Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 June 10, 2015 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES June 10, 2015 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Reginald Parson, Kathryn Larson, Robert Krasniewski EXCUSED: Dennis Penney, Tom Willadsen STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Andrea Flanigan, 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 Larson 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 Krasniewski to nominate Mr. Penney. Seconded by Carpenter. As there were no additional nominations for Vice-Chairperson, the floor was closed for nominations. Mr. Penney was absent. Motion carried 5-0. The minutes of May 13, 2015 were approved as presented. (Carpenter/Parson) ITEM I: 60 SENNHOLZ COURT Description Code Reference Required Proposed Required Parking 30-36(F)(2)(a) 3 stalls 1 attached garage stall Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property was zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District and proposed to be used for congregate living purposes. The site is developed with a ranch-style home and attached garage built in 1945 and the general area is predominately low-density residential in character. The applicants are proposing to use the home as an adult family group home with two beds for resident care purposes with a staff member assigned to each resident. A variance is needed from the off-street parking requirements to permit the existing 1-car garage and driveway facilities to meet parking requirements. The code would require 3 off-street parking stalls and the home currently possesses 1 via the existing attached garage. The applicants plan to utilize the existing Board of Appeals Minutes 2 June 10, 2015 8’x86’ driveway to accommodate the other 2 required parking spaces. The American with Disabilities Act and its general requirements are applicable in this request and require a public entity to reasonably modify its policies to avoid discrimination and the Board needs to determine what a reasonable modification to the off- street parking requirement is. Given the site limitations, existing development pattern and population proposed to be served at the dwelling it is reasonable to modify the strict application of the zoning ordinance standards in this instance. The property with its basic 1-car attached garage design and the existing driveway can accommodate 4 cars in a stacked-manner. With an anticipated staff of two, no overflow parking on- street or adverse impact on the neighborhood should occur. There is no plan to expand the number of beds at the home creating a larger demand for parking and expanding the garage or creating an additional stall next to it is not feasible give the limited lot width and existing layout. Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. Paul Schultz 458 Ruggles Street, Fond du Lac and Nicole Ehmcke 1657 South 28th Street, Milwaukee stated that Gateway Care LLC would utilize the home at 60 Sennholz Court to provide care to clients of the state. The issue that was run into was the need for two additional parking spaces for staff. The driveway does not currently count as two parking spaces. Mr. Parson questioned where visitors would park when visiting. Ms. Ehmcke responded that the clients living in the home typically do not have family and the only visitors would be from the nurses that would stop in once a month. Ms. Larson questioned if the clients were physically handicapped and if the house would meet the needs if they were physically handicapped. Mr. Schultz responded that the clients are not physically handicapped and are able to function without assistance. They do need guidance with driving, cooking, laundry and money management. Mr. Cornell inquired if the clients were able to retire on their own at night or if they needed assistance. Mr. Schultz responded that there would be one staff member that would stay overnight. Mr. Krasniewski inquired about the setback for parking. Mr. Muehrer responded that the stalls need to be 9’x18’ and as long as the parking did not obstruct the right of way itself we would consider the driveway part of the stacked parking which is why there are four parking spaces calculated in the staff report. Mr. Parson questioned if there needed to be signs to designate staff parking. Mr. Muehrer responded that the parking will look like any other single family home and is a private residence. If the clients in the home do have visitors they would park on the street just like other homes would do with visitors in the neighborhood. Mr. Krasniewski inquired why it was necessary to have the additional parking. Mr. Muehrer responded that the need for approval is because of the grandfathered non-conforming parking arrangement for the single family home. With the home being converted to a congregate living facility the current requirements do not allow administrative approval. Mr. Muehrer showed board members an example Board of Appeals Minutes 3 June 10, 2015 of a house on the same street accommodating a single family with four parking spaces. He stated it would be the same impact as residential family parking and is a straightforward request. Mr. Carpenter inquired if the driveway was paved. Mr. Muehrer responded that the edge of the driveway near the apron is paved and the other portion is gravel. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit existing attached garage and driveway facilities to meet parking requirements for a new congregate living facility. Seconded by Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter stated he was in favor of the additional parking spaces. It seems parking across the sidewalk has become an issue and pedestrians need to walk into the road in order get around cars. There is no sidewalk with this request but it is something to think about for future parking issues. Mr. Muehrer stated parking across the sidewalks is an enforcement issue but should be addressed in the planning stages if at all possible. Ms. Larson stated that this variance will prevent the issue of cars parking over the sidewalk. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of facts: Approved use of the property in a residential district and codes require the additional parking spaces to be provided. Without a variance the home could not be used as proposed. The length of the driveway and the lack of an above ground structure will have no adverse impact on adjacent properties. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:52 p.m. (Krasniewski/Larson). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator