Loading...
ZBA-Minutes 28-1990�'�ff Or• ft �(C•f_:i{:EiiCi -'_ -,i- ._ - _ _-. � -,'��- -_ =--'J _ December 12, 1990 Aud-Mar Supper Club S79 W15851 Aud Mar Drive Muskego, WI 53150 Dear Owners: The Board of Appeals wishes to advise you that your request for a 66 1/2 sq. ft.-sizeyarianrro to allow a freestanding sign on the property addressed as S79 W15851 Aud Mar Dr., Muskego, WI has been granted as requested. Thank you. Sincerely, BOARD OF APPEALS _ C echmidt y Recording Secretary cds cc: Chairman Gerald Fohr r..i_o o- ,-ens '`e�:aanElc_'. �ncu.:L�1c_, cnG I`�trcciionuc �--acitaie:. CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 6, 1990. Chairman Gerald Fohr called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: - Chairman Gerald Fohr, Thomas Berken, Lloyd Erno. Bonnie Posbrig, Donald Pionek, Daryl Rowinski and Director Gerald Lee. ABSENT: Vice -Chairman Terry O'Neil. MINUTES: Mrs. Posbrig made a motion to approve the Minutes of the October 25, 1990 meeting and Mr. Erno seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion to approve passed unanimously. APPEAL 26-90 - PAUL WIEDMANN - Chairman Fohr read the appeal for Paul Wiedmann, c/o Atty. Scott V. Lowry, S77 W18548 Janesville Road requesting 9' offset variance for existing home which lies too close to the lot line. Zoning: RS-3. Chairman Fohr asked Mr. Lee to brief the members on this appeal. Mr. Lee stated the appellants are seeking a variance for an offset (side yard) error made by the surveyor in 1972. This is the best correction. The neighbor, Mr. Wade constructed a fence on his lot line causing Mr. Wiedmann's house to be 1'-3' from the side yard. Atty. Lowry stated his client, Mr. Wiedmann had purchased the home thinking it had 12' for the side yard as indicated on the survey given to him at the time he purchased the property. Now, he finds this survey is incorrect. Mr. Pionek wanted to clarify the original survey showing 69' and the corrected survey showing 60'. Mr. Lee said that was correct and now the lot is non -conforming. The incorrect survey showed 103' of frontage in the Assessor's Office and Building Department's records. When sold Mr. Wiedmann was given this information --the same information is in the transfer return. There was some discussion about adverse possession for the fence. About 1 1/2 years ago Mr. Wade, the neighbor complained Mr. Wiedmann's fence was in the wrong place. He wanted to install his own fence. Atty. Lowry said his client's hardship would be that it took almost 20 years before the fence was found to be in an incorrect location. Mr. Wiedmann had to rely upon the survey the broker gave to him. He is concerned his client may have problems when selling if the new owner questions whether this is a legal home. Mr. Erno asked if Mr. Wiedmann had offered to purchase more land to correct this problem? He said he had tried. Mr. Wade had left 2' extra on the side yard setback when he installed his new fence, but he or any new owner in the future could take that land back. Jim Giesegh, S77 W18582 Janesville Road commented he wonders how the city can allow this fence to be installed so close to the house. Doesn't the city check? Mr. Lee responded the city isn't a surveyor. Now, the Building Inspection Department requires Pg. 2, Board of Appeals Minutes 12/6/90 recertification. The surveyors charge $50-$100 more to do a re- certification. Mr. Gregory Wade, S77 W18512 Janesville Rd. stated he lives directly east of this property and would like to know what ramifications, if any, he would have with his fence. He lived there for 7 years in the original homestead and found out about the error. Mr. Pionek asked if Mr. Wade's surveyor repiped the land? He said he did. He isn't objecting to the variance. Mr. Lee said at the time the building is to be enlarged, the City Attorney could be consulted as to the status. If the house burned down, he would have to conform to the ordinance, but he could repair his house in the same location. Additions could go on other parts of the house. Chairman Fohr informed the appellants they will try to reach a decision tonight and he could call the Building Inspection Office in the morning or wait for the decision to be mailed to him within five days. APPEAL 27-90 - ED & CINDY NOWACKI/OMNI DESIGN - Chairman Fohr read the appeal for Ed & Cindy Nowack, W179 S6887 Muskego Drive requesting a 1' variance on the north lot line to construct an addition to a non -conforming structure. RS-3/OLS zoning. Chairman Fohr asked Mr. Lee to bring the Board up to date on this appeal. Mr. Lee said, as he had previously stated. it is proposed to place an addition onto this non -conforming house. It should be 5' from the north lot line -- is 4.2' now. Marty from Omni Design was present. He explained the Nowacki's would like to construct a two-story_ addition to their home and that the variance is requested for the north end, but the construction is on the south end of the building. The shed on the property isn't a factor in the variance. Chairman Fohr asked the owner if he had applied for another variance for this property in the past? The file wasn't available and the owner had no comment. Mr. Larry Bryant, President of the Oakridge Subdivision asked if the addition will infringe on their park? Mr. Lee assured them it would not. He said this addition is an expansion of a non -conforming structure because of the location. The house sits too close to the north lot line. Chairman Fohr told the appellants they would try to reach a decision tonight and they could call the Building Inspection Office in the morning or wait for the decision to be mailed to them within five days. APPEAL 28-90 - AUD-MAR SUPPER CLUB - Chairman Fohr read the appeal for the Aud-Mar Supper Club, S79 W15851 Aud Mar Drive requesting a 66 1/2' square foot size variance