Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 September 10, 2014 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES September 10, 2014 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Tom Willadsen, Dennis Penney, Reginald Parson, Kathryn Larson, Robert Krasniewski STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Darlene Brandt, Recording Secretary Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of August 13, 2014 were approved as presented (Penney/Carpenter). ITEM I: 2425 PLYMOUTH STREET Description Code Reference Required Proposed Rear yard setback 30-17(B)(3) 25' min 15' Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He noted the property is irregular in shape and is zoned R-1 Single Family and used as a single family home. The structure is a single story ranch style home with an attached garage. The applicant is proposing to construct an 18'2" x 15'1" building addition on the north end of the existing home to be used as a master bedroom and bath. A variance is required since the proposed addition will intrude 10' into the required rear yard setback. Mr. Muehrer stated the lot configuration and existing architectural style of the home are creating a degree of hardship. Specifically, the lot is a traditional cul-de-sac arrangement where the front of the parcel is diminutive but steadily increases in width and area moving toward the rear lot line. The irregular lot configuration requires the home to be built closer to the rear of the lot in order to accommodate the front and side yard setback standards, while maintaining a practical buildable width for the dwelling unit and attached garage. The ranch style home also limits practical alternative placement options for an addition. Mr. Muehrer stated the only possible alternative would be to construct the addition in the side yard where there is an existing at-grade patio. However, this location is not preferred due to existing utilities and significant alterations to the existing roof lines. Ms. Shannon Schmiege, 2425 Plymouth Street, stated the shape of the lot is odd and they consider their 'back yard' as their 'side yard'. They have talked to the adjacent property owners and they indicated they don't object to the addition. Mr. Penney inquired how many square feet exist? Ms. Schmiege stated the house is a 3 bedroom ranch with around 1400 square feet. They would like to expand the existing smaller sized master bedroom. Mr. Penney inquired how long have they owned the home? Board of Appeals Minutes 2 September 10, 2014 Ms. Schmiege replied about 6 years. She also noted they are not the original owners; they did not build the house. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit an addition in the rear yard setback. Seconded by Larson. Ms. Larson stated that in some ordinances, unusual shaped lots can have back and side yards that are different from the normal yards. Mr. Penney stated he did not see a hardship. A family can live within this size home. He indicated he cannot support the request. Mr. Carpenter stated the lot is odd shaped and perhaps the house could have been placed at a different angle. He felt a hardship exists. Mr. Muehrer noted that in his discussions with the applicant, he had indicated it was hard to say a hardship exists, but the alternatives are more expensive and difficult due to the roof lines, existing utilities in the side yard, and the ranch style itself. Ms. Larson stated the side yard setbacks are being met. Mr. Krasniewski commented the addition is more economical to do as proposed by the applicant. An addition could be put on without a variance, but it would be more expensive, add another roof line, and require utilities to be moved. Mr. Penney felt additional landscaping could be installed to buffer the adjacent property. Mr. Cornell did not see the value of additional landscaping because the addition would be adjacent to a garage. The item was called. Roll call was taken. Motion carried 4-1 (AYE: Carpenter, Cornell, Larson, Krasniewski. NAY: Penney) Findings of Fact: Very unique physical limitations Unique lot configuration due to cul-de-sac No harm to the public Not infringing on others view Hardship due to size of lot Board of Appeals Minutes 3 September 10, 2014 ITEM II. 2202 JACKSON STREET Description Code Reference Required Proposed Side yard (north) 30-25(B)(2)(b) 10' 0' (parking & bldg) Front yard (west) 30-25(B)(2)(c) 25' 12' (parking) Front yard (south) 30-25(B)(2)(c) 25' 10' (bldg) / 19' (parking) Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He indicated the property is zoned C-2 General Commercial and contains a non-conforming single family home and detached garage. The existing adjacent land uses are commercial in nature except for single family residential uses to the east. The petitioners propose to raze all existing structures and construct a 5,130 sq. ft. commercial retail development and associated site improvements. Setback variances are requested for the single story commercial structure and off-street parking facility. The applicant developed the adjacent lot to the north, and cross access between the two parcels is proposed to provide alternative means of ingress/egress to the development for both customers and service vehicles. The vision triangle in the southwest corner has been kept open to maximize safety along the arterial street. The applicant also proposes a 6' high board-on-board fence along the east line to buffer the commercial use from the residential uses. A shared refuse collection area is proposed on the property to the north. The City's 20 year land use plan designates this site as commercial. However, the zoning district standards require nearly 70% of the lot area to be dedicated to setback unless variances are requested. He noted the applicant worked with City staff in developing the site with the least amount of variances, while making the development practical for business needs. Mr. Ben Hamblin, McMahon & Associates, 1445 McMahon Dr., Neenah and Mr. Dan Osero, 2686 Tower View Dr., Neenah, appeared before the Board. Mr. Hamblin stated they worked with City staff on the design of the site and attempted to comply with as many regulations as possible. Ms. Larson inquired as to what type of retail is proposed? Mr. Osero stated no tenants have been locked in at this time. Mr. Krasniewski stated the site plan is hard to read. Where is the property line? Mr. Muehrer referred to a large scale plan of the site. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if the trash area will extend to the property to the north? Mr. Muehrer stated the applicant owns the property to the north so there will be cross access for parking and garbage enclosure. He noted the trash area will meet setbacks as proposed. Mr. Cornell inquired if there is a written agreement for cross access between the properties? Mr. Osero stated a written agreement for drainage, trash, parking, etc. will be required on both properties for both current owners and any future tenants and/or owners. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 September 10, 2014 Mr. Parson inquired if there are any public health issues associated with the demolition? Mr. Osero stated demolition will follow appropriate regulations. Airborne particulants will be kept to a minimum. Mr. Cornell inquired if the mechanicals will be visible from the street? Mr. Muehrer replied the code requires screening from all sides and the applicant is complying with this requirement. Mr. Cornell stated the Board approved the Dollar Tree store project with on-site detention. Is the applicant meeting detention requirements. Mr. Muehrer did not believe the applicant has reached that point in their development plan yet. Mr. Hamblin indicated they have started working with the Public Works Department. Mr. Dale Benson, 310 Allen Ave., stated he has 2 children and is concerned with increased traffic. Just got rid of a dance club and now a strip mall with increased traffic. He felt there are malls all over town that are not filled. How will this development impact the property values in the area? He indicated a neighbor said their value dropped when Kwik Trip moved in. Ms. Larson inquired how long has Mr. Benson lived at this location. Mr. Benson replied 12 years. Mr. Penney inquired if a higher fence could be installed. Mr. Muehrer stated the applicant is proposing a 6 ft. high fence; anything higher will require a variance. Staff did discuss with the applicant the Board's concerns with safety issues on variance requests. Mr. Muehrer noted landscaping will also be installed along Jackson and Allen. Mr. Hamblin stated they would be happy to work with Mr. Allen on a suitable landscape plan. Mr. Osero noted he had previously talked to Mr. Benson regarding the project and at that time Mr. Benson did not have any objections. Mr. Benson noted he has a raised deck and with the proposed development, he will not have any privacy. Ms. Larson inquired how long has the area been used commercially. Mr. Muehrer replied a decade or more. He continued the Jackson Street frontage is and will be commercial -- it just depends on what type. Mr. Muehrer noted that Mr. Osero worked with the City when he developed the laundromat on the lot to the north. Board of Appeals Minutes 5 September 10, 2014 Mr. Penney inquired how deep was Mr. Benson's lot. Mr. Benson replied about 150 feet. There is a chain link fence along the lot line as well. Mr. Hamblin indicated there is an existing wood fence along the laundromat property that will be extended the length of the property to Allen Avenue. Mr. Benson stated another concern is drainage. There wasn't a drainage problem until Kwik Trip was constructed. He reiterated his two main concerns are privacy and safety. Mr. Krasniewski inquired of Mr. Benson if this were a residential development with a 6 ft. fence proposed, would he have the same issues? Mr. Benson stated he did not believe so. This development will be public buildings. Mr. Willadsen inquired what the back of the building would look like? Mr. Hamblin stated the back would be a brick wall with no windows. The proposed 6 ft. solid fence and brick building should reduce most of the noise from the site. Mr. Carpenter inquired if a row of arborvitae could be installed along the lot line. Mr. Hamblin stated they could move the fence in and put arborvitae along the lot line. Or the arborvitae could be installed on Mr. Benson's and he would be responsible for maintaining them. The fence would be maintained by the commercial owner. Mr. Hamblin stated they could enter into an agreement with Mr. Benson in this regard. Mr. Krasniewski stated sometimes arborvitae are not maintained and then look ugly. Mr. Benson stated he would rather look at trees versus a fence. Mr. Cornell felt the Board is trying to negotiate something that is beyond their direction. These decisions are up to staff and the applicant to work out. The Board needs to address the variances being requested. Mr. Hamblin stated all parties involved are interested in working together to resolve Mr. Benson's concerns. Motion by Penney to move approval of variances as requested to construct a commercial retail development. Seconded by Carpenter. Mr. Penney questioned if the Board could condition the approval that a fence be installed along both properties fronting on Jackson. Board of Appeals Minutes 6 September 10, 2014 Mr. Krasniewski stated the Board can only address the property in question because they are two separate parcels. Mr. Penney amended his motion to include a condition that a 6 ft. solid fence be installed along the rear lot line from Allen Avenue north to the existing fence at 2222 Jackson Street. The item was called. Roll call was taken. Motion carried 5-0. FINDINGS OF FACT: Not a self created hardship in that the change of zoning for setback requirements is being applied to a lot designed for residential uses Approval of variances will allow development in compliance with current zoning and surrounding uses Ingress/egress off Allen and shared driveway to north is best design for public safety There being no further business the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:37 pm (Penney/Larson). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator