Loading...
ZBA-Minutes 29-1989CITY OF MUSKEGO BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 7, 1989. Chairman Gerald Fohr called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: - Chairman Gerald Fohr, Vice Chairman Thomas Berken, Terry O'Neil, Daryl Rowinski, Bonnie Posbrig and Director Gerald Lee. ABSENT: Lloyd Erno. MINUTES: Mr. Berken moved to approve the Minutes of the October 26, 1989 meeting. Mr. O'Neil seconded. Upon a voice vote the motion passed unanimously. APPEAL 29-89 - DENNIS YOUSSI - Chairman Fohr requested Mr. Youssi, S70 W17683 Mus ego Drive to state his case and hardship. Mr. Youssi stated that he is requesting a 3.5' offset from the lot line to construct an addition. This addition would go out towards the lake with an exposed basement and a third bedroom, as the house is too small for his family. His hardship is that he has a narrow triangular shaped lot with an existing house. Mr. O'Neil questioned whether he would have a full basement? Mr. Youssi responded "yes". Mr. Lee explained the zoning requirements. Mr. Robert Stoll, a neighbor next door expressed concern about whether it would go back to the existing zoning if it burned down. Mr. Lee said that it would. If it is destroyed over 50% it must be built in accordance with the proper offsets. Mr. Pionek asked what size the addition will be? Mr. Youssi responded that it will be a one-story addition 12' x 30'. There being no further discussion, the appellant was informed he could call the Building Inspection Office in the morning for a decision or wait for the decision to be mailed to him within 5 days. APPEAL 30-89 - DONALD ZOELLNER - Chairman Fohr requested Mr. Zoellner, W179 S6783 Mus ego Drive to state his case and hardship. Mr. Zoellner stated that he is requesting a 3' offset variance to construct a driveway. He said he submitted a full set of of plans to the Building Inspection Department showing his 3-car garage plus an addition and at that point there was little concern about a variance. His hardship is that the lot is long and narrow and he cannot get in and out of his garage easily. At this point he gave the members a larger sketch of his driveway. He commented that he has checked over 50 homesites on Muskego Drive that are abutting their neighbor's lot line and none have applied for variances for driveways. He has renovated a 1940's house to look like a present day structure. He doesn't feel there will be a decrease in his adjacent neighbor's property value. He commented that his neighbor's lot adjoins an access Page 2, Board of Appeals Minutes 12/7/89 lot and appears to be larger. Chairman Fohr asked if any property owners would like to speak? Mr. John Ross, a neighbor who lives north of Mr. Zoellner (W179 S6773 Muskego Drive) said he would not want to give him an easement because he could have put his garage doors the other way. Mr. Zoellner has already put his electric cables on his lot line and he presented pictures to the members to show the ground dug up on his side of the lot line by the bulldozer hired to to do Mr. Zoellner's driveway. He felt Mr. Zoellner could get into his driveway with 15' of space and he feels we should stay with the code. Mr. Steve Wunderlock, a neighbor (W180 S6793 Muskego Drive) expressed concern about snow removal and feels aesthetically the driveway could be a problem. Mr. Berken questioned what the typical driveway width would be? Mr. Lee stated that it could be 8' to 10'. Mr. Zoellner commented that he based his house plans on what Waukesha and Milwaukee allowed for driveways and wasn't informed until too late about Muskego's. Mr. Ron Knox, a neighbor (W180 S6807 Muskego Drive) felt that the driveway easement problem was known by Mr. Youssi prior to the remodeling of his house. When a person buys a property he buys it with all the laws. Chairman Fohr stated that when you have narrow lots you must be nice to your neighbors. Mr. Youssi stated that he will restore the damaged area of Mr. Ross's property in the spring. Mr. Lee commented that you can put a gravel driveway up to the lot line, but a permanent driveway must be 3' from the lot line. Mr. Youssi was questioned about whether the grade height will change. He responded that his mason shot a transit the same as the ground level. There being no further discussion, the appellant was informed he could call the Building Inspection Office in the morning or a decision will be mailed to him within 5 days. APPEAL 32-89 - ATONEMENT LUTHERAN CHURCH - Chairman Fohr requested that the appellant state his case and hardship. Mr. Jeff Olson from Atonement Lutheran Church, W148 S6871 Durham Drive stated that the church has two signs on the property now. One is a directional sign and the sign to be put up in the front is smaller. They will move one sign further west. Mr. Lee stated that they are allowed up to 4 directional signs. Mr. Pionek asked Mr. Lee what the maximum square footage for a sign would be. Mr. Lee responded that the