to allow a freestanding sign on the property. Zoning is RS-3/OLR. Mr. Lee was asked to give some background on this sign. He stated this Pg. 3, Bd. of Appeals Meeting 12/6/90 has been an existing sign on the other side of the entrance to the Aud Mar. The sign was located on a lot acquired by another person and had to be removed to its present location. The inspector saw temporary wiring on the sign installed without a permit or according to code and sent the owner a letter. They were told to apply for approval before the Plan Commission as required for any sign. The Plan Commission architecturally approved the sign at their November 20th meeting. The wiring has been corrected according to Mr. Steve Oschmann of the Aud-Mar. This is the only frontage available to advertise his sign. People have trouble finding their restaurant when they see the "Dead End Street" sign. He feels the sign doesn't interfere with the residence next door as it is directly behind their garage. The members complimented him on his neat and creatively designed sign. Chairman Fohr informed the appellant they will try to reach a decision tonight and he could call the Building Inspection Office in the morning or wait for the decision to be mailed to him within five days. The Board remained in Open Session. APPEAL 26-90 - PAUL WIEDMANN - There was some discussion concerning the resale problems having less land. Mr. Rowinski questioned whether this would be a non -conforming house and what would happen if he wanted to add onto his house? Mr. Lee said he would check with the City Attorney -- he may have to come back to the Board of Appeals for permission. Mr. Rowinski made a motion to grant the 9' offset variance for the existing house which lies too close to the lot line. The hardship being the location of the existing building. Mr. Erno seconded. Upon a roll call vote the motion to grant the variance passed unanimously. APPEAL 27-90 - ED & CINDY NOWACKI/OMNI DESIGN - The Board discussed the variance request. Mr. Erno made a motion to grant the 1' variance on the north lot line to construct an addition to a non -conforming structure. The hardship being the location of the existing house on the lot. Mr. Rowinski seconded. Upon a roll call vote the motion to grant the variance passed unanimously. APPEAL 28-90 - AUD-MAR SUPPER CLUB - The Board was in agreement that this nice sign is needed for business reasons. There was some discussion concerning the fact that the owner felt he could just put up a sign without a permit and then temporarily wire it and without Plan Commission approval. Mrs. Posbrig made a motion to grant the 66 1/2 square foot size variance to allow a freestanding sign on the property. Mr. Pionek seconded. Upon a roll call vote the motion to grant the variance passed by a vote 5 to 1 with Chairman Fohr, Mr. Erno, Mr. Pionek, Mr. Berken and Mrs. Posbrig voting for the variance and Mr. Rowinski voting against it. Pg. 4, Board of Appeals, 12/6/90 Misc. Business: Mr. Lee brought the commissioners up-to-date on the Salentine court case regarding Anna Scheidler vs. the City of Muskego. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Berken made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 P.M. and Mrs. Posbrig seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion to adjourn passed unanimously. Respectfully Submitted � � G Cheryl Schmidt Recording Secretary /cs CITY OF MUSKEGO PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES OF PLAN COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1990. Mayor Wayne Salentine called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. PRESENT: Chairman Wayne Salentine, Edward Raimann, Jerald Hulbert, Alderman Dave Sanders, Darl Honl, Dottie Rector, Jack Schmidt and Director Gerald Lee. ABSENT No one. MINUTES Mrs. Rector made a motion to approve the November 6, 1990 minutes and Mr. Honl seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: AUD-MAR SUPPER CLUB -SIGN - Approval of sign at S79 W15851 Aud Mar Drive-Aud Mar Supper Club. The Recording Secretary read Resolution #P.C. 197-90. Mr. Hulbert moved for adoption and Ald. Dave Sanders seconded. Mr. Hulbert made a motion to delete the word "square" in the first Whereas. Ald. Sanders seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion to amend passed unanimously. Mr. Lee explained the widths of the two lots next to each other on Aud-Mar Drive and the size of the sign permitted. Mrs. Rector asked how the neighbors, who live on the nearby lot feel about the sign. Mr. Lee said the sign was next to their property for some time and they had no problem with it. Ald. Sanders asked if it is illuminated now? Mr. Oschmann replied the sign is turned on at 4 P.M. and turned off when closed at 2:30 A.M. Mr. Lee reminded the commissioners that any sign over 21 1/2 square feet needs Board of Appeals approval. Mrs. Rector commented that architectural approval means not size approval. Mr. Lee said the size could be taken into consideration if the commission thought it was too big for the area. A comment was made that the sign looks good. Mr. Hulbert said it was the third sign advertising the business. Mr. Lee responded that the other signs are grandfathered in. Mr. Raimann wanted to make sure the Board of Appeals knew the Plan Commission wasn't directing the Board of Appeals to approve an 88 square foot sign. Mr. Raimann made a motion to further amend Resolution #P.C. 197-90 to read "Therefore Be It Resolved, That the Plan Commission architecturally approve the illuminated sign subject to the Board of Appeals granting any variance necessary for the 88 square foot sign." Mr. Hulbert seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion to amend passed unanimously. Upon a roll call vote the motion to adopt the amended resolution passed unanimously.