Zoning Board of Appeals 22-1997CITY OF -'
_MUSKEGO
-1
September 3, 1997
Mr, David Conley
S70 W18899 Gold Drive
Muskego, WI 53150
RE: Appeal *22-97
Dear Mr. Conley:
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
Matthew G. Sadowski, AICP
Director of Planning
(414) 679-4136
The Board of Appeals wishes to advise you that your appeal from
Section 4.05 (2) C.4, Accessory Uses and Structures, Permanent
Structures to allow a 560 square foot detached garage was approved
with the condition that the existing garage structure be removed
within 30 days of occupancy of the new garage.
Should you have any question, please contact Carlos Trejo at
679-5674.
Please be advised a building permit is required prior to commencing
with building on your property.
Sincerely,
Susan J. hroeder
Recording Secretary
W182 S8200 Racine Avenue • Box 903 a Muskego, Wisconsin 53150-0903 • Fax (414) 679-5614
Appeal #22-97
David Conley
S70 W 18899 Gold Drive
Tax Key No, 2180.943
Muskego, WI 53150
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. Said regulation states no detached private garage shall have a floor area greater than 60% of
the floor area of the principal building on the lot. Petitioner seeks a 80 square foot variance to total 560
square feet. (only 480 s.f permitted)
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Approve as submitted. Hardship stated: unique shape of lot, the dwelling unit being to small in
comparison to the required minimum zoning square footage, connecting garage to home would be
expansion of an already legal nonconforming structure, location along a dead end street and lack
of basement.
APPEAL AMENDED TO INCLUDE THAT EXISTING GARAGE AND SLAB TO BE
REMOVED WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER FINAL INSPECTION.
Approved
Chairman O'Neil
�,:9�MZe4�2Approved
Vice Chairman Brandt
Absent
Member Herda
1 IL
Approved
Mem er Schepp
R � Nk,)-,
�n N3-
Denied —
Approved
Ross (1 st Alt.)
great, and Mr. Kogutiewicz has physical mobility problems to
work on the vehicles if they were stored in a tight area.
Mr. Trejo stated the property is actually 2.1 acres and is zone
R-1 Country Home. Because it is under 2.75 acres it falls under
the 60% rule for outbuildings. A 20' x 20' garage (499 s.f.) is
the maximum allowable. The Kogutiewicz have not exhausted all
their options for creating a larger open space to satisfy their
needs. They can still convert and remodel the existing barn,
they can expand the existing attached garage, or they can raze
the old barn and build a new one. It is Staff's opinion that a
hardship has not be shown.
Mike Brandt returned to the Board.
Appeal #22-97, David Conley, S70 W18899 Gold Drive, Tax Key No.
2180.943. Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal
Provisions, the petitioner seeks one (1) variance, Chapter
17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.05 (2) C.4, Accessory Uses and
Structures, Permanent Structures. Said regulation states no
detached private garage shall have a floor area greater than 60%
of the floor area of the principal building on the lot.
Petitioner seeks a 80 square foot variance to total 560 square
feet. (only 480 s.f. permitted)
Chairman O'Neil administered an oath to David Conely. Mr.
Conely stated he currently has a 17' x 25' deep block garage
with a 7 foot overhead door. His vehicles do not fit side by
side inside because of the width. He owns three vehicles and a
boat. He is requesting a 20' wide x 28' deep new garage with in
the conformance area. The garage would be deep in space for
length wise due to the offset requirements and the additional
space would give him needed storage area. His home has no
basement or attic storage area.
Mr. Trejo stated under the 60% rule, a 480 sq. ft. garage would
be allowable, he is 80 feet short for his request. The proposed
garage would fit within the offset and setback. The existing
garage was built prior to the 1963 Ordinance and is to close to
the lot line. An alternative to the variance would be to attach
the garage to the home.
Mr. Conley stated his hardship is a lack of storage, his house
was originally a cottage, and the narrowness of the parcel
leaves him with no other alternative. He is willing to remove
the existing garage to allow for the larger one which would
enable him to park more than one vehicle inside.
Appeal #23-97, Gary and Joanne Webb, S70 W17575 Muskego Drive,
Tax Key No. 2176.169. Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1)
Appeal Provisions, the petitioner seeks (2) variances:
1. Chapter 17-Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.06 (2) A.1 Legal
Nonconformity: Classification and Regulation. No such
Mr. Schneider stated he would be removing an old structure and
replacing it with a new one, increasing the value of the
surrounding properties and making the area more attractive.
DELIBERATIONS:
Appeal # 21-97 Mr. Brandt stepped down during the deliberations.
Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve the appeal as submitted.
Mr. Ross seconded. It was determined that no hardship existed,
the appellant still had the options of removing the existing
barn, modify it, expanding it, or expanding the existing
attached garage. Upon roll call vote, motion failed. 3-1 (Mr.
Schepp voting yes).
Mr. Brandt returned to his chair.