church is within the size limit --they Need a variance for the number of signs. There being no further discussion, the appellant was informed he could call the Building Inspection Office in the morning or a decision will be mailed to him within 5 days. Page 3, Board of Appeals Minutes 12/7/89 APPEAL 31-89 - ST. PAUL'S EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN SCHOOL - Chairman Fohr requested that the appellant state his case an hardship. Mr. Elmer Heileman of St. Paul's introduced Attorney Dan Nabke and Mr. Les Constantineau, who is the custodian of St. Paul's located at S66 W14225 Janesville Road. Mr. Heileman passed out a new plan and letter from Sentinel Alarm Systems, Inc. dated October 23, 1989, which the church feels meets their specifications and needs. A copy of the floor plan was attached to the letter. Mr. Heileman went on to say that he talked to the State Building Inspector in October regarding schools in the state. Attorney Nabke spoke concerning Chapter 32 as it applies to fire alarm systems and smoke alarm systems. He feels there are no specific statements regarding fire alarms in the National Fire Protection Code. He went on to read Chapter 32.02(d) and Chapter 32.06 and how they relate to the National Fire Protection Code. He feels the State Statute defines the National Code with no reference in the Muskego Fire Code. This would be an unnecessary hardship. They feel that their Building Committee Chairman has tried to work this out with the Fire Chief. Mrs. Posbrig asked the church what their hardship is? Mr. Heileman stated that their hardship is the maintenance of the fire protection equipment which would add to the cost. When they designed the building, they were not aware of the fire code. To get the desired pitch on the roof they lowered the ceilings, which makes it less conducive to sprinklers. They feel the Board of Appeals has the discretion to allow substitutions. Mr. Lee stated that since you first passed this plan out to us tonight, did you provide the Fire Chief with a copy? Mr. Heileman responded that the Chief was mailed a copy on October 31, 1989 and rejected the plan. Fire Chief Dibb stated that if the hardship is the equipment being used, it is exactly the same on the church's plan as it is on the plan he approved -- just additional detectors and a higher level of unit computerized control. The difference is the level of protection. Mr. Constntineau of St. Paul's responded that the additional heads are in such areas as bathrooms and unsupervised areas where there is a great chance for false alarms. Mr. Rowinski asked how much more or less one plan is over the other. The cost was ?? Plans have been accepted and resubmitted. Chief Dibb would like to see heat detectors in the kitchen, furnace room, one storage room where paint is stored and hallways close to doorways. A variance was given to install smoke detectors in place of sprinkler systems. Smoke detectors do not extinguish fires. The alarm system guidelines are in effect since the ordinance was given to the school back when this first came up. The Fire Department already gave variances for the number of smoke detectors. Monitoring the alarm system is very important. The main question is whether or Page 4, Board of Appeals Minutes 12/7/89 not the safety aspects are being put on the line. Atty. Nabke responded that he appreciates the decision of the Fire Chief to recognize the code in terms of safety. But, St. Paul's comes before the Board of Appeals defining automatic sprinkler systems within the code. The code doesn't make any reference to smoke detectors or sprinklers. The code is what is dominant. One cannot supercede the code. Chief Dibb responded that the code is very clear about protection throughout the building. Mr. Pionek asked if the church's plan has a monitored system? Mr. Constantineau said no. A comment was made that in June 1989 Anderson -Ashton, Inc. submitted a plan with a monitored smoke detection system. Mr. Heileman responded that offer was rejected and no longer is on the table. The church has people living on the site to help monitor the system. Chairman Fohr asked the Chief if he thought some of the areas would be over protected with smoke detectors? Perhaps fire extinguishers could be used in some areas. Chief Dibb felt we needed standards. Mr. Lee noted that one is necessary in the stage area in the gym. Mr. Rowinski asked the church if their main hardship was maintenance of the system? Mr. Constantineau responded that the system would be harder to reach for cleaning. Chief Currens of the Hales Corners Fire Department spoke concerning the NFPA code. Anything that the state has is adopted by reference. Atty. Nabke questioned how it applies to schools?,,Chief Currens responded that the state gives each municipality the authority to exceed the state code requirements. Section 32.13 gives the chief the right to substitute and he has done that. Ex- Chief Ludwig commented that the