Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES June 13, 2012 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Janet Duellman, Dennis Penney, Kathryn Larson, Jane Cryan, Robert Krasniewski 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. Mr. Cornell opened the floor for nominations for Chairperson. Motion by Penney to nominate Mr. Cornell. Seconded by Carpenter. As there were no additional nominations for Chairperson, the floor was closed for nominations. Mr. Cornell accepted the nomination for Chairperson. Motion carried 4-0-1. (Mr. Cornell abstained) Mr. Cornell opened the floor for nominations for Vice-Chairperson. Motion by Penney to nominate Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter declined the nomination for Vice-Chairperson. Motion by Cryan to nominate Mr. Penney. Seconded by Carpenter. As there were no additional nominations for Vice-Chairperson, the floor was closed for nominations. Mr. Penney accepted the nomination for Vice-Chairperson. Motion carried 4-0-1. (Mr. Penney abstained) The minutes of May 9, 2012 were approved as presented. (Krasniewski/Cryan) ITEM I: 1160 GREENFIELD TRAIL Patricia M. Martin-applicant/owner, requests the following variance to permit a new covered entrance platform in the minimum front yard setback: Description Code ReferenceMinimum Proposed Front yard setback 30-17 (B)(3)(c) 25’ 21’ Board of Appeals Minutes 1 June 13, 2012 Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District and features a single-family dwelling bordered by other single- family residential uses. The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a new 4’x6’ roof structure that would project 4’ into the required 25’ front yard setback. The existing entrance features an uncovered concrete slab which is allowed by right however the proposed covered entrance platform requires a variance. The applicant feels the variance, if granted, would not have an adverse effect as it would not obstruct neighboring property views and a special condition exists as the large mature tree that previously shielded the home from the sun has been removed. This tree could potentially be replaced however given the corner location of the parcel, this could create vision triangle conflicts. Staff recommends the approval of the variance as the visual impact on the neighborhood should be nominal and not detrimental to adjacent properties. Patricia Martin, 1160 Greenfield Trail, stated that the details were all covered in the staff report and she had no additional information to discuss. Ms. Larson questioned if the overhang was going to come out an additional four feet from the slab. Ms. Martin responded negatively and stated that the overhang would come out four feet from the base of the home. Ms. Larson then commented that the tree could be replanted but she did feel the overhang was necessary in this climate. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if the tree was going to be replanted. Ms. Martin responded that the terrace tree that the city planted was going to be replaced however the stump has not yet been removed and would not be until fall. She further stated that she may replant the tree in the yard but not in the same location. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if there was not a conflict with vision issues and the terrace trees. Mr. Muehrer responded that there is vision considerations granted for tree plantings in the right-of-way. Mr. Penney commented that the staff report referred to the special condition applicable to the subject site is the lack of mature trees and questioned how a four foot overhang was going to protect the home from the sun. Ms. Martin responded that the area around the doorway was extremely hot and this should help with that issue. Ms. Larson inquired how the roof would be supported. Ms. Martin replied that the roof would be supported by columns as shown in the site plan. Motion by Carpenter to approve the request for a variance to permit a new covered entrance platform with a 21’ front yard setback with the following conditions: 1)The covered entrance platform shall not be enclosed at any time. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 June 13, 2012 Seconded by Krasniewski.Motion carried 5-0. Ms. Martin questioned the process of obtaining her building permit. Mr. Muehrer that her permit could be obtained tomorrow morning and he would contact her about the process. Finding of Facts: No harm to public interest. Unique situation. II. 2051 JACKSON STREET Hunt Real Estate-applicant, Thomas A. McDermott Jr.