neil and Mr. Dan Schepp. MINUTES: Mr. Kerr made the motion to amend and adopt the minutes from the May 25, 1995, meeting, Mr. Herda seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion to adopt the minutes of the May 25, 1995, meeting passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Appeal # 13--95 Bernie and Teri Evans, S69 W13830 Tess Corners Drive, Muskego, Wisconsin. Chairman Pionek read the appeal for Mr. Bernie Evans. Requesting relief from Chapter 17, Section 8.07(7)B.1 RS-2 Suburban Residence District, Permitted Accessory Uses and Section 8.01(7)B.2 RCE Country Estate District,Permitted AccessorV Uses. Said sections permits the combined total floor area of all outbuildings of lots of at least 120,000 square feet and up to 400,000 square feet be equal to 1% of the total lot area. The zoning is RS-2, 20,000 square foot Suburban District. Director Sadowski updated the Board and Mr. Evans of the proceedings of the May 25, 1995, Board meeting, in which Appeal #13--95 was deferred. The Planning Commission approved the Evan's preliminary sketch, but left it up to the Board to decide if the Evans should have an excess amount of outbuilding square footage. Mr. Evans presented the Board with pictures of the lot, house, and barn. Mr. Evans described the lot and barn to the Board and stressed its historical importance and value to both the City of Muskego and the State of Wisconsin. Mr. Evans told the Board of the support expressed by his neighbors for keeping the barn. Mr. Evans expressed that he understood that the subdivision would put parcel one (1) in excess of the percentage of square footage permitted by the ordinance, but that permitting the barn to stay would still uphold the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board discussed what the percentages were for parcel one (1) with the barn and with and without the garage and shed. Discussion ensued over the garage structure. Director Sadowski reported to the Board that Alderman Misko opposed the petitioner's request and felt the Board should up hold the ordinance. Appeal # 16-95 Kids Kampus Day Care, Sue Krienitz, S84 W18473 Enterprise Drive, Muskego, Wisconsin. Chairman Pionek read the appeal for Ms. Pam Bacheldor. Requesting relief from Chapter 17, Section 4.03(2) Structures Other Than Buildings and Section 8.15 (3) I-1 Industrial Park District Building Location. Said sections Page 2 Board of Appeals, June 22, 1995 require that structures not classified as buildings, but six (6) inches or more in height, conform to a fifty (50) foot setback. The Petitioner requests a thirty (30) foot setback for a dumpster. The zoning is an I-1, Industrial Park District. Ms. Bacheldor informed the Board that the dumpster was relocated to its present location to ensure the general safety and welfare of the children. Currently, the children use the paved area of the original dumpster location for various activities. She felt that leaving the dumpster in .its original location would threaten the children's safety. Therefore, the day care relocated the dumpster at its current location near the road and way from the activity areas of the day care. Appeal #17-95 Robert Sindic, S74 W17522 Lake Drive, Muskego, Wisconsin. Chairman Pionek read the appeal for Mr. Robert Sindic. Requesting relief from Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, petitioner seeks relief from Chapter 30, Sections 30.43(3)C. Garages, General Requirements, Area. Said section limits the size of all wood frame constructed garages to 720 square feet, unless divided by a fire wall. Petitioner requests and exemption to placing a fire wall for a 1,196 square foot garage. The zoning is RS-3/0LS. 15,000 square foot Suburban Residence and Lake Shore District. Mr. Sindic told the Board that complying to the square footage and wall division requirement would defeat the purpose of expanding the garage. He also stated that the Director of the Building Department is in the process of eliminating this section of the ordinance. Mr. Sindic also presented to the Board three (3) previous variances that the Board had granted. DELIBERATION OF APPEALS APPEAL #17-95 Mr. Brandt made a motion to approve the appeal as submitted. The hardship stated was that the City is planning to abolish the code, past precedence has been set in granting such a variance on the basis that the wall would make garages of this size