Loading...
Zoning Board of Appeals- - Minutes Corrected 12/08/1988AMENDED 10/26/89 Page 2 Board of Appeals, 12/08/88 Minutes APPEAL 23-88 - RONALD PEUSE Mr. Peuse appeared before the Board to request a offset variance to allow an existing turn -around to remain within the offset area. Attorney Tom Glembocki was also present. He stated that Mr. Peuse had an existing gravel driveway in 1978 and had located stakes; the stakes were moved when Hwy. 36 was widened. Mr. Peuse hired a surveyor and found that his Neighbor was encroaching on his property. Mr. Lee stated that he found the surveyor stake from 1987. Mr. R. J. White, a neighbor at S99 W12953 Loomis Road, was present and stated he lived west of Mr. Peuse and if he was to sell his property, there would be a discrepancy in the lot line. It was mentioned that Mr. Peuse's turn -around is completely on his own lot line presently. Mr. Peuse paved the turn -around in 1978 and thought he was paving 3' from the lot line. Mr. White said that he told Mr. Peuse where the stakes were. APPEAL 24-88 GAIL PENEGOR Mrs. Penegor appeared before the Board to request a 24 square foot size variance to install a flat wall sign. Charlie Kowalski, who was representing Unique Sign Imaging was also present and stated that Mrs. Penegor's sign would be the same color scheme as her Inch By Inch business in Hales Corners and it will be single faced matching Mr. Damaske's sign. Mr. Lee stated that Damaske's sign is so large, there is little room for Inch By Inch's sign. Mr. Lee stated that the Plan Commission gave architectural approval, but felt too much signage was on this size of wall. Mr. Lee questioned whether Mr. Fitzgerald, who wrote the lease with Mrs. Penegor, could request Mr. Damaske to make his sign smaller? The Board of Appeals remained in open session. APPEAL 21-88 Mr. O'Neil stated that there is no place for the garage adjoining the screen porch since it is living area. Mr. Berken expressed his concern about the large size of the garage and being so close to the road. Mr. O'Neil moved to postpone the decision on this request for one month to allow for an on -site inspection to see where the garage would be placed and plans could be submitted. Mr. Fohr seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion carried. APPEAL 22-88 Mr. Fohr moved to postpone the decision on this appeal or one month. Mr. Berken seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion carried. Page 3 Board of Appeals, 12/08/88 Minutes APPEAL 23-88 After some discussion Mr. Erno moved to approve the appeal as submitted. The hardship is the pre- existing, condition and the turn -around does not encroach on the neighbor's property. Mr. Berken seconded and the motion carried. APPEAL 24-88 After some discussion Mr. O'Neil moved to approve the appeal with the condition that when the sign lettering is changed, the sign must be down sized. The hardship being that there are several businesses in one building and the square footage allowed is not enough for all occupants. Mr. Fohr seconded and the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. O'Neil moved to adjourn at 8:30 P.M. Mr. Fohr seconded and the motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Cheryl Schmidt Recording Secretary /cds CORRECTED 6/22/89 CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD ON 12/08/88. Chairman Gerald Fohr called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: - Chairman Gerald Fohr, Thomas Berken, Lloyd Erno, Terry O'Neil Donald Pionek and Director Gerald Lee. ABSENT: Linda Koester and Darryl Rowinski. MINUTES: Mr. Berken moved to approve the Minutes of October 27, 1988. Mr. Erno seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion carried. Chairman Fohr stated that he has received a letter of resignation from Carol Nievinski. APPEAL 21-88 - JIM TAYLOR Mr. Taylor appeared before the Board to request a 2 1/2' offset variance; 17' setback variance; 2 1/2' separation variance; 6 1/2' height variance to construct a garage and rec. room. Mr. Lee stated that it is zoned RS3/OLS and stated that Mr. Taylor would in fact need a 5' offset variance. The separation variance is the distance between the principle building and the garage and the ordinance states that there can be a 10'separation between the garage and the principle building. In regard to the height for the rec. room above the garage, it cannot exceed 15' (it is separated by a fire wall). Mr. Lee