-owner, requests the following variance to permit a new off-street parking facility in the minimum front yard setback: Description Code ReferenceMinimum Proposed Front yard setback 30-25(B)(2)(c) 25’ 8’ Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property was zoned C-2 General Commercial District bordered by other commercial land uses except to the west where multi-family residential is located. The petitioners are proposing to develop the subject property with a commercial retail development and associated amenities and the front yard setback variance is being requested to accommodate a 24’ wide two-way drive aisle and off-street parking stalls. Vehicle access is proposed via a 25’ wide driveway on Jackson Street and a 40’ wide driveway on W. Linwood Avenue and the variance is required to provide vehicular circulation and meet off-street parking standards. Justifiable hardship is present in this case as the parcel’s double-frontage limits alternatives to accommodate functional and safe maneuvering on-site outside of minimum setbacks. By the proposed location of the drive aisle and off-street parking stalls the petitioners are attempting to limit as many adverse variables as possible and the variance, if granted, would not be detrimental to adjacent property owners. Mr. Bader, 354 Indian Springs Drive, Green Bay, stated that he was present on behalf of the petitioner to discuss the request and that the street frontage on two sides of the property makes it difficult to meet the standard setbacks. Mr. Cornell questioned if the site plan indicated that the property would have a second driveway access. Mr. Bader responded that the second access was mainly for truck access but it could be used by customers as well. Mr. Krasniewski commented that there were several curb cuts on the site and questioned the purpose. Mr. Bader indicated that they are only requesting one curb cut. Mr. Muehrer added that the Department of Public Works would close off unnecessary curb cuts to the property. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 June 13, 2012 Mr. Krasniewski questioned the light pole located within the setback area on the site plan as it was not mentioned as part of this request. Mr. Muehrer responded that the variance application did not mention the light pole and the board could amend the request to include the light pole within the setback area or the petitioner could alter the site plan to remove the pole from this area. Mr. Bader stated that they would like to have the light pole included with the variance request rather than move it to a different location. Discussion ensued on light levels at the property line and adjacent properties and the location of lighting on those sites. It was determined that light levels should not be an issue as they would have to meet code requirements for foot candles at the property line and the other adjacent sites were most likely conditional use permits or planned developments and the location of the light poles were approved as part of that process. Mr. Muehrer stated that he recommended the light poles be included as part of this variance request. Ms. Cryan questioned if this Family Dollar store would be replacing the existing store on Main Street. Mr. Bader indicated that the Main Street location would remain. Mr. Cornell inquired if the pylon sign meets the city’s standards for height and size. Mr. Muehrer responded that it would be addressed as part of the building permit process and was not part of the variance request. He added that the petitioner has been very accommodating to attempt to meet the city’s code requirements and standards for this development. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if there would be any change to the sidewalk surrounding the site. Mr. Muehrer replied that there would not be until such time that street reconstruction would occur in the area. Ms. Larson inquired about landscaping and greenspace for the development. Mr. Muehrer indicated that those issues would be addressed during the site plan review process. Motion by Penney to approve the request for a variance to permit a new off-street parking facility with an 8’ front yard setback. Seconded by Cryan. Ms. Duellman left the meeting at 3:58 pm. Mr. Muehrer questioned if the board wished to address the light poles within the setback with a condition added to this variance or if they desired to have the applicant come back with another variance request. Motion by Penney to amend the previous motion to include the following condition: 1)To approve as requested with the light poles as shown on the submitted diagram. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 June 13, 2012 Seconded by Cryan. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: Hardship with corner lot. No harm to public interest. Width of lot restrictive. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Krasniewski commented that the addresses and phone numbers of the board members had once again been added to the City’s website. Mr. Muehrer responded that he would address the matter and have the information removed. PROCEDURES AND REGULATIONS Mr. Muehrer stated that in the past the Procedures and Regulations document for the Board of Appeals has been reviewed. He questioned if the Board members wished to review and discuss it again or if they were comfortable with it as is. Mr. Penney questioned when it was last reviewed and revised and if there were any changes since that time. Mr. Muehrer replied that it was one year ago and there have been no changes since that time. There was a general consensus that the document did not require any further review or revisions at this time. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:02 p.m. (Krasniewski/Carpenter). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 5 June 13, 2012