useless, and that the structure is located away from the home or any other primary dwelling units. Mr. Herda seconded. Upon a roll call vote, Appeal #17-95 passed unanimously. APPEAL 116-95 Mr. Schneiker made a motion to approve the appeal as submitted. The hardship stated was that relocating the dumpster to the original location would endanger the safety and welfare of the children; however, the Board requested that the dumpster be completely enclosed with an appropriate fence and gate and that the dumpster be inside the fenced in area at all times when not in service. Mr. Kerr seconded. Upon a roll call vote, Appeal #16-95 passed unanimously. APPEAL #13-95 The Board deliberated what type of hardship would apply. Mr. Herda mentioned that the petitioner has maintained three (3) options: keep the barn with no garage, keep Page 3 Board of Appeals, June 22, 1995 the garage and no barn, or keep the garage and barn and not subdivide; thus, the petitioner is imposing his own hardship by subdividing the property. Discussion ensued over the garage. The Board felt that it would be best not to include a variance for the garage structure and granting the owner a sufficient variance to subdivide the lots, leaving the need for a garage to be decided by future owners. Mr. Schneiker made a motion to amend Appeal #13-95 to reflect Appeal #22-91, which granted a 1.7% square footage variance to the original five (5) acre lot and apply that to the three (3) acre lot. The hardship stated was that it will continue an already pre -approved variance and will permit the petitioner to keep the barn. Mr. Kerr seconded. Upon a roll call vote, amended Appeal #13-95 passed unanimously. MISCELANEOUS BUSINESS Director Sadowski informed the Board of a proposal to change the ordinance that identifies and permits sheds of 120 square feet with a maximum height of nine (9) feet. He stated that the matter was brought to the Planning Commission for review, but the Commission had mixed views about the matter. Chairman Pionek supported a need for a change in the ordinance, but that the matter should be further researched and reviewed. Chairman Pionek asked Director Sadowski if inspections were performed to enforce requests granted for a second garage structures in which a condition was placed to remove a secondary structure. Director Sadowski said he would look into the matter. Chairman Pionek informed the Board of a letter submitted to the City Attorney in regards to the permitted participation of alternate members. To date, no response has been received. Director Sadowski informed the Board that the proposed training session for Board memebers had been cancelled and that the Mayor and he were looking for alternative solutions. Mr. Herda made a motion to adjourn, Mr. Schneicker seconded. Upon a voice vote, the motion to adjourn passes unanimously. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 PM. Respectfully submitted, CJ�sos Trejo Recording Secretary CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS Application for Variance Applicants Name Subject Property Address �J CO P u Telephone— ,z, Property Zoning: � � �-� Key # _� �, 66 Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable): 2 �( owner lessee other �x 1L�3• �C( " Fees: 0.00 Date inspector denied permit: Requesting variance to Section GPEA1504cF_ Ago 1A i1cuF To allow: A literal enforcement of the terms of the above -referenced section would result in practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship because: A e f n .1 _.., The varian_ interest and willbein accord with the spirit of the code because: The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety or jeopardize public welfare because: Page l of 2 T7CT^ORM: BOAVAR 4-B-93 NMV►EE .053 HALE ARK � IJ . Na •' saw"OW _ ass �.s F 3 J]04 J�9 .037 164 IW .166 .167 I6B �m f I y= S •I ' Irman • -' Lad mov wow I 2 3 4 3 c IL If It 0 9 8 .41, 1 x 050 +�.1?3 .178 .ITT Z" 0 IV e yze,RS� 14 038 .184 .,BS = 11 040 Y, io aaaf' z� 182 i83 cc T NSA fa]f S 3 J m 21 T food $ 4 O SHALE PARK G HALE'aj 'PARK W�— rR .011 .012 cY� 29 „Qa iLJf f 28 • +� gBLOCK 3 hq�, � • O .24� A ,,92 Cal 002 �^ j a + T 014 ao ovLi 'oeu O { Ify„ SfDFn OIS Ad s qa. ff 1� ' ate. r'19 � - ' •i :.T"1 '_ - $ 1'' 1 = 19S 019 3 L as°o S2 1 fff JJJ - ' & IaafT• ! I'n• as.°° 31 or li •-,S LOGI� fafp dpl7 >.f W r.