Since it’s a quiet week committee-wise, I’ve been recapping a couple Board of Zoning Appeals meetings that I couldn’t get to when they first happened. We’ve reviewed the successful request by Adam Marty to remove the 10 off-street parking spot requirement on the property at 1016 E. Pacific Street. That variance will allow him to open a small neighborhood pizza restaurant. We also reviewed the successful variance request from Mike and Amy to have 56% of the surface area of their property paved instead of the maximum of 40% allowed by city code. This will allow them to proceed with their plan to install a permanent gazebo in their backyard by their pool.
Another variance request the Board of Zoning Appeals took up during their 10/18/2021 meeting was a request from Ben regarding the placement of a detached garage that he wanted to build on his property. ***Spoiler Alert*** He also was successful, and it does my heart good to see so many homeowners leaving Zoning Appeals Court with verdicts in their favor.
Ben wanted to tear down a 21×23′ two car attached garage on his property and replace it with a 28×30′ three car detached garage in the same area the old garage was. However, the garage was located closer to the front property line than the house and Section 23-43(f)(1)(e) of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits accessory buildings in the front yard. Basically, a detached garage can be aligned with a house or behind a house, but by code it cannot be in front of a house under any circumstances. This caused a problem for Ben because his house was positioned abnormally far back on his property leaving very little room to build a compliant garage.
Ben gave some background on his property. The house had probably been added onto several times over the past decades. The garage had been built to the side of the L-shaped house and attached to it by a very poor breezeway. He had already torn down the old garage in order to build the new one and had not intended on replacing the breezeway which would result in the new garage being unattached.
Board member Kelly Sperl asked Inspections Supervisor Craanen if the garage was attached would the problem go away, and he confirmed that was the case.
Board Chairman Paul McCann said they were looking for an explanation of the hardship Ben was facing.
Ben answered, “So the hardship would be that we can’t really put the garage in a different location that wouldn’t be in front of the house, if it wasn’t going in the exact same spot as the old garage was. I think [that] is the hardship.”
The staff report suggested that it would be possible for the garage to be put in a location that met the code, so Chairman McCann asked about that. Inspections Supervisor Craanen pointed out the area on the lot that the garage could be placed, but putting it there would require cutting down at least one tree. [I edited the diagram included in the agenda packet to give a rough visual of where it sounded like they were saying the garage could go.]
Chairman McCann asked to confirm that that was the alternative staff believed the applicant had, and Inspections Supervisor Craanen confirmed it was.
The map seemed to show another road back there which would have meant that the property had 2 front yards and none of what had been said applied, but it turned out the second road was a private road so it didn’t affect anything.
Ben said that his back yard was actually 15 feet higher than the street below and his backyard sat at around roof level of the properties behind him. He said that his backyard was very small to begin with and he had never thought of putting a garage there.
Chairman McCann referenced the previous variance request they had heard and jokingly said Ben would go over the impervious surface amount due to how long his driveway would have to be to get back that far. That was not, however, a realistic concern given how large the overall property was.
Chairman McCann asked if there had been any consideration given to attaching the garage, and Ben answered that, yeah, it could be done in a tone of voice that suggested to me he wasn’t sold on the idea.
Board Member Sperl suggested simply joining the roofs without putting a structure beneath might meet the requirement, but Inspections Supervisor Craanen mentioned that there would be foundation issues due to having two different foundations between the house and the garage.
Chairman McCann agreed Ben wouldn’t want to attach the two structures and have one of them moving.
The Board members confirmed with Ben that the garage was fundamentally in the same footprint as the old garage and met all the setback limits, proximity to the house, and other building code requirements.
In answer to more questions, Ben explained that the house was probably built in the 60s and stands out compared to the other houses in the neighborhood. It felt like a light cabin that had been turned into a house, and he hoped to give it a more modern look and feel. Replacing the garage had been the first step on that journey. The original garage structure had been “sketchy”, and it was time for it to be replaced.
He had been talking to his neighbors over the years about updating the garage although he had not triple checked with them about it before starting the project. He noted that two of his neighbors who had received notification letters from the city regarding his variance request had asked him if they should come to the meeting to show their support for his project.
Chairman McCann noted that the irony was that if the garage was attached it wouldn’t be an issue, but he also acknowledged that it was an odd shaped lot. Board member Sperl also pointed out that there was an unusual placement of the house on the lot.
The Board confirmed with Ben that, if he built the garage where he wanted to, he wouldn’t need to pour more concrete for the driveway.
They also confirmed it was located 86 feet back from the front lot line but was still in front of the house. Inspections Supervisor Craanen explained that if a variance was granted, his department wanted it to be for 86 feet back from the property line and not just to be anywhere in the front yard because they didn’t want Ben to be able to put a garage 2 feet from the front yard property line.
Ben agreed that would be fair.
The Board confirmed that 86 feet back would fit Ben’s needs. He had still been finalizing the exact placement of the garage, but he said he could work with what the board gave him. He was anxious to get moving and pour the concrete for the foundation because it was already late in the season.
The Board confirmed again with Inspections Supervisor Craanen that even if Ben built a new garage that was exactly the same size and in exactly the same place as the old garage, if he didn’t include the attached breezeway, that new garage would not be in compliance.
With all that discussion completed, Board member Sperl said, “I’d like to make a motion to approve this variance under the circumstances with the location of the existing house, with the dimensional limitations as far as where it’s sitting on the lot and it’s very unusual to have the house that far back and not be able to put that garage back where it was even though it’s now disconnected. I think the intent is there to keep what was there before with the exception of the connection. I think it’s really an odd placement for a home to be that far back on the lot. I think that’s what the hardship is here.”
He went on to stipulate that Ben needed to follow the sketch he had provided the board–no closer than the 86 feet with a 28×30’ garage as depicted and still meeting all of the side yard setback and other code requirements.
This was seconded by board member Karen Cain who noted that the garage placement seemed to fit with that of the other properties in the area and was not going to be noticeably in front of neighbors’ garages.
There was no further discussion and the board voted 4-0 to approve Ben’s variance request.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=894382&GUID=2F12B96D-8620-4C0B-B16F-14CB70512872
Be the first to reply