Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 7/17/1985 " BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES JULY 17, 1985 PRESENT: Ronald Ames, Anne Hintz, Tom Kimberly, Dave Neu and David Nitkowski STAFF: Bruce Roskom, Associate Planner; Nancy J. Pickard, Recording Secretary Vice Chairperson Anne Hintz called the meeting to order. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. 1. 1168 W. 6th Avenue - thomas Repenshek Mr. Roskom explained that this appeal was laidover from the previous Board of Zoning Appeals meeting and that the appellant is proposing to construct a 221 x 221 accessory building. He further stated that because this is a corner lot, the request for a variance from the 25' front yard setback requirement will not be necessary and need not be considered by the Board. As a result, the only variance being requested is to allow a 31 rear yard setback instead of the required 251 rear yard setback. Ms. Hintz asked the appellant if there were any other location on the property that would accommodate an accessory building and meet all setback requirements. Mr. Repenshek answered "No" and stated that there were three reasons why he wanted the accessory building in the proposed location: 1) It would be in line with his neighbors garages, 2) Two 25 year old Maple trees would have to be removed if he had to meet this rear yard setback, and 3) Both adjacent neighbors prefer the proposed location. Ms. Hintz asked if there would be a problem created with regard to Fire Laws if this variance were granted. Mr. Roskom answered, "I believe notll. Ms. Hintz asked about the already existing garage. Mr. Repenshek stated that they are a family of five and with two cars and bicycles they feel they need this space. It is also their wish to convert the existing attached garage into a family room sometime in the future. Mr. Ames moved that the variance be approved, requesting a 31 rear yard setback. Tom Kimberly seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. With regard to findings of fact, Mr. Ames stated that the ordinance is creating a hardship upon the property owner in that abiding by the ordinance would pnevent him from utilizing his backyaud. II. 1781 W. 9th Avenue - Jones Sign Company, Agent for Joseph Shea Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 17, 1985 Meeting Page Two Mr. Roskom explained that this appeal was heard by the Board previously, but because Mr. Shea1s agent was unable to show there was a need for these signs, the item was laidover. The appellant is proposing to place a.ground sign with a 0 ft. front yard setback off of 9th Avenue and a ground sign with a 0 ft. front yard setback off of South Koeller Road. Joseph Shea" 1781 W. 9th Avenue, explained that he is proposing to move an existing sign now located 0 ft. from the 9th Street property line to within 25' to 301 from the S. Koeller Street property line. He is also proposing to erect a new sign on the existing foundation located A' from the 9th Street property line. He explained that he needed to have his best sign on W. 9th Street because of the larger amount of traffic on that street. Mr. Roskom stated that if the sign on Koeller Road is setback 251 from the property 1 ine, Mr. Shea will only need a varil,ance to provide a A' front yard setback for the proposed sign on 9th Avenue. Mrs. Hintz asked how high the new sign was. Mr. Shea stated that the new sign would be approximately 4' higher than the existing sign. It is approximately 221 tall. Mrs. Hintz asked why Mr. Shea needed two signs. Mr. Shea said that because of the amount of traffic on the frontage road, he wanted to have a price sign for the gas ,and a message board there also. Mrs. Hintz asked if Mr. Shea could put bot h of these signs back the required 25' from the property line. Mr. Shea said that he could not possibly put the sign back 25' from the 9th Street property line. He also stated that he wanted to use the existing pedestal. Mr. Nitkowski stated that Mr. Shea's sign would not be vi sibl e from Highway 41. Mr. Shea said uno". Mrs. Hintz stated that if this variance request was not granted, Mr. Shea could continue to maintain the existing sign on W. 9th Avenue and simply erect the new sign 25' from the S. Koeller property line. Mr. Roskom stated that it is the appellant's responsiblity to show that the existing sign is not adequate. An economic hardship, alone, cannot be considered for approval. Mr. Nitkowski stated that there are already so many signs in that area. Mr. Roskom explained that there have been some problems with the owner failing to remove exi sti ng ground signs, after bei ng reques te~ twi ce by the _ Ci ty _ to do so. He stated that two cigarette signs, as of the past weekend, and a portable sign sti 11 remained on the premi ses . Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 17, 1985 Meeting Page three Mr. Nitkowski asked if a condition could be placed on the Board's action, requiring that these ground signs be removed. Mr. Roskom stated that this might be an added incentive for the property owner to remove this portable sign, however, the City;.already has determined that these signs are illegal and has notified the owner to remove them. Mr. Shea stated that he thought he was only to remove the cigarette signs, which he did. He was not aware that the portable sign was in violation. However, the new sign will make the portable sign unnecessary, and he had planned on removing it. Mrs. Hintz stated that she felt if the owner was willing to go to the expense of moving the existing sign and replacing it with a newer sign, than the owner must believe the existing sign is inadequate. Mr. Kimberly asked if the new sign would be considerably higher than the existing rotating sign, which is also presently located on this property. Mr. Shea said uno". The rotating sign is about 30' high and was there when he bought the property. Mr. Nitkowski moved to approve a variance .requesting.a ground sign be erected on 9th Avenue with aO' front yard setback, with the condition that all other ground signs be removed. Mr. Neu seconded the motion and condition. Motion carried 5-0. With regard to findings of fact, Mr. Ames stated that the property owner had no where else to put a sign on 9th Avenue, that would meet the setback requirements. Mr. Roskom stated that the owner had not shown how using the existing sign, which was only a few years old, would not have been adequate for his business. Mr. Ames stated that one reason to consider when granting an appeal is whether or not granting that variance would allow the property owner to utilize his property to its fullest potential. Mr. Nitkowski stated that there is a lot of commercial property in this area. Mrs. Hintz stated that the improved aesthetics of the area is another thing to consider. III. 1656 Georgia Street - Thomas Reichenberger Mr. Roskom explained that the owner wishes to complete a portion of the 2nd floor of his home. The setbacks of the existing home will remain the same. Mrs. Hintz asked if there home was built before the present Zoning Ordinance was in force. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 17, 1985 Meeting Page Four Mr. Reichenberger answered, lIyes". Mrs. Hintz stated that it is impossible for the property owner to make this improvement without an appeal because the house and its setbacks are existing. Mr. Nitkowski stated that .if the property owner did not go upward, he would run into problems with a future garage also. Mr. Reichenberger stated that he has no plans for a future garage, since it would eliminate the backyard. Mr. Neu stated that there is no where else on be property that he could go, and the surrounding lots share a similar problem. Mr. Ames moved to approve the variance as requested. Mr. Neu seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. With regard to findings of fact, Mr. Ames stated that there is no change to the existing setbacks and .the house pre-dates the Zoning Ordinance. Without this variance the property owner would not be able to fully utilize his property. IV. 257 W. South Park Avenue - David Nimke, Sr. Mr. Stan Kellenberger, 2930 Bowen Street, Contractor, acted as agent for Mr. Nimke. Mr. Roskom explained that the owner wishes to remove an existing porch and reconstru,ct a living room to. the previous porch setback. Therefore, the same setback would be maintained. Mr. Kellenberger stated that the other homes in the area are also quite close to the front property lines. One of the neighboring homes on the block is about 12 I from ihe s i dewal k. Mrs. Hintz asked if the average setback on the block was considerably less than 251. Mr. Roskom answered, lIyesll. Mrs. Hintz asked if the home pre-dated the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Kellenberger answered, lIyesll. Mr. Kimberly asked if the existing porch had a slab or foundation under it. Mr. Kellenberger stated that he is not sure, since the siding covers up the building all the way to the ground. Mr. Roskom stated that the Board might want to consider the size of the lot, 50' X 71', when determining finds of fact. Mr. Kellenberger stated that there is not a house on the block that meets the setback requirements. / Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 