Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 April 13, 2016 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES April 13, 2016 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Tom Willadsen, Robert Krasniewski, Reginald Parson, Kathryn Larson EXCUSED: Dennis Penney STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Zoning Administrator; Brian Slusarek, Zoning Code Enforcement Inspector; Katie Breselow, Recording Secretary Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of March 9, 2016 were approved as presented. (Krasniewski/Willadsen) ITEM I: 2375 W 9TH AVENUE Lloyd Wells-applicant/owner, requests the following variance to permit a single-family residential front yard driveway exceeding the width of the garage: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Driveway width 30-36(B)(1)(c) May not exceed width of garage Wider than garage Mr. Slusarek presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the subject .19 acre (approx. 8,280 square feet) property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District and is being used for single family dwelling purposes. The 72’ X 115’ lot is located on the southeast corner of West 9th Avenue and Heritage Trail. Adjacent land uses to the subject parcel include single family residential in all directions. The surrounding area is predominantly residential. This residential property consists of an existing one-story principal structure that includes a two-stall attached garage fronting Heritage Trail. The property also has a legal nonconforming driveway/parking area fronting West 9th Avenue, on which a 16’ X 30’ detached garage was constructed in 2015. In August of 2015, Planning Services issued a correction notice to the property owner requiring removal of the section of concrete that was added to the driveway along West 9th Avenue as the driveway exceeded the maximum width for driveways not leading to garages (12 feet) where the concrete was added. Based on the facts that there is an additional garage along Heritage Trail, which provides sufficient parking and this is not a hardship that is unique to the property, denial of this variance is recommended. Attorney James Phelan, 219 E. Wisconsin Street, Neenah, stated that he appreciates everyone taking the time to meet with him about the variance. His client/owner of the property Lloyd Wells was unable to attend due to an urgent appointment that came up. He then stated that if needed, his client is able to come on a different date because he does feel strongly about the situation. This is a variance request regarding the turnaround area; the garage addition was permissible. His client stated that the gravel has been there over a decade-30 plus years. A 2005 aerial photo shows tree cover and the driveway not viewable and a small fence around the turnaround area which has a permit that was issued in 2005. He understands the bad precedent with the zoning variance and which is rarely granted but believes this is one of those rare cases. The slab was poured by a contractor in 2007/2008 and Mr. Wells understood that a permit was obtained but unfortunately that was not the case. He was cited for the violation and thus applied for the variance. It does not inconvenience other properties and he understands again the precedent to others. Mr. Phelan then said he does not see any other property owners that have made turnaround. The owner was not aware of any issues until 2015 when he was cited and it would create a hardship for him because he is a retired veteran on a fixed income. No neighbors have objected. It would cause an economic hardship because he would have to have it taken out and then put gravel back in or whatever action is required to correct the issue as it is a safety concern. He does have another entrance on the other side of the home. He then reiterated the use of the turnaround area and safety for his client’s needs. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 April 13, 2016 Mr. Willadsen then asked how long Mr. Wells has been living at the property. Mr. Phelan responded around 30 years, he would have to double check tax bills to be more accurate. Mr. Parson referenced the last sentence of the first page, “The property owner also explains that the hardship that would result from the variance not being granted would be dangerous conditions when backing out onto West 9th Avenue.” Mr. Parson asked what the definition of a hardship is. Mr. Phelan stated it is a multi-lane road that Mr. Wells is backing out onto and he is an older gentleman and afraid/nervous of backing out. Mr. Cornell stated that there is a driveway on the property that enters onto Heritage Trail and asked what would hinder his access from going front forward onto 9th Avenue from there. Mr. Phelan stated that Mr. Wells always can access 9th Avenue from that garage. The issue he pointed out would go towards the hardship, as he feels this should be a continuance of a legal non-conforming use. Another issue is that there is a legal non-conforming driveway in existence with a garage that Mr. Wells has a valid permit for and wants to reasonably and safely use; the garage being an $8-10,000 project. Mr. Willadsen responded that he does not believe the question was answered with safety being the issue, being able to park on Heritage Trail and safely get onto 9th Avenue. He then asked why he would park on 9th Avenue when it is perfectly safe to park on Heritage Trail. Mr. Phelan responded that he cannot dispute that there isn’t access from that driveway and stated that the issue that applies to a hardship is what he previously stated, that the garage is legally permitted and Mr. Wells should have the right to utilize that. Board discussion ensued determining the garage as being legally permitted and not the issue of the variance request. Mr. Krasniewski asked who the contractor was that completed the work. Mr. Phelan responded that they did not have that information and knew it was a problem. Mr. Krasniewski asked again to confirm that Mr. Wells did not know who the contractor was that told him he did not need a permit and that is was very pertinent to the situation. Mr. Phelan responded that they did not have that information and that is an issue with not having Mr. Wells present. Mr. Krasniewski asked to clarify the width of the driveway that leads from the garage; it is 17 feet 2 inches on page 5. Mr. Phelan confirmed that this measurement was correct. Mr. Krasniewski said the width of the garage is 16 feet and the width of the driveway cannot exceed the garage by ordinance and he was stating this fact because Mr. Phelan was unaware of the size and the age of the house which is very well kept and he does not believe it is 30 years old. He then asked about the use of the garage. Mr. Phelan stated to his understanding it is regular residential use: parking, storing, etc. Mr. Krasniewski asked if the garage was permitted. Mr. Phelan responded affirmatively. Mr. Krasniewski asked what the width of the curb cut was. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 April 13, 2016 Mr. Muehrer responded that the apron currently exists and that there are three sidewalk sections, therefore the curb cut should be close to 17 feet. Mr. Carpenter asked if there was a sidewalk by the house. Mr. Muehrer stated he presumes there is one coming from the porch, after looking at page 10 there is a sidewalk looping from the Heritage Trail garage to the front porch. Discussion then ensued about where the sidewalk was located on the property and any pavement next to the garage. It was determined that it was uncertain if there was a sidewalk at the location. Mr. Krasniewski asked if the applicant knew of any other properties that have turnarounds in their front yards. Mr. Phelan stated he was unsure and not informed of any. Mr. Parson asked what the repercussions are if the variance request is denied. Mr. Slusarek stated that Mr. Wells would need to remove the turnaround area and then the maximum size of the driveway can only be the width of the garage with other improvements required to be removed. Mr. Willadsen asked if the turnaround area is removed, would gravel be able to be placed in that location. Mr. Slusarek responded that gravel could not be put down; a surface such as grass would be required. Motion by Krasniewski to approve a single-family residential front yard driveway exceeding the width of the garage. Motion seconded by Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter stated he went past the property twice since receiving the paperwork on this variance for personal reasons and stated that when driving on this street he realized this is a very busy intersection making it difficult to get onto 9th Avenue without caution. He further stated the last couple paragraphs say a lot in the application, that the property owner would prefer to have the turnaround. He thinks it is a great idea, but not a hardship unique to the property. He feels as though it is a good idea for more property owners to have this amenity being a unique hardship to the entire area and that the City may be lacking and need to update the ordinance. While driving down 20th Avenue he counted six owners with turnarounds and driving down 9th Avenue he believes he would find more although he has not done so. He then reiterated turnarounds are a great idea, no harm to the public and would even be better for the public and that the City needs to update their ordinance. Ms. Larson disagreed strongly stating that he built another garage off 9th Avenue and he is choosing to use it verses using his other driveway, causing his own hardship. His argument is that he does not have a way onto 9th Avenue without backing out, although the house was built over 20 years ago with access from Heritage Trail. Mr. Carpenter stated then that the garage should not be permitted. Ms. Larson replied that the garage is a storage facility and not just used for parking your vehicle. Mr. Carpenter stated that the other driveway is on a corner and the Board has always stated that corner lots are unique. Ms. Larson replied that maybe the ordinance needs to be changed but there is not physical hardship related to the property. Mr. Krasniewski stated the hardship is self-imposed and he has the opportunity to back onto the street. Although he was unaware he had to have a permit, it is not permissible for a basis to grant a variance. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 April 13, 2016 Mr. Cornell then asked if Mr. Wells would he be allowed the five feet. Mr. Muehrer confirmed he would be allowed the five feet for the sidewalk but not allowed to park or utilize the area for parking. Mr. Krasniewski asked if the driveway should be no wider than 16 feet or the length of the garage. Mr. Muehrer confirmed that the driveway should be no wider than the front garage edges. Ms. Larson stated she respects that he is an elderly veteran but he has alternatives. Mr. Carpenter stated that the City should not have approved the garage then. Mr. Muehrer replied that Mr. Wells has a legal non-conforming second driveway and there is nothing stating he could not have a garage on the driveway. Discussion then ensued about the zoning ordinance possibly being updated and possible harm to the public. It was established that the Board does not have the authority to change city ordinance. Mr. Krasniewski asked if there was ever a garage in that location. Mr. Muehrer stated he is unsure if there was ever a garage but if there is an existing curb cut there was once an opening for one. Motion denied 4-1. Findings of facts: Owner purchased property on 9th Avenue with the garage and driveway opening onto Heritage Trail. Owner chose to add the second garage, knowing that access would be on 9th Ave. This, then, is a self- created hardship and cannot be the basis for granting a variance. Approval of this variance would allow the owner a special privilege not allowed to other property owners in similar circumstances and may set precedent for future variance requests. Denial of this variance will not prohibit the owner from continued normal residential use of this property as there is sufficient parking space by the attached garage. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:03 p.m. (Krasniewski/Willadsen). Respectfully submitted, Brian Slusarek Zoning Code Enforcement Inspector