+rl.rs BRISTCECNE d If 4 �' _ 111111 [oil I go.133 u aaa3 g :.4 z A ITION 0.I 0 \ s n z Qlye J36 al OUTLor 1 i R -,` 1;7 Y 3 .028 .. 99T i s5 99g 1 �4 008 L . FARM ■ JL .997001 ® -o \9 - rat i3J .°r.c ppZ s 990 rY1RL 1 MIMR 'M• t' _ !VC v °. �4) aae ear . .999003 a 9y ° p S 4Y aflu , fo, a 3 6� cr f i 4 ` ' � 999 004 . ear f°e In {\/_�/� ' Qi`,� �'• i � 4 993 999.00b 3" V N W O On ' `HALEPARK WEST Z I w m 4 ,5p_ 1 o FROCK ►�i Q1• o � D m I 0 3o00. ("04'1730•E 5e4.30') o I o AiOn717E 5843a " A A zI� 402.50' O Qf}j� Ia n 110,00' -� p b m cl z l [I� I O } o O nm L =N QQ IC' Iro 8g soe wFt N0327'57'E c� l � C� m� m% o L I� I I F 110.00, lTj o . O v o A Imo am r,I 8 n m ; m � 0 '�� o D D D o zi vr"� 0 .0 -0 (n n `�r.JJ Q ~ n > fTl Rl fTl S a` I YI w y A �� n 8 {C��j (A W CA m fn C z G7 ' Qw �G 00 '° o f�*t RI S C C O O G u -' m n Z A I i I '" I V p �� N N �� _ z `~" t 292.50' n p M x 1r0.nQ(Na4i7110,00, O cn03 27'S7'E s032T57y1V O mm C(5241QCW M O /a 2 F `� � � ri ov T + JS Z �' � 8 CLAREN ~~ T S rn Ngo z —_PON PLACE �� � o. NCO 0 8 HALE PARK WEST—AO'N —N0. 1 Ell v c n M = 103 27'57'E 527.70' M n > �� ICI Ai�lbOl� n O iH04'IT30'E 527.70) PLACE -4 s SCALE 1' w 120' V� 22jj i co C. rt 'n n C m z Yi1 T z i y 25 50 75 t00 150 200 Y y �r �j O ri 0 300 _ N y �. 0 + m 0 Q $ N O D Q c A o IJ rc a� vyy H*?ARK WEST a 8t,0(:K 4 XI rI�J'j stz� 5fr) n�y�1250' 63.92Vo' � fz z I I o 0 0 1� I o s N 0 C m r I j�Si� 8ZmA {{{��� a yp /I �I " %^�b � 8 > b � � '�' //��� v� © • ^ f a yN ro ol rn 2 V J Ib X� r m m M N • r a �+ O 'I $ w 1'6 "yy� a >c �1 N I m at�eo — 0 4 292.50' r M (Hos�rlo t� 170_00' 110.00'co r57-E 4 BWZ"SZV70 N CLAR�N - ----____p�N PLACE s r Q N — Y + z N0.i 27'S7'E [� 527.70' !qsi (N"'17'w'c szi�v) ' PLACE a� SCALE : 1' a 120' SRN n vie-uin�N � so n too tso 200 � o a N Lq N U! T CITY OF � MUSKEGO�-Jjc May 30, 1995 Mr. & Mrs. Teri Evans S69 W13830 Tess Corners Drive Muskego, WI 53150 RE: S69 W13830 Tess Corners Drive Dear Mr. & Mrs. Evans: 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 to allow 1.7% to 2.3% of the lot area to be covered by outbuildings from Section 8.07(7)B.1 and Section 8.01(7)B.2 was deferred to allow review by the Plan Commission. Sincerely, Collette M. Klenz cc: Chairman Pionek W182 S8200 Racine Avenue • Box 903 9 Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0903 • Fax (414) 679-5614 DATE Mav 25, 1995 NAME ADDRESS _ TELEPHONE CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS Bernie & Teri Evans APPEAL # 13-95 S79 W13830 Tess Corners Drive PROPERTY LOCATION ON WHICH VARIANCE IS REQUESTED ADDRESS S79 W13830 Tess Corners Drive TYPE OF ZONING RS-2 1) Appealing Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, petitioner seeks relief from Chapter 17, Section 8.07(7)B.1 RS--2 Suburban Residence District, Permitted Accessory Uses and Section 8.01(7)B.2 RCE Country Estate District,Per_mitted Accessory Uses. The petitioner's zoning district requires that on lots of at least 120,000 square feet and up to and including 400,000 feet the total floor area of all outbuildings buildings combined does not exceed 1% of the lot area. Petitioner requests to exceed the total floor area from / % to 1 s� 3 80.00 FEE TO BE PAID AT TIME OF APPLICATION DATE PAID 05-09-95 RECEIPT NUMBER 136497 DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS ���L"�- ��k1'�C[t� .. ;ii� CV�C,� ��L� :7(6't.� Lt'.-+7,'�'lJS3iC•% f r rvr .�-cc�d ri{�p2i�l �,.- ;'�;-✓•:���{ r urr"ru/�,, f �Ix3 :tc i- ' �, CHAIRMAN PIONEK VICE-CHAIRMAN SC MEMBER O'NEIL MEMBER SCHEPP MEMBER KERR FIRST ALTERNATE HERDA SECOND ALTERNATE BRANDT Secretary Date APPROVED DENIED Page 3 Board of Appeals, May 25, 1995 Section 5.02(1) Building Location and Section 8.07(3) RS-2 Suburban Residence District, Building Location. Said sections require a 40 foot setback for all structures. The petitioner requests to expand a garage with a 31.0 foot setback. The zoning is RS-2, Suburban Residence District. Mr. Sadowski explained to the Board that when the primary unit of the lot was approved, the City made an error when considering the west lot line as a regular side yard offset, when in fact it was a street setback to the proposed Parkland Drive extension. Thus, the primary unit on the structure was permitted to be built non -conforming. Mr. Kroening stated that this was an imposed hardship placed on him and any future owners in which any additions placed conforming to the proper zoning restrictions would impact the current configuration