BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING Thursday, June 15, 2017 Village Hall, EMG Board Room, 5:30 P.M. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a meeting of the Brown Deer Board of Appeals will be held at the Village Hall of the Village of Brown Deer, 4800 West Green Brook Drive, Brown Deer, Wisconsin at the above noted time and date, at which the following items of business will be discussed and possibly acted upon: I II III Roll Call Approval of July 28, 2016 minutes Cases to be Heard A) Case No. 990 9051 N. Green Bay Road - parking spaces in required setback B) Case No. 991 SW corner 60 th and County Line (Lot 2 - vacant) front yard setback averaging Premises Affected: 9051 N. Green Bay Road and vacant lot at SW corner of 60 th and County Line Appeal of Development Director denial of parking spaces in the required 10 foot setback of the B3 zoning district pursuant to Section 121-297 (5)(b) Appeal of Development Director denial of the buildable area on certified survey map pursuant to Section 121-13 (b)(1) IV Adjournment Dated: June 7, 2017 Jill Kenda Lubetski, Village Clerk PERSONS REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS FOR ATTENDANCE AT THE MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE CLERK AT LEAST ONE (1) BUSINESS DAY PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
July 28, 2016 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BROWN DEER BOARD OF APPEALS HELD AT THE VILLAGE HALL - 4800 WEST GREEN BROOK DRIVE The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Jaberg at 5:38 p.m. I. ROLL CALL Present: Margaret Jaberg, Chairwoman, G. Neil Wood, Mike Kass Absent: None Also Present: Greg Schumacher, Jason Kugel, TAPCO - Appellant, Case No. 988; Thomas Henk and Elizabeth Blas Appellant, Case No. 989, Nathaniel Piotrowski, Community Development Director; Collette Reinke, Village Attorney; Michael Hall, Village Manager II. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 20, 2015 MINUTES It was moved by Mike Kass and seconded by Neil Wood to approve the minutes of August 20, 2015. The motion carried unanimously. III. CASES TO BE HEARD A) Case No. 988 TAPCO patio addition Mr. Piotrowski reviewed the request and introduced the appellants. Mr. Piotrowski explained the proposed patio was denied because patios are not allowed in the side yard pursuant to Section 121-14 (c)(2)(z) of the Village Code. He added that notices of the hearing were sent to the property owners affected and are a part of public records. Notice of the hearing was also posted on official Village bulletin boards. Ms. Jaberg asked if the patio plan and adjacent renovations needed approval of the Building Board. Mr. Piotrowski replied that they did not. Ms. Jaberg asked why the patio was needed. Mr. Schumacher detailed the need for the exterior space at that location and the hardship with locating it in the rear yard as permitted by code. Mr. Wood noted that another patio existed in the front yard along W. Brown Deer Road. Mr. Kugel replied that this was largely a landing for an emergency exit but it has two picnic tables currently which would be removed if the side yard patio was approved. Ms. Jaberg asked if there were to be any activities on the patio. Mr. Kugel replied only outdoor dining. A discussion ensued as to smoking, and outdoor food prep. Mr. Kugel replied that neither activity would be permitted. Mr. Wood asked if there would be any lights on the patio. Mr. Kugel replied that there would be none. Ms. Jaberg asked if there would be a canopy. Mr. Kugel replied that there would be no canopy. Ms. Jaberg asked if there was any opposition from the Marriott. Mr. Piotrowski replied that he received no complaints from any of the adjacent properties. Case No. 988: A motion was made by Mike Kass and seconded by Neil Wood to approve the variance for the patio addition at 5100 W. Brown Deer Road contingent upon approval of a landscaping plan by the Beautification Committee, patio furniture of a durable heavy material, no food prep, no canopies and the discontinuation of the front yard patio. The motion passed unanimously.
B) Case No. 989 4835 W. Parkland Ave. fence and playground equipment Mr. Piotrowski reviewed the request and introduced the appellants. Mr. Piotrowski explained the playground equipment (swing set/slide) and fence was denied because these items are not allowed in the front yard pursuant to Section 121-14 (c)(2)(k) and (t) of the Village Code. He added that notices of the hearing were sent to the property owners affected and are a part of public records. Notice of the hearing was also posted on official Village bulletin boards. Mr. Piotrowski shared a petition in support of the appellants along with letters of support and two letters opposed. Mr. Henk explained that the code defined front yard more readily functioned as a side yard which was not overly visible from the street and not near the front door of the house. He added that his rear yard and side yard, as identified per code, were not large enough for the play structure and included a drainage swale and significant grade changes that made installation difficult. Mr. Piotrowski reviewed the definition of the various yards with the Board and provided aerial imagery and a property survey which detailed the size of the yards. Mr. Wood asked for clarification as to what was defined as a fence with respect to the variance request. Mr. Piotrowski replied that the small decorative wrought iron fencing could be treated as a landscape feature as opposed to the large wooden sections which would require the variance. Mr. Wood asked if larger plantings could be used in lieu of fencing. Mr. Piotrowski replied that this was allowable by code. Mr. Henk replied that solely relying on landscaping was not ideal because of the ability for small children and pets to enter and exit the yard. Ms. Jaberg asked if the wooden fence section was the only item that required a variance. Mr. Piotrowski replied that the play equipment also required a variance. Ms. Jaberg asked about the size of the play structure. Mr. Henk replied that it was approximately 12 x 15. A discussion ensued as to possible alternative locations on the property and alternative play structures. Mr. Henk stated that the alternatives were impractical or would actually be worse in appearance. Alyssa Otter, 7736 N. 49 th Street stated that she was opposed to the play structure because of poor aesthetics and the fence because it caused visibility issues as she entered and existed her driveway. Joel Beck, 7737 N. 49 th Street stated that he was opposed to the fence and play structure for aesthetic and safety reasons. Case No. 989: A motion was made by Neil Wood and seconded by Mike Kass to deny the variance for the fence and playground equipment at 4835 W. Parkland Avenue. The motion passed unanimously. IV. Adjournment It was moved by Mike Kass and seconded by Neil Wood to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously at 7:00 p.m. Nate Piotrowski, Community Development Director