Board of Zoning Appeals

THESE ARE THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2017, AT 7:00 P.M. HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL, 2000 N. CALHOUN ROAD, BROOKFIELD. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Bublitz, Gordon Rozmus, Frank DeGuire, Robert Buikema, Alderman Ron Balzer MEMBERS ABSENT & EXCUSED: Rod Carter, Alderman Lisa Mellone (alt.) ALSO PRESENT: Larry Goudy, Zoning & Building Administrator Kevin Bublitz called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. He stated that the notice of hearing has been duly published pursuant to the State open meetings law and explained the procedure to present the appeals to the Board this evening. 1. Roll Call Mr. Bublitz indicated that a quorum is present and that the request for variances must receive the affirmative vote of three members of the Board in order for a request to be granted. New Business: 2a. October 12, 2017, Minutes • Gordon Rozmus moved approval of the October 12, 2017, Board of Appeals meeting minutes. Seconded by Robert Buikema and carried unanimously. ******** Public Hearing & Consideration of Appeal: Certain requests for building permits have been submitted to the City of Brookfield and have been denied by the Zoning & Building Administrator because they did not comply with the Zoning, Building or Sign Code of the City of Brookfield. There will be a Public Hearing held before the Board of Appeals on September 14, 2017, at 7:00 pm at the Common Council Chambers for the express purpose of considering the following request(s) for variance. Please note that following the public hearing(s) the Board intends to take action by considering the request indicated: 3a. John and Amy Close, 15120 Woodbridge Rd.: Deck The next item was the request of John and Any Close, Lot 3 Blk 5 Willaura 2 PT NW ¼ & SW ¼ Sec 14 T7N R20E, to appeal Section 15.04.380 C. to permit replacement of a deck which is too close to the lot line at 15120 Woodbridge Road. The proposed deck is located 10’ from the rear property line where 20’ is the minimum offset. Mr. Goudy stated Section 15.04.380 C. reads that decks must be located outside the offset area. In this subdivision, the offset regulation is a minimum of 20 feet from interior lot lines. Side and rear lot lines would be 20 feet as well. Two side lot lines are not affected by Board of Appeals Page 2 November 9, 2017 the proposed deck. The proposed deck is located 10’ from the rear property line and 20’ is required. The existing deck that is on the house was built as part of the original home construction and is a 16-1/2’ x 6’ deck. The proposed new deck is a 20’ x 13’10” elevated deck. The other item to consider is that there is a 20’ sewer easement at the rear of the property. The applicant already had discussion and has in-writing from the City of Brookfield’s Engineering Dept., that it is acceptable to build and elevated deck within that easement. Staff has not received any comments from neighbors. Mr. Goudy explained that there is one big oddity in this subdivision. There is a tremendous topography change from front to back of the homes in this area. Three properties, the subject property and two to the west, share a driveway at the rear of the house. Beyond that is a significantly large wetland the City owns. Mr. Close explained that he bought the property 20 years ago. He felt the age of the home is 35-40 years old. This deck as well as a patio was part of the original construction. The deck was already into the original design of the house. The house is located 23 feet from the back property line. Because of the the 20’ setback, the deck could only have a 3’ deck or patio. He stated the engineering department reviewed the easement and gave them a 10’ encroachment into the 20’ easement. Mr. Close stated the house was built to have a deck because there is a sliding patio door. There is a driveway to the back and then 300 yards of woods behind as well as a large wetland. He spoke with neighbors to the east and west sides and they have no issue. The neighbors indicated they would provide a written letter in support if needed. Mr. Buikema asked why the deck is being expanded. Mr. Close stated he looked at the patio and wanted it basically the same size. The the old deck is just a cantilever design, and therefore was made fairly small. The new deck is designed with pillars which would be located outside of the patio. The deck is a standard 20’ length for composite and was recommended by the contractor. Mr. Rozmus asked will it have vertical support. Mr. Close replied yes. Alderman Balzer asked how close will the deck be to the driveway (how much green space will there be)? Mr. Goudy replied it is 10’ from the property line as shown on the survey and probably another 7’ to the driveway. Mr. Rozmus felt the