Loading...
ZBA-Minutes 01-1989CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD ON January 26, 1989. Chairman Gerald Fohr called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: - Chairman Gerald Fohr, Lloyd Erno, Terry O'Neil Mr. Donald Pionek, Mr. Darryl Rowinski and Assistant Director Gene Kovacs appearing for Director Lee. ABSENT: - Thomas Berken and Linda Koester and Director Lee. MINUTES: Mr. Erno moved to adopt the minutes of the December 8, 1988 meeting. Mr. O'Neil seconded and the motion carried with a voice vote. APPEAL 21-88 - JI14 TAYLOR Mr. Taylor appeared before the Board to request a offset variance; 17' setback variance; 2 1/2' separation variance; 6 1/2' height variance to construct a garage and rec. room. Mr. O'Neil asked Mr. Taylor if he would consider attaching the garage to the house? Mr. Erno questioned whether there would be an overhang on the roof and if gutters would be provided to prevent water from draining onto his neighbors's property. It was mentioned that a garage with a breezeway constructed would be an option, but would only eliminate the need for one variance. It would still be near the roadway. Mr. Erno felt if it was attached to the 2-story house, the rec. room would have access to the house for the bathrooms, etc. Chairman Fohr asked if the gas meter, phone and electric would have to be moved? Mr. Taylor said they would. APPEAL 22-88 - POBLOCKI & SONS CO. Jim Eckel and Tom Kratsch of St. Francis Savings & Loan appeared before the Board to request a variance from the Plan Commission decision denying architectural approval of the reader board signage to allow 21 square feet of signage on an existing nonconforming sign. Mr. Kovacs stated that this appeal was postponed from the Board's December 8, 1988 meeting. The Plan Commission review of the signage was denied as they felt it was a nonconforming sign and exceeding the zoning requirment for signage. Mr. Eckel stated that they are allowed 52-53 square feet for the length of their building; they have 73' of which 12 1/2' is included in the time and temperature. According to the code, based on the size of the building, they could put the sign on the side of their building. They prefer to put the sign on the freestanding post to be more architecturally pleasing. They would maintain the sign. Mr. Eckel passed out pictures to the members showing Page 2 - Bd. of Appeals 1/26/89 other savings and loan branches. He felt that they support the community with the "Green Up" project and the sign would be with changeable letters and not be flashing. Mr. Rowinski asked how many savings and loan branches are erecting reader board signs? Mr. Eckel responded 6 out of 11 at the present time. Mr. O'Neil questioned what the Plan Commission minutes stated. Mr. Bill Simons was also present and stated that since this is a commercial zone it should be permitted. He felt St. Francis Savings & Loan has been good for the community. APPEAL 1-89 - WILLIAM GEBHARD Mr. Gebhard appeared before the Board to request a 3offset variance from the west lot line to install a driveway. Mr. Gebhard stated that he did not know about the 3' setback. Mr. Kovacs stated that he was out to view the driveway and that it has a stone base, is approximately 10' wide, and there is a need to have it hard surfaced. Mr. Gebhard responded that he intended to pave it. Mr. Erno commented that the permits should tell the people that they must be 3' from the lot line. It would help with new home construction. Mr. Erno stated that he lives next door to Mr. Gebhard and has no objection to the driveway being placed where it is. Mr. Gebhard mentioned that his slab approach is already in and the driveway would line up. APPEAL 2-89 - MUSKEGO MARINE Mr. Simons appeared before the Board on behalf of Mr. Langfeldt, who is requesting a 9' offset variance for an existing storage shed to remain 1' from the lot line. Mr. Kovacs stated that the shed was approximately 12' x 20' and used for business storage of their products (gas cans, etc.). No permit was obtained. There are numerous boats and any outdoor storage is getting increasingly difficult. Mr. Erno questioned whether in the future there would be a problem if the other property owner wished to put up a structure? He would like to see a time limit imposed. Mr. Simons commented that the shed was moveable and permits would be taken out once advised. Mr. Pionek asked if the owner leased space for boat storage? The answer was yes. APPEAL 3-89 - GERALD LOEBEL Mr. Loebel appeared before the Board requesting an appeal from an administrative officer. Mr. Kovacs stated that this is R-1 zoning which is Residential. Mr. Loebel was sent a letter by Mr. Lee informing him that he had violated a city zoning ordinance by manufacturing in one of the buildings, and that there were a number of