Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 November 11, 2015 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES November 11, 2015 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Tom Willadsen, Kathryn Larson, Robert Krasniewski, Dennis Penney, Reginald Parson STAFF: Todd Muehrer, 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. Willadsen inquired about the word “exclusive” on page 3 of the minutes when Ms. Janasik states the property owner is an architect and is exclusive with landscaping and architectural features. Mr. Muehrer replied the minutes are verbatim and exclusive was the word used by Ms. Janasik. The minutes of September 9th, 2015 were approved as presented. (Parson/Carpenter) (Penney abstained) ITEM I: 817 RANDALL PLACE Neighborhood Development Properties LLC–applicant/owner, requests the following variances to permit a detached garage in the front yard: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Accessory Structure in FY 30-1 (A)(2) Rear or side yard Front Front yard Setback (west) 30-17(B)(4)(d) 25’ minimum 2’ Side yard Setback (north) 30-17(B)(4)(d) 2’6” minimum 2’ Corner Lot/Vision Clearance 30-35(G) 20’ 14’ Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is rectangular in shape; possesses three front yards on Randall Place, Vilas Avenue and Division Street; is zoned C-3 Central Commercial District; and is used for single-family dwelling purposes. The parcel is bordered by single-family residential in all directions and the general area is comprised predominately of low-density residential uses. The principal structure is a one and a half-story home and currently has no garage or other accessory buildings permitted. It should be noted during the site visit to the parcel for this request an accessory shed has been placed on the site without a permit and will need to be removed regardless of the outcome of this current request. The applicant is requesting variances to construct a 16’x24’ detached garage located in the front yard to be used for covered off-street parking and storage purposes for the parcel’s residential dwelling. Unique property circumstances are present in this request. First, the parcel is dimensionally nonconforming for width, depth and area. Second, as previously mentioned the parcel possesses triple-frontage. Both of these variables are out of the petitioner’s control and preventing options for placement to meet code without variances. In fact, there does not appear to be any alternative present where an attached or detached garage could be placed on the parcel without variances being required. The current proposal includes 2’ setbacks on the north and west property lines to provide area for gutters and overhang typically associated with detached garages. The proposed 5’ of separation between the home and garage is necessary for building code purposes. The proposed garage will have a significant street presence Board of Appeals Minutes 2 November 11, 2015 on the Division Street frontage if approved. Therefore, careful attention to aesthetics needs to be considered as it will impact the neighborhood. In general the current requests are the least variance necessary and no harm to the public interest will occur if granted. Approval of the variance with conditions is recommended. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit a detached garage in the front yard with the following conditions: 1) The proposed garage shall include colors, materials and design elements that will match or complement the existing principal structure with final approval given by the Department of Community Development. 2) The west elevation shall include windows of appropriate scale with final approval given by the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Penney. Ms. Larson inquired if there needs to be a condition regarding the firewall. Mr. Muehrer stated the firewall condition is already part of the building code. The original proposal had a zero foot set back on the north and west side of the property with a 20’ by 24’ garage. This created building code issues between the garage and home as well as encroachment on the right of way. The petitioner was contacted and the garage was then reduced to 16’ x 24’ to create the least variance necessary and capture the ability to have overhang gutters and retain the existing home under its current configuration. Ms. Larson inquired if 16’ x 24’ was a one and a half garage. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively. Ms. Larson inquired if there are 14’ x 24’ garages. Mr. Krasniewski replied there are 12’ x 24’ garages and stated this size garage would eliminate sight line problems. Mr. Muehrer stated the petitioner was trying maximize the area but once they discovered the building code limitations, the size of the garage was reduced. Mr. Krasniewski stated the garage would be placed in the front yard; however, it appears to look like a rear yard. The maximum structure area in a rear yard is 30% and the 16’ x 24’ garage would be around 41% of the rear yard area. Mr. Muehrer stated the impervious coverage does not count towards corner lots. Mr. Krasniweski stated this was not impervious but just the structure area in an R-5. Mr. Muehrer stated the property is zoned C-3 which references to R-5 standards. However, since the property is a single family use it ultimately references to R-1 standards. Mr. Carpenter stated he would like to see an extra 4 feet on the side to give room for lawn mowers and storage assuming the shed is being removed. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 November 11, 2015 Mr. Muehrer replied the shed will need to be removed regardless. Mr. Krasnieweski stated the garage will be 2 feet from the street and nowhere on Division Street is there anything 2 feet from the street. It is too close to the street. Mr. Muehrer stated the garage to the north is approximately 2 feet from the street. Mr. Parson inquired if it was possible to add a side door to the garage in addition to the actual garage door. Mr. Muehrer responded the petitioner does have a side door proposed on the northeast corner of the garage. Mr. Krasnieweski stated the driveway will have to be replaced and inquired if building code would resolve the issue. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively. Mr. Krasnieweski stated currently the parking is from the back of the house to the west. Mr. Muehrer stated the garage will be located in that general vicinity. Mr. Cornell stated the situation is bizarre and understands the concern and that people may not want to buy the home without a garage. There could be a compromise and use less variance by putting up a single car garage outside of the fact that they wouldn’t have enough room to stack a car outside. Mr. Muehrer stated it is incredibly restrictive and without having the petitioner here, the understanding is they are trying to maximize as much storage area as they can. Mr. Cornell inquired how long the petitioners have owned the property. Mr. Muehrer replied two or three years. Mr. Penney commented he didn’t understand why someone would buy the property without a garage. The owner would have to go in knowing they would get a variance. Mr. Muehrer stated the petitioner was originally looking at a carport which is why the conditions were put on. If the variance is approved it will be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood especially since they are looking to sell it and the garage is going to have significant street presence. Ms. Larson stated the house was built in 1916 and not many people had cars and the lot only accommodated the house. Anyone that is going to want to buy this house today will want a garage. It would be unreasonable to expect someone to not want some protective storage in this climate. Mr. Krasnieweski stated he had no objection to the garage other than that it is too big. It requires a number of variances and produces a safety hazard of vision and is beyond the scope of ordinances. If the petitioner made the garage smaller he would approve. Mr. Krasnieweski was not in favor of it being 2 feet from right of way. Mr. Cornell stated in the past, there have been buildings approved that go right up to the sidewalk. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 November 11, 2015 Ms. Larson inquired if there is sidewalk on that side of the street. Mr. Muehrer responded negatively but there is public right of way, so there will be minimal pedestrian traffic. Ms. Larson inquired if there are future plans for a sidewalk. Mr. Muehrer stated the street is not in a dilapidated shape that it needs to be redone anytime soon. He understands the board’s frustration with the applicant not attending the meeting but with this unique situation you don’t often see a property with three front yards and it is very challenging. Mr. Cornell stated he was concerned with the garage being two feet from right of way due to snow plows pushing snow up against the garage. Mr. Krasnieweski replied the applicant will not be living there. Mr. Penney inquired if we can carry over the request. Mr. Muehrer replied the item can be tabled to the next meeting but there is no guarantee the petitioner will show. This may also be a feeler for when the owner goes to make a sale that the property was able to get a variance to build a garage. Motion carried 3-2. (Ayes- Carpenter/Cornell/Larson. Nays- Krasniewski/Penney) Findings of facts: There are physical limitations to this property due to its small size and being bordered on three sides by public rights-of-way. There is no location on the property that would accommodate a storage structure without a variance. Without a variance, owners would be denied reasonable use of this residential property. A garage should be considered a necessity for a residential use. This is a low traffic area. The proposed substandard setbacks should have no adverse impact on traffic. Allowing protected storage for items associated with normal residential accessory of a property will provide better aesthetics for the neighborhood. Mr. Cornell stated the committee for Chairs of Boards and Commissions has discussed finding more citizens to serve on Boards and Committees. The chairs have been asked to take this back to their boards and have them reach out to the community to find people to serve on these committees. Mr. Penney inquired if there was a residency requirement. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively Mr. Cornell stated the only age requirement is to be 18 and older. Mr. Muehrer stated there is a comprehensive list of boards and committees on the boards and commission page on the City website. Board of Appeals Minutes 5 November 11, 2015 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m. (Krasniewski/Penney). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Zoning Administrator