Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES September 8, 2010 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Robert Krasniewski, Dennis Penney, Janet Duellman, Jane Cryan, Mark Nielsen EXCUSED: None STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of August 11, 2010 were approved as presented. (Penney /Carpenter) Ms. Cryan questioned if the existing trees at 201 Pearl Avenue were able to be saved. Mr. Muehrer responded that he had been past the site recently and the trees had already been cut down. ITEM I: 2337 S. MAIN STREET James F. Purtell- applicant /owner, request the following variances to establish a new multiple - family dwelling with associated improvements: Description Code Reference Required Proposed 1. Front yard setback/park. lot (east) 30 -21 (B)(5)(c) 25' 17' 2. Front yard setback/bldg (east) 30 -21 (B)(5)(c) 25' 14.13' 3. Front yard setback/bldg (southeast) 30 -21 (B)(5)(c) 25' 9.12' 4. Front yard setback/bldg (south) 30 -21 (B)(5)(c) 25' 15.11' 5. Refuse Disposal Area 30 -35 (H)(4) Yes No Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the parcel is irregularly shaped and is located on a corner lot with frontage on S. Main Street, W. 24 Avenue, and Doty Street. The petitioner is proposing to raze the existing site improvements and construct a new 4 -unit multiple family dwelling structure with variances being requested on each side of the proposed development, except the north. The conceptual floor plans indicate the primary facade of the structure would be along W. 24 Avenue with vehicular ingress and egress via a 20' wide access drive located along Doty Street. Concerns with the project are the proposed dwelling unit density, the large proportion of impervious surface that will exist on the property, the limited open space for snow removal /storage and vision clearance problems near the intersection. Feasible alternatives are present for the parcel that would require reduced or no variances and the hardships presented would qualify as being self - created. James Purtell, 60 Stoney Beach Road, stated that he has lived within a quarter mile of this parcel for most of his life and in the past it was always used for commercial purposes. He discussed the past history of the site and that the City changed the zoning on the parcel at some point in time to residential. He felt that the site was best suited for commercial use and purchased the property in 2005 and has had it for sale for 3 -4 years without success. No interested parties have proposed purchasing it for the purpose of constructing a single - family home or duplexes and he has approached the City with the suggestion of changing the zoning back to Board of Appeals Minutes 1 September 8, 2010 a commercial classification without success. He also discussed the changes to the parcel that were imposed by the Department of Transportation in the past and the difficulty it has resulted in regarding developing a structure in the remaining building envelope. He also discussed the amount of money he has invested in this site and that he needed to obtain some type of return on his investment. He stated he did not agree with staff s opinion that the hardships being presented today would qualify as being self - created. He also discussed other competition in the market particularly the development on Nebraska Street that he felt received considerable concessions from the City and he felt he should be treated as well as that developer. Ms. Cryan questioned if the railroad tracks in the vicinity were still functional. Mr. Purtell responded that they were and its close proximity to this parcel determines what can be developed on the site as the trains are the biggest complaint about this location. Mr. Penney inquired about the location of the 20 foot wide ingress /egress off of Doty Street. Mr. Muehrer displayed on the site plan the area designated for the apron. Mr. Purtell commented that he believes that a legal existing entrance is located off South Main Street however he is willing to abide with staff s opinion that the ingress /egress access should be on Doty Street. Mr. Cornell questioned if once the multi - family dwelling structure is completed, if the units would be rentals or if they would be owner occupied condominium units. Mr. Purtell replied that it would depend on the economy. He is initially looking at renting the units but would consider converting them into condominiums in the future if the market improves. Mr. Penney stated that comments made by the petitioner in regard to the development on Nebraska Street could not be taken into consideration as variance requests must stand on their own merit. Mr. Purtell responded that the density of the site was his point. Mr. Muehrer commented that the site on Nebraska Street was not an appropriate comparison as it is not the same zoning classification therefore the required setbacks would be different and it is also located in a designated redevelopment area with a planned development overlay. Steve Davis, owner of Ardy & Ed's Drive -In, 2413 South Main Street, discussed the history of the parcel adjacent to his facility and stated that he has been operating his business at this site since 1977 and tries to fit in well with the residential neighborhood. He