22, 1985 Meeting Page Five Mr. Nitkowski moved that the variance be approved as requested. Mr. Kimberly Seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. With regard to findings of fact, Mr. Kimberly stated that the buiiding setbacks were not going to be changed and the lot size was considerably small. V. 145 W. 21st Avenue - Mark Felker, agent fO,r Marland Felker Mr. Roskom explained that the owner wishes to construct a detached garage and to provide a 216" rear yard setback. Because this is a corner lot, the variance initially requested for the front yard setback will not be necessary. A 4'611 side yard setback is also proposed. Mr. Felker explained that he would have to remove two good sized trees in order to meet these setback requ.irements. The garage would also have to be put right up to the house, which would then create problems because of the number of feet needed between a detached garage and a home. The garage would also take up most of the useabl e backyard space if these/Vari.ances were not granted. Mrs. Hintz asked if the neighbors approve of this proposed garage. Mr. Felker answered, "yes". He stated that there was an existing garage that he tore down because it was rotten. Mrs.Hintz stated that the purpose of the ordinance is not to deprive someone of a garage. Also, there is no problem with the neighbors. Mr. Nitkowski moved to approve the construction of an accessory building with a 216" rear yard setback and a 4'6" side yard setback. Mr. Neu seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. With regard to findings of fact, Mr. Nitkowski stated that the building pre-dates the ordinance. The lot is also unique in that it is a corner lot and because of dimensions, would prohibit the owner from maximum use by'not allowing a garage. VI. 500 S. Koeller Street - French Graphics, Agent for Holiday Inn Corp. ..,.-.a:~i<""S1<__';',:"""""",_p":,_;~",,,:, Steven French, French Graphics, P.O. Box 2695, Appleton, WI 54913, was present to represent the owner. Mr. Roskom explained that the owners wish to replace an existing ground identification sign, maintaining the same A' front yard setback. He distributed pictures of the existing and proposed signs. He explained that the Board has considered variances in the past for this property with regard to parking and setbacks because of the improvements the owners are making. Mrs. Hintz asked if the new sign would take up the same space as the existing one. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 17, 1985 Page Six Mr. French stated tHat the new sign is smaller in square footage and shorter than the existing sign. Mrs. Hintz asked if the thick base of the proposed sign was considered in determining square footage. Mr. Roskom said that there is no way to use this space for sign purposes. Mrs. Hintz stated that if this appeal were denied the owners could continue to maintain the existing sign. Mr. French stated that the existing sign has flashing lights and the new one would be an improvement in structure. There would be' no change in the setback and the new sign is smaller in height and square footage. Mrs. Hintz asked if they would not have a message board any more. Mr. French explained that the portion on the picture which showed the time could be changed to display messages. Mr. Kimberly moved to approve the variance as requested. Mr. Neu seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. With regard to findings of fact, Mr. Kimberly stated that the new sigh would be an improvement over the existing sign. It would be a reduction in square footage and height. It would bean aesthetic improvement and a safety improvement. VII. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Roskom explained that on a previous appeal heard September 5, 1984, for 509 W. ,Irving, owner Mike Bober, in which a variance was granted to allow the appellant to construct an uncovered deck with a 111111 front yard setback and a 3' side yard setback, an adjacent property owner, Mrs. D.E. Leinweber, was not notified of the appeal. She is now requesting that the Board of Zoning Appeals place this appeal on the next meeting agenda, in order to give her a chance to tell the board how she feels about this variance request. Mr. Roskom recommended that the Board rehear this appeal ,at its next meeting in order to give all surrounding property owners an opportunity to present their concerns. Mr. Ames moved that this variance request at 509 W. Irving be placed on be next meeting Agenda. Mr. Nitkowski seconded the motion. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, . ;;/f~ Bruce A. Roskom ~- Associate Planner