Board of Zoning Appeals

THESE ARE THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2018, AT 7:00 P.M. HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL, 2000 N. CALHOUN ROAD, BROOKFIELD. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Bublitz, Robert Buikema, Gordon Rozmus, Frank DeGuire, Rod Carter MEMBERS ABSENT & EXCUSED: Alderman Ron Balzer, Alderman Bill Carnell (alt.) ALSO PRESENT: Zoning & Building Administrator Larry Goudy 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. September 13, 2018, Minutes • Robert Buikema moved approval of the September 13, 2018, Board of Appeals meeting minutes. Seconded by Gordon Rozmus 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 October 11, 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. Colleen and Thomas Cain, 4680 N. 148th St.: Deck The next item was the request of Colleen and Thomas Cain, Lot 6 Blk 4 Meadowbrook PT E ½ NW ¼ sec 2 T7N R20E to appeal Section 15.04.380 C. and 17.36.020 to permit a deck at 4680 N. 148th Street. The deck has been erected at 40.7’ from the front property line. The code does not permit decks in the 50’ setback area. Attorney Brian Randal, representing Colleen and Thomas Cain, stated the daughter, Kristin, is the resident of the home. They invested $21,000 for the deck with Outdoor Unlimited. The deck is already in place. The owner ordered a survey in August. It is a very unfortunate incident in that the contractor believed that a permit wasn’t necessary. The intent was to Board of Appeals Page 2 October 11, 2018 upgrade the property. The front door is 2 or 3’ higher than ground level. The house was originally designed with a planter box in place in the front. The concrete porch started to chip and fall apart and the hand rails had rusted. The new deck is a composite deck and he has the colors to verify. Mr. Randall stated that the contractor stated that he called city hall and was told he wouldn’t need a permit. He stated there was always something in the setback (concrete). The house was built in 1953 and he presumed was compliant. Mr. Randall stated the 50’ setback plus the right-of-way is significant and the deck does not protrude too much or obstruct views. He showed pictures of others in neighborhood. Mr. Carter asked if the contractor offered remedy. Attorney Randal stated the contractor did the new survey at their cost. He looked at the possibility of cutting back the deck, but it creates challenges with the stairs and railings. Mr. Goudy explained the age of the home and that it predated City of Brookfield zoning law at the time. Mr. Rozmus asked about the regulations for the steps that come out. Mr. Goudy replied the stoop is permitted in the setback. Mr. Buikema stated that it is significant that the concrete in the front of the home was already in the setback. It is not a good spot for board since it’s already built. Mr. Rozmus stated if it is nonconforming, there are rigid regulations. Mr. Goudy replied there has been some loosening of regulations at the state level. Mr. Rozmus stated the pictures shown on the board are not accurate anymore, there is grass now and it looks much better. The color of the deck is earth tone and is subtle. He has bad feelings about the contractor. Mr. Carter stated he has the same concern. Attorney Randal stated they could do some additional landscaping in the front. He wanted to wait till after this hearing. Mr. Rozmus stated he doesn’t fault the property owner. The owner trusted the contractor. Mr. Bublitz stated there was a 1’ encroachment, but the majority of the deck is now 5’ into the setback. A small portion (landing) is 40.7’. The deck is aesthetically pleasing and the public interest is not harmed. Mr. Buikema asked what the original encroachment was. Mr. Bublitz replied it was at 49.1’. Mr. Randal stated there was an original planter box that was 18-20” deep, verified by Colleen Cain, which has been removed. Mr. Rozmus stated there is landscaping and trees in front yard which helps it make it more appealing. Additional landscaping would help. • Mr. Buikema moved approval of the variance based on the reason that it is not contrary to public interest, there was an already existing intrusion, and would find this to be a hardship to remove it. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bublitz and carried unanimously. ******** 3b. Bret Eulbert, 14640 W. Greenfield Ave.: ADA accessible entrance. The next item was the request of Bret Eulberg, PT SE ¼ Sec 35 T7N R20E PCL 4 CSM 2936 to appeal Section 17.56.060 2 and 3 to permit an ADA accessible entrance to the lower level at Board of Appeals Page 3 October 11, 2018 14640 W. Greenfield Avenue. The existing building exceeds the 20% maximum floor area ratio and maximum square foot of 5,000. The 200 square foot addition makes the building further out of compliance. Mr. Goudy explained that this building was in place under B-1 zoning originally. The City of Brookfield rezoned the parcel to B-1R which has more restrictive floor area ratio and maximum size. The building complied originally but was made non-compliant by the zoning change. Mr. Rozmus asked if the elevator is in the building. Bret Eulberg, owner of the building and owner of Robert Haack Diamonds replied no. The lower level is submerged halfway and he intends to put Robert Haack Diamonds on the lower level. He looked at other options too but this was the best. They wanted to put it the front but were told by staff that could not be done. Mr. Rozmus asked if the parking lot regulations will still be met. Mr. Goudy replied yes. Mr. Eulberg replied there are 3 handicap spots in the front and 2 in the back. He stated that the ADA elevator is for the convenience of his customers. Mr. Bublitz asked if it has unique features to not put the elevator in the building. Mr. Eulberg stated it is a narrow building and an elevator would take up too much space. Other users to use the elevator would be American Family and a vacant space. It was asked if this option was the least intrusive option. Mr. Bublitz believed that there is uniqueness to the building design and that options were given adequate consideration by staff. Mr. Rozmus stated that handicap access is needed. Mr. DeGuire stated that there are no objections and the variance is not extreme. • Kevin Bublitz moved to approve the variance based on there were no objections, it was not contrary to the public interest and the variance is not extreme. The motion was seconded by Rob Buikema and carried unanimously. • Frank DeGuire moved to adjourn. Seconded by Gordon Rozmus and carried unanimously. Meeting ended at 7:38 p.m. Minutes submitted by Renee J. Tadych, Deputy City Clerk.