bathrooms shouldn't need detectors. Chief Pickart said that there should be a compromise for the smaller rooms, but not go from one extreme to another. Mr. Berken asked Chief Dibb if there could he a compromise? He responded that on his own he can't grant a variance, but if rooms are a contention, the Fire Department can eliminate some detectors. The cost of monitoring the system was discussed. Mr. Heileman stated that St. Paul's feels that the October 23, 1989 plan is a good basic plan that could be improved upon at their discretion --- beyond that they rest their case. Chief Dibb feels that the prior plans submitted to the Fire Department had more protection; the church removed them in the final plan. But, he feels 5 detectors could be removed from the Anderson - Ashton plan. The first two plans submitted to the Fire Department missed half of the rooms. The last plan dated September 6, 1989 had all the rooms. The rules never changed -- they always required detectors. The cost is higher because it shows all the rooms. Chief Dibb stated that the alarm company drew up the approved plan, as an agent for Anderson/Ashton. The Fire Department approved that plan. Page 5, Board of Appeals Minutes 12/7/89 Chairman Fohr moved to go into Closed Session pursuant to Section 19.85 (1)(a) of the State Statutes for the purpose of deliberating concerning cases which were the subject of aquasidudicial hearing; said cases being the above listed appeals. Vice Chairman Berken seconded and the motion carried unanimously upon a voice vote. The Board took a break at 9:45 P.M. The Board reconvened into Closed Session at 10:00 P.M. APPEAL 29-89 - The Board discussed Mr. Youssi's request. Chairman Fohr e t that the addition will be placed in a good position on the lot. APPEAL 30-89 - The Board discussed Mr. Zoellner's driveway. Mr. Berken could see giving him a 1' driveway variance which would make him 2' from the neighbor's lot line. Mr. Rowinski stated that he could see a split in the offset variance requested, as it is a very narrow lot. Mr. Pionek wanted to know if it will be asphalted or a compacted driveway. Chairman Fohr asked the secretary to note that Mr. Zoellner had left a list of neighbors whose driveways abut or are within 3' of the lot line and have not had variances. The members felt an 19" variance should be granted. APPEAL 32-89 - The Board discussed Atonement Lutheran Church s request. They felt the hardship was the pre-existing signs. APPEAL 31-89 - The Board discussed St. Paul's request. Chairman Fohr stated that as a firefighter you do what you can to stop the fire whether it is monitored or not. Mr. Rowinski felt that the church's attorney wants this requirement thrown out on a technicality of what the code covers; the only hardship being the maintenance of the system. Mr. Berken asked if the Board could take out some of the detectors. There was some discussion about where to take out the smoke detectors. The solution is to look for a mediator or outside expert and have the Fire Department and the church live with it. This appeal should be denied as is but the Board suggests that they get together with Gerry Lee to work out a compromise and submit a written report to the Board of Appeals at their next meeting on January 25, 1990. At 10:50 P.M. the Board reconvened into Open Session. Page 6, Board of Appeals Minutes 12/7/89 APPEAL 29-89 - Chairman Fohr made a motion to grant the 3.5' offset variance from the lot line to construct an addition as requested. The hardship is the lack of space for the house on the lot. Mr. O'Neil seconded. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. APPEAL 30-89 - Vice Chairman Berken made a motion to deny the appeal for a 3' offset but grant a 1 1/2' offset variance to construct a driveway. The hardship is the narrow lot and the position of the garage on the lot. Mr. Pionek seconded. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. APPEAL 31-89 - Mr. Rowinski made a motion to deny the appeal of the ecision of the Fire Chief as to his denial of the fire alarm plan substitution from the required Fire Protection Code, concerning the latest plans submitted dated 10/23/89 (approved by the church) with the suggestion that the two parties negotiate with Gerry Lee as the mediator on a compliance of the 9/3/89 #6 plan (approved by the Fire Chief) and report back to the Board of Appeals in writing by the next meeting. Gerry Lee will meet first with the school and then with the Fire Chief. APPEAL 32-89 - Mr. O'Neil made a motion to grant the variance to a ow two signs on the property and a total size variance as requested. The hardship is that the sign is pre- existing and just being redesigned. Mrs. Posbrig seconded. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Pionek moved seconded and upon /cs to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 P.M. Mr. O'Neil a voice vote the motion carried unanimously. Respectfully Submitted Cheryl Schmidt Recording Secretary