of the house, both structurally and aesthetically. Mr. Dudash, the potential buyer, has made an offer to Mr. Kroening based that the variance being granted Appeal #15-95 - Appeal #15-95 Donald J. Ross & Kathy S. Ross W216 58790 Crowbar Drive, Muskego, WI. Chairman Pionek read the appeal for Mrs. Kathy S. Ross. Requesting relief from Chapter 17, Sections 5.02(1) Building Location and 8.19(3) Agricultural District, Building Location. Said sections require a 30 foot offset from side and rear property line. Petitioner requests to construct a deck with a 22.1 side yard offset. Zoning is Agricultural. Mr. Sadowski explained to the Board that the lot had originally been zoned Exclusive Agricultural. The existing lot was built in conformance to Exclusive Agricultural zoning regulations, which permits those in an R-3, Country Home District. When the City adopted the Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1992, the lot was rezoned Agricultural. Mrs. Ross stated that she would like to place a 24X26 deck behind the house. The deck would have the same side yard offset on the south property line that the housing unit has. The reason the deck is being located in this area is that the rear door of the house is in this location. The appellant believes that the City placed an imposed hardship on the owners when they rezoned the Property. Chairman Pionek closed the session for deliberation at 9:15 PM. DELIBERATION OF APPEALS APPEAL #11-95 - Mr. and Mrs. Alioto, W194 58464 Providence Way, Muskego, WI. Vice Chairman Schneiker abstained from the deliberation and voting of Appeal #13-95 due to his business associations with David & Goliath Builders, Inc. The Board discussed the total square footage of the basement floor. Discussion ensued if whether granting the variance would Page 2 Board of Appeals, May 25, 1995 Petitioner requests exemptions to the portions that set minimum insulation standards. The zoning is Agricultural. Chairman Pionek referred to a letter submitted by Mr. Chuck Dykstra, Director of the Building Department. The letter stressed that on February 20, 1995, Mr. Kindler signed an agreement to in full faith repair the home. The appellant waited 74 days before deciding to appeal administrative decision when it was discovered the appellant would have to make up energy losses for the home by insulating the basement perimeter and kitchen floor. The Board deliberated whether the appeal should be reviewed. Mr. Schepp made a motion not to hear the appeal on the basis that this would set precedence onto future appeals in which the prescribed time of appealing has expired. Mr Schepp also recommended that the appellants money be refunded. Mr. Brandt seconded. Upon a roll call vote, Appeal #12-95 was denied unanimously. Appeal # 13-95 - Bernie and Teri Evans, S69 W13830 Tess Corners Drive, Muskego, WI. Chairman Pionek read the appeal to Terry Evans and Paul Pelzek of W139 S6960 Sherwood Circle. Requesting relief from Chapter 17, Section 8.07(7)B.1 RS-2 Suburban Residence District, Permitted Accessory Uses and Section 8.01(7)B.2 RCE Country Estate District,Permitted Accessory Uses. The petitioner's zoning district requires that on lots of at least 120,000 square feet and up to and including 400,000 feet the total floor area of all outbuildings buildings combined does not exceed 1% of the lot area. Petitioner requests to exceed the total floor area from 1.1% to 1.6%. The zoning is RS-2, Suburban Residence District. Mr. Sadowski pointed out to the Board that the appeal was a request for a variance for 1.7% to 2.3%. The petitioner stated that she would like to subdivide the lots into three (3) parcels, two (2) at one (1) acre apiece and one (1) at three (3) acres. The three (3) acre lot, however, contains a barn, shed, and an approved second garage structure by the Planning Commission with a square footage variance from the Board. The second garage structure and variance were granted for the original five (5) acre lot. The petitioner requests that the three (3) acre lot be granted the same variance. The petitioner is also willing take down the existing shed and not build the proposed garage structure. The appellant stated she has tried to sell the current lot as a whole, but with the lot being surrounded by smaller lots, it has been difficult to sell such a large lot for a reasonable offer. By subdividing the lots, she could sell the smaller lots more quickly and make the three (3) acre lot more attractive. Appeal # 14-95 - Mike Dudash, S78 W16775 Spinnaker Drive, Muskego, WI. Chairman Pionek read the appeal for Mike Dudash of and Robert Kroening of S78 W16775 Spinnaker Drive and present owner of the subject lot. Requesting relief from Chapter 17, Page 4 Board of Appeals, May 25, 1995 permit the appellant to receive their occupancy permit or would any other issues be brought back to the Board. Mr. O'Neil made a motion to approve the appeal as submitted. The hardship cited was that the current difficulty to securing an occupancy permit is due to the square footage problem. This square footage was approved by the Building Department when it was originally submitted. Now that the square footage problem is a pre-existing condition, assuming no other discrepancies, the granting of the variance is not contrary to the public's interest and is consistent with the spirit of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Brandt seconded. Upon a roll call, Appeal #11-95 passed five (5) to one (1), with Mr. Schepp voting nay. APPEAL #12-95 - James Kindler, W216 S10621 Crowbar Road, Muskego, WI. The Board denied hearing Appeal #12-95 during deliberations. APPEAL #13-95 - Bernie and Terri Evans, S69 W13830 Tess Corners Drive, Muskego, WI. The Board deliberated over what type of hardship could be granted to ensure the preservation of the existing barn structure if the parcel was subdivided. Mr. Schneiker made a motion to approve the variance as submitted under the condition that the only outbuilding permitted is the existing barn structure at 2,337 square feet. The hardship cited was the unique historical appeal of the barn structure being an asset to the City and would be a severe loss to the City if it was torn down. Mr. Kerr seconded. Upon a voice vote, the motion was defeated unanimously. Since the appellant had not secured subdivision of the parcel, the Board believed granting a percentage variance for a fictional lot would be inappropriate. Mr. O'Neil made a motion to defer the appeal until reviewed by the Planning Commission and that the fee be waived for the second appeal or refunded if the appellant wished not to return. Mr. Schepp seconded. Upon a roll call vote, the motion to defer Appeal #13-95 passed unanimously. APPEAL #14-95 - Mike Dudash, S78 W16775 Spinnaker Drive, Muskego, WI. Chairman Pionek reminded the Board that the current location of the lot was an error in the City's part. Discussion ensued over how this hardship would be continuously transferred to any future owners. Mr. O'Neil made a motion to approve the appeal as submitted. The hardship cited was the pre-existing non -conforming status of the lot through the City's error. Mr. O'Neil further stated that the granting of this variance would not be contrary to the public's interest, would be within the character of the area, and would not effect the public's safety or welfare. Mr. Schneicker seconded. Upon a roll call vote, Appeal #14-95 passed unanimously. APPEAL #15-95 - Donald and Kathy Ross, W216 S8790 Crowbar Drive, Muskego, WI. Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve the appeal as submitted. The hardship cited was the imposed rezoning making the lot non -conforming. Mr. Schepp further stated that the granting of this variance would not be contrary to the public's interest, Page 5 Board of Appeals, May 25, 1995 would be within the character of the area, and would not effect the public's safety or welfare. Mr. Kerr seconded. Upon a roll call vote, Appeal #15-95 passed unanimously. MISCELANEOUS BUSINESS Discussion ensued over Appeal #9-95, Robert Sindic, S74 W17522 Lake Drive, Muskego, WI. Mr. Sadowski told the Board that he has had discussions with the appellant but no survey has been submitted to date. Chairman Pionek updated the Board over the proposed session for area Board of Appeals members. The session was cancelled, but a separate session will be done for the Board. No date has been set yet. Chairman Pionek explained to the new Board members the recent court ruling concerning the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals. Mr. Schneiker made a motion to adjourn, Mr. Kerr seconded. Upon a voice vote, the motion to adjourn passes unanimously. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:53 PM. Respectfully submitted, Carlos Trejo Recording Secretary