said that a neighbor of Mr. Taylor has connected a breezeway to the house and got extra height with a 2-story garage in that manner. Mr. Taylor was asked if he could get into the garage without backing towards the street and go head first toward the street? It was mentioned that perhaps some of the existing chain link fence would have to come down to accomplish this. Mr. Taylor was asked if he could attach the garage to his house by means of a breezeway or if he planned in the future to do so? It was also mentioned that Mr. Taylor could attach the garage at the enclosed porch area of the house. Mr. Taylor explained that the enclosed porch area is now kitchen living space and windows would be affected. It was suggested that Mr. Taylor put the garage on the lake side of the property. Mr. Taylor explained that the area has a retaining wall, patio doors and the yard doesn't lend itself to garage construction very well. APPEAL 22-88 - POBLOCKI & SONS CO. Mr. Lee stated that our office had received a call stating that Poblocki & Sons wished to have their appeal postponed until our January 26, 1989 meeting in regard to their request for a variance for their additional signage at St. Francis Savings & Loan. Page 2 Board of Appeals, 12/08/88 Minutes APPEAL 23-88 - RONALD PEUSE Mr. Peuse appeared before the Board to request a offset variance to allow an existing driveway to remain within the offset area. Attorney Tom Glembocki was also present. He stated that Mr. Peuse had an existing gravel driveway in 1978 and had located stakes; the stakes were moved when Hwy. 36 was widened. Mr. Peuse hired a surveyor and found that his neighbor was encroaching on his property. Mr. Lee stated that he found the surveyor stake from 1987. Mr. R.J. White, a neighbor at S99 W12953 Loomis Road, was present and stated he lived west of Mr. Peuse and if he was to sell his property, there would be a discrepancy in the lot line. It was mentioned that Mr. Peuse's driveway is completely on his own lot line presently. Mr. Peuse paved the driveway in 1978 and thought he was paving 3' from the lot line. Mr. White said that he told Mr. Peuse where the stakes were, wrote a letter to the Building Inspection Office questioning the 3' offset for the driveway. APPEAL 24-88 - GAIL PENEGOR Mrs. Penegor appeared before the Board to request a 24 square foot size variance to install a flat wall sign. Charlie Kowalski, who was representing Unique Sign Imaging was also present and stated that Mrs. Penegor's sign would be the same color scheme as her Inch By Inch business in Hales Corners and it will be single faced matching Mr. Damaske's sign. Mr. Lee stated that Damaske's sign is so large, there is little room for Inch by Inch's sign. Mr. Lee stated that the Plan Commission gave architectural approval, but felt too much signage was on this size of wall. Mr. Lee questioned whether Mr. Fitzgerald, who wrote the lease with Mrs. Penegor, could request Mr. Damaske to make his sign smaller? The Board of Appeals remained in open session. APPEAL 21-88 Mr. O'Neil stated that there is no space for the garage adjoining the screen porch since it is living area. Mr. Berken expressed his concern about the large size of the garage and being so close to the road. Mr. O'Neil moved to postpone the decision on this request for one month to allow for an on -site inspection to see where the garage would be placed and plans could be submitted. Mr. Fohr seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion carried. APPEAL 22-88 Mr. Fohr moved to postpone the decision on this appeal vote the motion for one month. Mr. Berken seconded. Upon a voice carried. Page 3 Board of Appeals, 12/08/88 Minutes APPEAL 23-88 After some discussion Mr. Erno moved to approve the appeal as submitted. The hardship is the pre- existing condition and the driveway does not encroach on the neighbor's property. Mr. Berken seconded and the motion carried. APPEAL 24-88 After some discussion Mr. O'Neil moved to approve the appeal with the condition that when the sign lettering is changed, the sign must be down sized. The hardship being that there are several businesses in one building and the square footage allowed is not enough for all occupants. Mr. Fohr seconded and the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. moved to adjourn at 8:30 P.M. Mr. Fohr seconded and the motion carried. Respectfully Submitted �j Cheryl Schmidt Recording Secretary /cs