Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES May 11, 2011 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 December 8, 2010 were approved as presented. (Penney /Carpenter) ITEM L• 722 W. 20 AVENUE Thomas F. Keller - applicant /owner, requests the following variance to permit an attached garage in the rear yard setback: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Rear setback 30 -17 (B)(3)(d) 25' 10 Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the subject property is located on the northeast corner of McCurdy Street and W. 20 Avenue and is zoned R -1 Single Family Residence District. The existing home with attached garage was built in 1956 and the owner is proposing to replace the existing aged garage with a new attached garage for expanded off - street parking purposes. The proposed garage will intrude 14'6" into the required 25' rear yard setback. Justifiable hardship is present as the existing principal structure placement and limited rear yard area precludes feasible placement alternatives and the current single family residence only provides one code compliant off - street parking space within the existing attached garage. Granting the variance request will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or contrary to the public interest. Thomas Keller, 722 W. 20 Avenue, stated that the garage was in bad shape and the cement floor of the structure was broken up. He further stated that their son had moved back in which has resulted in a three vehicle family and there would still be two vehicles at the residence even after he moves back out. Residents on W. 20 Avenue park their vehicles in front of his home therefore they park in front of other resident's homes on McCurdy Street. There is a large row of trees between his home and the adjacent property which should shield the view of the garage which he felt would be an improvement to both his property and the neighborhood. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the breezeway will continue to remain that currently exists on the property. Mr. Keller responded affirmatively. Ms. Cryan suggested that if the breezeway was removed, the garage structure could be expanded to the south. Board of Appeals Minutes 1 May 11, 2011 Mr. Keller replied that he discussed the matter with the contractor and since it is not a very large home, the breezeway serves as a sun porch and also keeps the cold air from entering the house therefore they would rather not remove that feature. Board members briefly discussed the location of the concrete patio on the back of the property and if this feature would also require a variance due to its proximity to the lot line. It was determined that the patio was an existing nonconforming feature and would not require a variance. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the driveway would remain as it currently exists. Mr. Muehrer responded that if the variance was granted, the driveway would be required to be tapered but no variance would be necessary as it will meet code requirements. Mr. Penney requested that the requirement to provide two code compliant off - street parking spaces be clarified. Mr. Muehrer explained the provisions of the two off - street parking spaces required by current code standards. Motion by Cryan to approve the request for a variance to permit an attached garage with a 10'6" rear yard setback. Seconded by Penney. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: Safety concerns addressed. No harm to public interest. Corner lot creates a hardship. ITEM Il,• 110 E. FERNAU AVENUE Ryf Heating & A.C. Inc. - applicant, Oshkosh Tent & Awning Co. Inc.- owner, requests the following variance to permit a mechanical equipment structure in the side yard setback: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Side yard setback 30 -30 (13)(2) 20' 13'8'/2" Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. The property is located on the north side of E. Fernau Avenue within the North Industrial Park and is zoned M -3 General Industrial District and is being used for manufacturing and other related services. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing condensing unit with a more efficient heating and cooling unit on the west side of the principal structure which will intrude 6'3 1 /2 " into the side yard (west) setback area which is 3'1" closer to the lot line than the existing unit. Relocating the unit to an alternate area on the north or south side of the principal structure would result in lengthy and obtrusive duct work run along the west side of the building and relocating it to the east side would adversely impact deliveries and employee parking. The existing site limitation is creating a justifiable hardship and complying with the minimum side yard setback standard is unnecessarily burdensome. Granting the variance request will not be detrimental to adjacent properties and will not be contrary to the public interest. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 May 11, 2011 Jeff Ryf, 240 W. Main Street, Winneconne, stated that they were replacing the existing unit on site and the new unit would possess the same BTU's as the current one and would combine both the air conditioning and heating elements. He further stated that the building is not designed to support the unit on the roof and it would not be cost effective to install ductwork to place the unit elsewhere on the site. Mr. Carpenter commented that placing the unit on the roof could create issues. Mr. Krasniewski stated that the unit is placed closer to the property to the west and questioned what the current use was of this structure. Mr. Muehrer responded that the structure was vacant. Mr. Ryf added that it was currently being utilized as a parking lot. Mr. Penney requested clarification of where the unit would be placed. Mr. Ryf displayed on the aerial map the location of the proposed mechanical equipment. Motion by Carpenter to approve the request for a variance to permit a mechanical equipment structure with a 13'8 1 /2 " side yard setback. Seconded by Nielsen. Motion carried 5 -0. Finding of Facts: Least variance necessary. No harm to public interest. Unique situation. ITEM III: 807 OREGON STREET Robert J. Mazza - applicant /owner, requests the following variance to permit a ground mount sign in the front yard setback: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Front yard setback 30 -26 (B)(3)(c) 25' 0' Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. The property is located on the west side of Oregon Street with additional frontage located on the north side of W. 9 Avenue and is zoned C -3 Central Commercial District. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct a commercial ground sign in the southwest corner of the parcel along the south lot line fronting W. 9 th Avenue which will intrude entirely into the front yard setback area. The property previously featured a monopole commercial ground sign with a 0' front yard setback which was driven into several times severing the sign base. The new location will make the proposed sign less likely to be hit by vehicles. Proper signage for businesses is critical for overall public safety and a degree of hardship is present as the storefront is located on one street and the associated off - street parking is located on another. No practical scenario is present for by -right placement options as buildings located in the project area would block signage if placed at the required setback and the off - street parking lot has multiple dimensional nonconformities. The proposed location appears to be the safest and most practical alternative although supplemental safety measures around the sign base may want to be considered. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 May 11, 2011 Robert Mazza, 1558 County Road I, stated that he has made a lot of improvements to the building and the parking in the area was at a minimum which was critical to his business. He further stated that he intended to remain on the site and he felt that the proposal for the placement of the sign was the simplest route to address the issue. Mr. Carpenter commented that the posts and concrete base surrounding the pole for the proposed sign should help with the issue of the sign being damaged by vehicles. Mr. Krasniewski stated that he assumed that adjacent property owners did not have any concerns with the request as no one was present to comment on it. Mr. Cornell asked for clarification of the location of the new sign as opposed to the previously one. Mr. Mazza responded that the pole for the previous sign was abutting the pavement on the sidewalk and described the new location for the proposed sign which was approximately 6 -8 over from the previous area. He further commented that this was the only entrance to the parking lot which is quite wide however the parking lot is very narrow. Mr. Cornell inquired if the proposed sign would be high enough to not create visual problems for motorists. Mr. Muehrer stated that it should not be an issue and discussed the locations of the existing curb cuts and the nonconformities of the parking lot and explained that these issues could be addressed in the future at such a time when the parking lot would require reconstruction. He also discussed the small area the parking lot occupies and the difficulties with the lot being placed in a different location from the structure it serves. Mr. Cornell questioned if the parking lot has access off of W. 8 th Avenue. Mr. Mazza replied negatively. Motion by Nielsen to approve the request for a variance to permit a ground mount sign with a 0' front yard setback. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5 -0. Find of Facts: Improvement to safety. No harm to public interest. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Cornell questioned if the board reorganization would be placed on the June agenda. Mr. Muehrer responded that it would unless no items were submitted for the month of June in which case it would be placed on the July agenda. The City Attorney would also be invited to attend. Mr. Carpenter inquired if correspondence was sent to the applicant after the variance process was completed extending the City's appreciation for their cooperation in the matter. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 May 11, 2011 Mr. Muehrer replied that a letter was sent out to each applicant after the meeting containing standard language regarding the variance process and how to proceed after the variance has been either approved or denied. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:02 p.m. (Nielsen/Cryan). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 5 May 11, 2011