Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES September 14, 2011 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Janet Duellman, Dennis Penney, Kathryn Larson, Jane Cryan, Robert Krasniewski EXCUSED: None STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator; Darlene Brandt, Recording Secretary Chairman Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of August 10, 2011 were approved as distributed. (Cryan/Krasniewski) L 2211 VINLAND STREET Thomas Kromm, applicant; Tyler Hoyt, owner, requests the following variance to permit an 864 sq. ft. detached garage in the rear yard: Description Detached garage structure Code Reference Maximum Proposed 800 sq. ft. 864 sq. ft. 30- 17(B)(4)(b)(vi) Mr. Muehrer stated the property in question does not contain an attached or detached garage. The applicant is proposing to expand an existing driveway into the rear yard and construct a 24' x 36' detached garage, which exceeds the permitted square footage by 64 square feet. The applicant indicates the request will not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties because the neighborhood has several detached garages that exceed the required square footage. The additional square footage is needed to store lawn equipment, vehicles, etc. inside. The applicant believes that due to the age of the existing home, an attached garage is not feasible. Mr. Muehrer stated there is nothing unusual or unique about the property that creates a justifiable hardship to grant the variance request. The request is based on preferences unique to the applicant and not a hardship to the property. Mr. Tom Kromm, 1284 Harold Drive, Appleton, stated in canvassing the neighborhood, there are several garages that exceed the 800 sq. ft. requirement. An attached garage is not feasible, yet the owner would like to have the same enjoyment and use as someone that can build a larger attached garage. He is not aware of any detriment other than what is in the ordinance. He felt an 864 sq. ft. garage is not out of scale on the property due to the lot size. He also noted the proposed garage is for residential use. Mr. Carpenter noted he built a 24'x 28' garage and has lots of space. Mr. Tyler Hoyt, 2211 Vinland Street, stated his basement is only 3' -4' tall which does not allow room for storage so additional garage area is needed for storage, as well as storage of equipment. Ms. Larson inquired what is the hardship. Mr. Kromm replied the age of the structure prohibits an attached garage. There is also an easement on the north side of the property. The owner did not create these conditions. Mr. Cornell stated the Board is governed by State Statutes and the hardship must be to the lot. This appears to be a want. Mr. Cornell questioned why an 800 sq. ft. garage would not work. Board of Appeals Minutes 1 September 14, 2011 Mr. Carpenter stated other applicants have stated in the past that 5 ft. basements are not usable for storage. The Board has heard about recreational vehicles that do not fit in garages. He favors not being able to see these types of things stored outside in the yard. Mr. Penney inquired if there could be an 800 sq. ft. garage and a utility shed. Mr. Muehrer replied yes. There is the easement on the north side, but alternatives are available for this site. Mr. Krasniewski inquired what constitutes attached. Mr. Muehrer replied if the garage is built closer than 5 ft. to the house it is considered attached for zoning purposes. Mr. Carpenter believed an attached garage would make maneuvering difficult. Mr. Kromm stated surface water tends to drain across the back half of the property, which could be detrimental if the Hoyt's were to build in the back yard. Mr. Hoyt stated the south end of his yard is in the shape of a valley. The adjacent neighbors have built up their properties and it is not unusual to see 6 inches of water in his back yard after a big storm. Ms. Duellman inquired if that drainage pattern is permitted. Mr. Muehrer replied no, there cannot be any adverse drainage impact on the adjacent property. Water must be contained on site. Mr. Carpenter stated he does not like to see items stored outside. He felt problems exist due to the drainage from the adjacent lots and the short basement walls. He felt the proposal is the best solution. Mr. Penney did not see where 64 square feet would make a difference and solve the applicant's problem. He questioned staff what the maximum size of a utility shed could be. Mr. Muehrer replied 150 square feet. Mr. Penney felt two out buildings are permitted and would comply with the ordinance. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request to construct an 864 square foot detached garage. Seconded by Penney. Motion denied 2 -3 (Aye: Carpenter, Cryan. Nay: Cornell, Penney, Krasniewski) II. 1108 REICHOW STREET Mark Dante, owner /applicant, requests the following variance to permit an 880 sq. ft. detached garage in the rear yard: Description Code Reference Maximum Proposed Detached garage structure 30- 17(B)(4)(b)(vi) 800 sq. ft. 880 sq. ft. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 September 14, 2011 Mr. Muehrer stated the applicant is proposing to construct a 20 ft. x 22 ft. addition to the existing 440 sq. ft. detached garage. The applicant indicates the additional space is needed for storage of tools, equipment and children's toys. If approved, the applicant does not believe the variance would have an adverse effect on surrounding properties because the detached garage is not visible from the street or adjacent properties, and the proposed addition will create more value than undeveloped open green space. If denied, the applicant feels a hardship will be imposed because he was unable to develop the parcel as desired and will lose enclosed storage area on site. Mr. Muehrer stated the request is based on personal preferences and there is not a hardship specific to the property. Mr. Mark Dante, 1108 Reichow Street, stated he has lived at this location for 10 years. The house is a split level with no basement so everything ends up in the garage. With toys for two small children, a work bench, and an extra refrigerator, there is not room for cars in the garage. The proposed addition would add more value to the property. Ms. Cryan inquired what is the percentage of green space to be maintained on a R -1 residential lot. Mr. Muehrer replied maximum 30% to be covered, with 70% open green space. Mr. Dante stated there is a similar sized lot on Georgia Street that is constructing a new garage and he did not believe there is any more green space than what he is proposing. Mr. Dante stated he has been approved for an 18 ft. x 20 ft. addition but wanted to do something with the space behind the garage. All the lots are fenced in. He has talked to the neighbors and no one objects. Referring to the air photo, Mr. Krasniewski stated there is also a pool in the back yard. He inquired if there is more than 30% coverage being proposed. Mr. Muehrer replied he did not know. The approved site plan for the 18 ft. x 20 ft. addition did not show the pool. Staff will need to re- review the information prior to a permit being issued. Mr. Carpenter felt this request is somewhat different from the first hearing and no hardship to the property has been shown. Motion by Penney to approve the request to construct a 20 ft. x 22 ft. addition to the existing detached garage. Seconded by Cryan. Motion denied 0 -5. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:15 pm (Carpenter /Cryan) Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 3 September 14, 2011