voiced his concerns if the proposal for the site would be compatible with the neighborhood as it is a family area with mostly single - family homes and a lot of small children. He also commented that he was not opposed to any development on site as the property is somewhat of an eyesore however he is concerned if a four unit apartment building would be too large for the site. Mark Nielsen arrived at 3:55 pm. Phil Brown, 2325 Doty Street, stated that he lives across the street from the proposed development and that Mr. Purtell has been very open about what he desired to do with the property and he appreciated his point of view from an economic stance. He further commented that he would prefer to see the site used for the development of a single - family home or duplexes rather than the multi - family structure that is being Board of Appeals Minutes 2 September 8, 2010 proposed. He felt that Doty Street should maintain the 25 foot setback as it would be more appropriate and consistent with the existing neighborhood although he would be willing to live with the proposed development if the Board approved of the requested variances. Mr. Penney questioned the purpose of the three -unit site plan distributed before the meeting. Mr. Muehrer responded that Mr. Purtell submitted this revised proposal after the board packets were sent out since he had received the staff report on his variance request and found that staff was recommending denial of the variances. He wanted to present an alternate plan for review that would not require as many variances. Mr. Carpenter commented that if the adjacent property owners were not aware of the revised proposal, he felt any action on this plan should not occur at this time but should be brought back at a future meeting to give neighboring property owners the opportunity to comment on this proposal. He also commented that he did not feel that the vision clearance on the corner would be adequate with the reduced setbacks being requested for this development. Mr. Krasniewski agreed. Mr. Muehrer stated that the petitioner was looking for an opinion from the Board if the four -unit structure was not approvable, if they would consider the three -unit alternative site plan a possibility. He also did some further research on the outdoor refuse disposal area and found that multi - family developments (up to four units) can opt into city trash collection services which would result in interior storage of refuse rather than the need to provide an area to accommodate an outdoor storage container. Mr. Krasniewski suggested that a condition could be added to the request to require the owner to opt into the city trash collection services to eliminate the need for a refuse disposal area and an additional variance on the site if the developer would be agreeable to this concept. Mr. Purtell replied that he did not have any issues with the proposed change. Mr. Muehrer commented that the revised proposal for a three -unit structure would require only one variance and although adjacent property owners had not been properly noticed, as a courtesy to Mr. Purtell, he was looking for a reaction from Board members on if this proposal would be more acceptable. Mr. Cornell stated that the proposal before the Board was for a four -unit development and he felt that should be the only issue considered today. If Mr. Purtell wanted to present a revised request for a three -unit development, he should re- submit a variance request for this proposal at next month's meeting for consideration. Motion by Carpenter to approve the request for a variance to establish a new multiple family dwelling with associated improvements and the following variances: Description Code Reference Required Proposed 1. Front yard setback /park. lot (east) 30 -21 (B)(5)(c) 25' 17' 2. Front yard setback /bldg (east) 30 -21 (B)(5)(c) 25' 14.13' 3. Front yard setback /bldg (southeast) 30 -21 (B)(5)(c) 25' 9.12' 4. Front yard setback /bldg (south) 30 -21 (B)(5)(c) 25' 15.11 ' 5. Refuse Disposal Area 30 -35 (H) (4) Yes No Seconded by Penney. Motion denied 1 -4. (Ayes - Cryan. Nays - Carpenter /Cornell /Krasniewski /Penney.). Board of Appeals Minutes 3 September 8, 2010 Finding of Facts: Safety factor due to reduced visibility. It is a self - created hardship. ITEM II: 910 & 916 ELMWOOD AVENUE Jeffrey A. Jahnke/Dean D. Korn - applicants /owners, request the following variances to establish a new multiple - family dwelling with associated improvements: Description Code Reference Required Proposed 1. Front yard setback 30 -22 (B)(5)(c) 25' 15' 2. Trans. yard (north)setback 30 -35 (B)(1)(c) 19 14' Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the applicants had presented a proposal for a 6 -unit structure at the July meeting which was denied unanimously and is presenting a revised proposal today for a 5 -unit structure that would require less variances than the initial request. The petitioners are proposing to demolish both existing single family structures, combine the parcels and construct a new two and a half -story 5 -unit multiple family dwelling structure with ingress /egress occurring via an access drive along the south property line with parking provided via an attached garage and nine covered stalls. The current site plan