easement would still have very good access still. Mr. Rozmus asked will there be steps to the first level. Mr. Close replied yes. The steps would fall within 10’ of the home. Mr. Buikema felt the property was unique. He would have preferred and been more comfortable with the same dimensions of the existing deck, but he understands. Alderman Balzer also stated there was nothing in back of the house. Mr. Bublitz agreed and stated it is a very unique property with only 3’ of room to fit a deck. There was also a driveway to the rear of the property. He felt some variance was needed. There was no adverse effect on the public interest. • Kevin Bublitz moved to approve the variance as proposed. The motion was seconded by Alderman Balzer and carried unanimously. Board of Appeals Page 3 November 9, 2017 ****** 2. Stanton Optical, 12400 W. Capitol Dr.: Two Wall Signs and a Monument Sign The next item was the request of Stanton Optical, Lot 2, Certified Survey Map No. 11531, recorded as Document No. 4264106, on February 21, 2017, in Book 115, on pages 79 through 84, being a part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 1, Township 7 North, Range 20 East, to appeal Section 15.16.220 C.4 to permit installation of two wall signs and a monument (already approved0 at 12400 W. Capitol Drive. The proposed signs would exceed the allowable number of signs for the tenant space. Mr. Bublitz reviewed the standards for granting a sign variance. Mr. Goudy stated last month at the Board of Appeals, Starbucks appeared for a wall sign variance, which was granted. This is the same property and is the eastern tenant of that building. It is basically the same request as Starbucks. The developer received approval for a monument sign which advertises both tenants and the City of Brookfield. That sign is diagonal to the main intersection. In addition to that, they are requesting two wall signs. The variance request is for a second wall. One is on the east elevation and the other one is on the south elevation. There is no issue with the square footage of the signage or the appearance of it. The Code limits signage to two. The size is a 24 square foot wall sign on the east and south elevation. The applicant has written a letter for their reasoning. Mr. Goudy stated he has not received any comments from those that were noticed. Ram Suved, landlord, and Amy LeClaire from Stanton Optical, appeared before the Board. Ms. LeClaire stated the signage on Capitol is fine, but the shared signage with Starbucks will face the intersection. There will be no signage visible from 124th Street as you approach Capitol. This will cause confusion and congestion on Capitol Drive. Alderman Balzer asked why the monument sign can’t be seen. It was explained by Ms. LeClaire that the sign is on an angle/diagonal. The monument sign is one-sided and it’s diagonal to the intersection. It faces the intersection. Mr. Buikema stated he knows the property is challenging and there is a lot of traffic. We have to look at the Starbucks sign as a potential precedent. What was persuasive to him in that situation was that the sign was just the Starbucks logo without any lettering. He thought that was appealing, but he also felt that Stanton Optical’s logo probably wasn’t that well known as Starbucks. He’s not sure if it will cause an undue concentration of signs. Mr. Rozmus asked in regards to the size of the lettering, how that compares to Starbucks. Mr. Goudy replied it is wider and about the same in height. Overall, the square footage is very similar. He thought Starbucks was a little bit higher, but the proposed sign is a relatively small sign. Ms. LeClaire explained that Stanton Optical is nation-wide company. There are two in Wisconsin, but growing next year. Mr. Rozmus asked the Capitol Drive-side would have the Stanton Optical and Starbucks sign. On the east side of the building would be Stanton Optical (but not Starbucks). The Board of Appeals Page 4 November 9, 2017 Starbucks logo sign is on the west side. Mr. Goudy responded that this is correct. Mr. DeGuire stated as he was driving east on Capitol Drive, he could not tell what was there. Mr. Buikema agreed and stated it is one of the busiest intersections. Alderman Balzer agreed and thinks it could use a sign. • Gordon Rozmus moved approval of the variance request based on the size of the sign is in scale with the adjoining business, the sign on the east side of the building will be helpful for traffic management, access to the property; and the monument sign is necessary for traffic to spot and get access to the site. The motion was seconded by Frank DeGuire and carried unanimously. ****** • Frank DeGuire moved to adjourn. Seconded by Kevin Buikema and carried unanimously. Meeting ended at 8:30 p.m. Minutes submitted by Renee J. Tadych, Deputy City Clerk.