Board of Zoning Appeals

THESE ARE THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 9, 2018, AT 7:00 P.M. HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL, 2000 N. CALHOUN ROAD, BROOKFIELD. MEMBERS PRESENT: Gordon Rozmus, Frank DeGuire, Rod Carter, Alderman Ron Balzer MEMBERS ABSENT & EXCUSED: Robert Buikema; Kevin Bublitz; Alderman Bill Carnell (alt.) ALSO PRESENT: Zoning & Building Administrator Larry Goudy Rod Carter 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. June 14, 2018, Minutes • Frank DeGuire moved approval of the June 14, 2018, Board of Appeals meeting minutes. Seconded by Gordon Rozmus and carried with Alderman Balzer abstaining. ******** 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 August 9, 2018, 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. Ann Marie & Brian Lentz, 15115 Bittersweet Rd.: Garage Addition The next item was the request of Ann Marie and Brian Lentz, Lot 11 Turnberry Braes NW ¼ Section 11 T7N R20E, to appeal Section 17.32.020 to permit a garage addition at 15115 Bittersweet Road. The garage is proposed at 39’6” from the front property line and 2’6” from the rear property line. The Code requires a minimum of a 50’ setback from property lines along streets and 20’ offset from interior lot lines. Zoning & Building Administrator Larry Goudy clarified that there was an error in the notice. The garage is proposed at 39’6” from the front property line, but it is 17’6” from the rear property line. It is a 2’6” variance request. Mr. Goudy stated the zoning district for this requires a setback of 50’. The 50’ minimum is measured from the property line and that Board of Appeals Page 2 August 9, 2018 parallels the street. The interior offsets that do not abut the street is 20’. The proposed garage addition is located 39’6” from the front property line. The proposed garage addition is located 17’6” from the rear lot line (2’6” closer than permissible). The existing garage is 20’x24’ or 480 sq. ft. and they are requesting to increase the overall size of the garage to 1,075 sq. ft. The size of the garage complies with the Code. The only issue is the location of garage. Mr. Goudy stated he received a couple emails today. An objection was received through an email. Ann Marie Lentz stated they moved into the property Easter 2018. While the home has plenty of square footage, the garage does not. Her husband’s vehicle does not fit into the garage because of the depth. Also both cars do not fit into the garage. She stated it looks bad for the neighbors to have a car parked outside. The design turns the garage door 90° and moves the driveway. With that expense, they would like to plan for the future also. She stated that although all homes in her subdivision have side entry garages, by turning it 90°, it gives a more finished edge to the home. Matthew Kerr, designer, was present to answer questions. He showed the plans in 3D to the Board. He stated if a portion of the garage shrunk a bit, they wouldn’t need 2’6” expansion in the rear. There isn’t a lot you can do with the front of the garage. The new garage fits generally with the rest of the house and the setback on the double garage. There would be landscaping on the side of the garage. There are plans for a pergola and a back patio. There is a fair amount of thought as to what the aesthetics would look like. The main view from the neighbors would see is the north elevation. The south would look at the south side of the garage and would not see overhead doors. There is going to be significant plantings around the second bay. Mrs. Lentz stated the dimensions of the garage is 20’x24’. However, the inside depth of the garage is only 19’. The truck doesn’t fit in it. Mr. Carter asked if there was any thought to scaling this down and be less intrusive. Mrs. Lentz replied they have a version that would eliminate the side lot variance, but would need a variance to the street side. It is a similar design but smaller left door. Mr. Lentz was told that if this much money is being invested, is to go big. The new garage would have front access. The back setback wouldn’t be necessary which would make the offset in compliance. There would be alterations to the garage to swap the roof around the other way and would be made larger. Rod Carter asked if any neighbors were spoken to. Mrs. Lentz replied the neighbor across the street has seen the plans. Paula Langlois, 15130 Bittersweet Rd, Izadi Khal Noushin, 15095 Bittersweet Rd., and Paul Quick, 15355 Turnberry Dr. were in the audience. Paula Langlois stated she received the notice late to notify the rest of the neighborhood. Others objected to the plan in many emails that Larry has not received. Paula Langlois stated there are 37 properties in the subdivision. The Covenants of the Subdivision do not allow front face garages. There are no other homes with street facing garages. The 50’ integrity is consistent throughout the subdivision and Brookfield in general. It changes the feel of the street. Paula Langlois was also the realtor for the house. The integrity of the subdivision will be in jeopardy. The survey was given at the time of purchase. This should have been considered at the time of purchase. It affects setbacks and doesn’t coordinate with the rest of the Board of Appeals Page 3 August 9, 2018 subdivision. She objects to it encroaching on her lot line. Her home office would be staring at it. Izadi Khal Noushin Izadi purchased her home about 14 years ago. Her attraction was that it was wooded and private. Looking out the window, the garage would be in the line of sight and would be an eyesore. Mr. Lentz stated the plantings would make a lot of that not visible. Mrs. Lentz stated the current view is a garage door. Mrs. Langlois stated currently she can see the conservancy and can look across that area. She doesn’t think the trees will disguise it. Mr. Carter stated his concern is very similar to a matter at the last meeting where the variance was denied. It impacts the neighbors and views of the neighborhood. He is under the impression that this neighborhood has not had any variances. Mr. Rozmus felt that the configuration of this lot made it difficult to adjust to those setbacks. This is not a conventional configuration on a lot with the wide arc on the roadway. The house and garage situation had to be carefully put on this lot because of the configuration. The rear yard has quite a bit of slope. They are already close to setbacks. The City doesn’t enforce subdivision covenants and are not sure if those are still in effect. There could still be action from the neighborhood. Mrs. Lentz stated it is her understanding that the covenants are not being enforced and there are exceptions. The neighbor across the street was supportive but he left the meeting. Ms. Langlois disagreed with that. Frank DeGuire listed the standards that the Board has to follow: (1) Unnecessary hardship created by owner; (2) a unique property; and (3) is not contrary to the public interest. He is struggling with public interest. The fact that the owners did comply with the variances before, he doesn’t believe there are variances granted in the subdivision in the last 20 years, and neighbors are objecting. Mr. Kerr stated the ideal situation is to not ask for a variance. He stated moving it out the setback will impact the floor plan. The easy way is to move it 3’ to the north and it would take it out of the setback, but the window in the kitchen would be taken away. The kitchen was already remodeled so they do not want the window removed. Mrs. Langois felt the owners were creating the hardship. Mrs. Lentz stated having the garage to the side would still need a variance to the front yard. Mrs. Lentz stated she made a mistake buying this house. She thought that their design was a balance and in tune without impacting others. Mr. Carter stated the Board can’t consider the subdivision’s deed restrictions. The homeowner’s association could still go after the Lentz’s even if the Board granted the variance. Mr. Lentz stated she wished the notice of this meeting would have gone out sooner so that she could have discussed this with the neighborhood. • Rod Carter moved to deny the variance for reasons that the variance would not be in the public interest, he is not seeing an unnecessary hardship; and there is a suitable garage on the property now. The motion was seconded by Alderman Ron Balzer and carried unanimously. Board of Appeals Page 4 August 9, 2018 • Frank DeGuire moved to adjourn. Seconded by Gordon Rozmus and carried unanimously. Meeting ended at 7:43 p.m. Minutes submitted by Renee J. Tadych, Deputy City Clerk.