reduced the number of units, increased the height of the structure, reduced the number of driveways, and provided adequate off - street parking with attached and detached garages. The current proposal will reduce the front yard setback to match the surrounding properties and the transitional yard (north) setback should provide ample area to implement appropriate landscaping /fencing to mitigate any potential adverse variables. Dan Meissner, 1230 E. Calumet Street, Appleton, and Jeffrey Jahnke, 1107 Twin Harbor Drive, Winneconne, the architect and owner /applicant respectively, were both present to discuss the proposed project. Mr. Meissner stated that he had redesigned the project in height to be increased by one -half story with only one driveway instead of two. He further stated that the 15 -foot setback in the front yard is consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood and the new design leaves adequate area on the side to install fencing and landscaping to buffer the use from adjacent properties. Mr. Jahnke added that the side yard variance is for a very small area of the garage that would intrude into the required setback and would line up with the rear of the principal structure. The revised plan has basically gone up in height and reduced the number of units from six to five. He distributed preliminary schematic plans for the townhouse development for review and commented that staff was supporting his variance requests. He also stated that Steve Arndt from the University would like to see some positive development in this area and it was easier to demolish the existing structures and re- create something nice. There would be ample parking with garages for the students and most adjacent properties are rental units other than a single - family home on the north side of the proposed development. The revised plans moved the development back from the single - family residence. There was some discussion on whether the apartments would be in compliance with the minimum square footage for code standards. Mr. Muehrer stated that there were some discrepancies in the building code but this matter would be addressed during the building code review process. There was also discussion on the front yard setback of 15' as the site plan appeared to include the sidewalk as part of the setback. It was Board of Appeals Minutes 4 September 8, 2010 determined that it was an oversight on the site plan and the setback of 15' was accurate and not including the sidewalk area. It was also noted that the proposed landscaping plan may result in difficult access to the fifth unit in the garage. Mr. Carpenter questioned if there were any plans to widen Elmwood Avenue in the future. Mr. Muehrer responded he would have to check with the Department of Public Works on the matter, but he thought it was planned to be reconstructed in the next few years although to his knowledge there were no plans to increase the size of the right -of -way. Mr. Jahnke commented that with the reconstruction of Main Street the right -of -way is being made narrower and he could not see the City proposing to widen Elmwood Avenue as the concept was to slow down traffic in this type of area due to the large number of pedestrians. Mr. Muehrer added that the City and University work together to implement the University's Master Plan so issues such as the right -of -way on Elmwood Avenue would be adequately addressed prior to proceeding with any reconstruction plans. There was discussion on the amount of impervious surface and the lack of area to handle snow removal as both items were a concern with the previous proposal. Mr. Jahnke stated that a contractor would be hired to perform both lawn work and snow removal and the snow would be hauled off site if necessary. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if the stormwater runoff is required to be contained on the property. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively and stated that those issues would be addressed during the site plan review process. Motion by Carpenter to approve the request for variances to establish a new multiple family dwelling with associated improvements with a I5' front yard setback and a 14' transitional yard (north) setback. Seconded by Nielsen. Motion carried 4 -1. ( Ayes - Carpenter /Cornell /Penney /Nielsen. Nays - Cryan.) Finding of Facts: Least variance necessary. Less impact on neighbors. Replacing old homes with townhouses improvement to neighborhood. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Cornell inquired if there would be a second meeting of the Board this month. Mr. Muehrer responded that there were no additional meetings scheduled for the month of September and the next scheduled meeting would be October 13 Board of Appeals Minutes 5 September 8, 2010 Mr. Carpenter suggested that the City do some type of presentation on the televised access channel to discuss the Board of Appeals and how the process works to better educate citizens on the functions and responsibilities of this body. Mr. Muehrer replied that he would have to contact Media Services to look into this matter. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. (Cryan/Carpenter). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 6 September 8, 2010