Appeal #22-97 Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve the appeal as
submitted. Mr. Brandt seconded. It was discussed that the lot
is uniquely shaped and the dwelling unit small in comparison to
the required zoning minimum square footage. The petitioner can
not attach the garage, since the home is nonconforming. And the
lack of a basement makes a good argument for the need for
increased storage. Mr. Schepp made a motion to amend the
approval to include that the existing garage and slab must come
down within 30 days after final inspection. Mr. Brandt
seconded. The dead end street was also taken into consideration
for allowing the appeal. Upon roll call vote, the motion
carried 4-1 (Mr. Schneiker voted
no).
Appeal #23-97 Mr. Brandt made a motion to approve the appeal as
submitted. Mr. Ross seconded. It was determined there is a
hardship for the dormers (lack of storage because of a partial
basement). The members discussed reorientation of the garage to
be within the setback and offset. It was agreed upon to defer
the garage and driveway request for 60 days and for a new
drawing be submitted. Mr. Brandt made a motion to amend the
variance request and approve only the addition of the dormers
and defer the remaining appeal until revised drawings are
submitted within a 60 day period, Mr. Ross seconded. Upon roll
call vote, the amended appeal was approved unanimously.
APPEAL #24-97 Mr. Brandt made a motion to approve appeal as
submitted. Mr. Ross seconded. Discussion ensued regarding the
existing garage and the lack of a hardship for this request.
Upon roll call vote, the appeal was denied. (5-0).
OLD BUSINESS:
APPEAL #20-97 Mr. Schepp made a motion to approve a request to
reconsider Appeal #20-97. Mr. Schneiker seconded. The Board
agreed that no new evidence has been submitted to justify a
rehearing and that not being in attendance at the scheduled
meeting justified a need for rehearing. Upon a roll call vote,
the motion to approve the reconsideration was denied, 4-0. (Mike
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 28, 1997, 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 24, 1997, MEETING
5. OLD BUSINESS
Request to reconsider Appeal # 20-97.
Signing of decision letters for June and July meetings.
6. NEW BUSINESS
Appeal # 21-97
Edward and Sandra Kogutkiewicz
S 103 W 19439 Kelsey Drive
Tax Key No. 2285.997.001
Muskego, WI 53150
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. Said regulation states no detached private garage shall have a floor area greater than 60% of
the floor area of the principal building on the lot. Petitioner seeks a 128 square foot variance to total
1,440 square feet. (only 1,312 s.f. permitted)
Appeal ##22-97
David Conley
S70 W 18899 Gold Drive
Tax Key No. 2180.943
Muskego, WI 53150
REQUESTING: Under the direction of Section 3.08 (1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks one (1)
variance:
I. Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.05 (2) CA, Accessory Uses and Structures, Permanent
Structures. Said regulation states no detached private garage shall have a floor area greater than 60% of
the floor area of the principal building on the lot. Petitioner seeks a 80 square foot variance to total 560
square feet. (only 480 s.f. permitted)
CITY OF MUSKEGO
BOARD OF APPEALS
lication for Variance
Applicants Name Oe?1/114Q_ 6:941e
Subject Property Address: 51;7e
Telephone S//
Property Zoning 25.3/0L_5
&eta( Or
Key # 24r)
Petitioner's relationship to property (circle applicable):
owner lessee other
Fees: $195.00
Date inspector denied permit: '414�
Requesting variance to Section S 42- aerl 4.63
To allow:
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:
X �/I .� v� ri trot ro s
-edms�r !t r 3 f_r d
1 ,
D
The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect public safety
or jeopardize public welfare because:
C � Q
L �a
y � �
O J
ZIN
FSN
:1 n}.7ti:E..
i
s2
(! R
n W ,
� � - - - ^' aromas �o w• --- -- - -
3 DE.SC-
yo Z--------------
C
v � U
z
_ _ r GOCP EG 7 ED
� �l
if iD
55•�
fl �
� � Z
z775 h455�C .
E�� .sue/y'•._ � s--.�-� -. N
c
vY
{t�
V�
3 Arco pEsC -
Ik�E� c1MGn
y4 � LSl z
v
350
346 p�sG
360
F�
e
O
o
{r
N
0
nn
ink
,:QGA7Ef7 �I
f�E4IJ
55•Q
o�
(b,
r
77,5 DEsc '
- da9�9.y,�A -
S a/'os'ia"E.
I have reviewed the plans for the proposed garage at S. 70 W. 18899 Gold Dr.
and I have seen the application for variance. I believe the project will improve the
property and enhance the neighborhood. I believe that granting this variance would be in
the public interest and would not adversely affect public safety. I support the proposed
construction and urge the Board Of Appeals to grant the variance.
Name:'
Address: s
Signature:
Name
Addre
Signature:
Name:
Address:
Signature: _
Name:
Address:
Signature: _
Name:
Address:
Signature: _