commercial vehicles not approved at that site. He does have a Conditional Use Grant for indoor storage of recreational equipment. He was given 10 days to stop violating. Mr. Loebel came into the Department of Building Inspection to discuss that matter with Gerry Lee. Mr. Lee informed him that he could go before the Plan Commission for rezoning to Commercial or Industrial Use or go before the Board of Appeals to get a Page 3 -Board of Appeals 1/26/89 variance ruling. The administrative decision did not deal with the use of the property --- it is the Plan Commission's authority. Mr. Loebel spoke about his business. He stated that he has been living there since 1973 and since 1982 has been manufacturing. Since 1986 he has paid Industrial real estate taxes. He feels he is not in violation. The business is his sole support of his family and he runs a clean business. The city has known about his business for many years, as an electrical permit was taken out and the property was inspected. He also is certified by the State of Wisconsin. John Johnson, a neighor to the north, was present to give his views. He stated that he was the first house to build in the area, and feels the business is not conducive to the residential district and would limit his property value. He felt Mr. Loebel should have his business in the Industrial Park. Mr. Loebel responded that he has 7 acres and would bring in people to verify his request. Judy Wachowiak, who owns land in the area and plans to build a house there in the spring, voiced her desire to see it remain residential zoning. Chairman Fohr commented that Parker Drive has several masons, sewer contractors, a dog kennel, and a landfill in the area. Odie Iwaskiewicz, a neighbor, stated she would like to see the area remain residential and not have his business expand. Larry Wachowiak, a neighbor, commented that he could bring_ his truck business into the area, but he would like to see the area remain residential. Mr. Loebel again stated that the city had given him verbal approval. When asked if he would be relocating his business? He responded that he didn't know when. He reiterated the fact that he has paid Industrial taxes for the past two years and presented his tax bill. Chairman Fohr declared a five minute recess. The Board of Appeals reconvened into open session. APPEAL 21-88 After some discussion Mr. Erno moved to deny the appeal as submitted but grant an appeal with the following changes: 1) That to construct a 2-story garage, the building shall be re -positioned on the lot such that it will be in alignment with the south offset of the existing house. 2) That the garage shall be attached to the house by a breezeway. 3) That the garage dimensions be 20' x 22'. The hardship is the location of the existing house on the property and the limited land area. Mr. O'Neil seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion carried. Page 4 - Board of Appeals 1/26/89 APPEAL 22-88 Mr. O'Neil moved to approve the appeal as submitted for a variance from the Plan Commission decision denying architectural approval of reader board signage on an existing nonconforming sign and for a 21 square foot signage variance. The hardship is the limited sign area and portion of existing signage is only used for time and temperature and not for advertising. Mr. Pionek seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion carried. APPEAL 1-89 Mr. 0 Neil moved to approve the appeal as submitted. The hardship being the pre-existing gravel driveway. Mr. Fohr seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion carried. APPEAL 2-89 Mr. Fohr moved to deny the appeal as requested but grant an appeal with the following changes: 1) a 6 month variance to find alternate location for the shed on site to meet offset requirements. 2) That the applicant make application to the Building Inspection Department for the shed permit and pay the required fees. The hardship is the temporary lack of space. Mr. O'Neil seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion carried. APPEAL 3-89 Mr. Rowinski moved to approve the appeal as submitted granting the applicant a variance from the 10 day cease and desist order from the administrative officer and granting the applicant a six month extension of time to allow him time to pursue other options and to allow time for the city to obtain a review and opinion for the City Attorney regarding this matter. The Board requested Mr. Loebel come before the Board of Appeals for review at the end of the 6 month time period. The hardship being that 10 days is not enough time to pursue other options. Mr. O'Neil seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. O'Neil moved to adjourn at 11:00 P.M. Mr. Erno seconded and the motion carried with a voice vote. Respectfully Submitted Cheryl Schmidt Recording Secretary /cs