04-13-06

The meeting of the Slinger Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Stuettgen at 300 Slinger Road, Slinger, Wisconsin on April 13, 2006 at 6:00 p.m.

I. Roll Call & Notice of Meeting:                     Present         Absent

        Todd Anderson                                                 x

        Brian Dixon                                                                                x

        Robert Stuettgen                                             x

        Larry Toraason                                                 x

        Craig Wolf                                                                                     x, excused

        Rick Kohl (Alternate)                                                                  x, excused

        Erwin Rauh (Alternate)                                    x

bullet

   4                         3

Also Present:  Terry Frederickson, Village Building Inspector & Zoning Administrator
                            Margaret Wilber, Interim Administrator/Clerk

Interim Clerk Wilber took the roll call and informed the members present that the open meeting law had been complied with in connection with the meeting.

  1. Public Hearing on Variance #1 – Setback Along Oak Street (Slinger Fire Department, 201 Oak Street – Section 3.10 G.1):

Chairman Stuettgen opened the Pubic Hearing and asked Interim Clerk Wilber if the publication requirements had been met. Interim Clerk Wilber stated that proper notice was sent to all property owners within 200 feet, posted in three public locations, and published in the West Bend Daily News.

Chairman Stuettgen explained that there were three distinct variances being requested by the Petitioner and the Public Hearing for each of those would be held separately. He stated that the Board would deliberate on each of the variances after the Public Hearings were concluded for all.

    1. Opening Statement of Petitioner – Variance #1

      Ken Reiser, Chairman of the Slinger Fire Department’s Building Committee, presented the history of this request and the various needs of the Slinger Fire Department that would be met by the proposed construction. He discussed the growth, in population and development, currently experienced within the Department’s service area and how the Department has a waiting list of persons interested in joining but is unable to accommodate any increase in membership with the present facility. He also addressed the need for larger training and educational areas and storage space for equipment and records. Mr. Reiser discussed the anticipated acquisition of additional trucks, in particular an aerial truck, and the need for greater garage space for those vehicles. He further stated that research conducted by the Department indicated that its present site was still the best geographic location for providing optimal coverage of the entire service area.

       

      Mr. Reiser then turned the presentation over to Tony Zulli and Dave Kecht from MSI General, the architectural firm responsible for the design and construction of the building expansion. Mr. Zulli presented illustrations of the building in its present form and stated that two primary designs were considered for the needed addition. He explained that the first design option would have made more use of the land along Oak Street, however this presented a number of problems, including an insufficient turning radius for trucks exiting the building on that side. Mr. Zulli stated that the design they eventually decided to pursue eliminated those concerns.

      Mr. Zulli explained that the first variance requested was to allow an 11-foot encroachment into the setback along Oak Street. The required setback is 35 feet and the Department is requesting authorization for a setback of 24 feet. Mr. Zulli stated that the building in its present configuration already encroaches on the setback and at one corner is only 7’3" from the lot line.

    2. Zoning Administrator/Staff Review of Petition

      Robert Stuettgen then asked for Zoning Administrator Frederickson’s comments regarding the petition.

      Zoning Administrator Frederickson asked the Fire Department to identify the square footage of the existing building and compare that with the square footage of the proposed addition. Mr. Zulli stated that the existing building is 7,036 square feet and 542 square feet of that area would be removed as part of the project, leaving 6,494 square feet of the present building. He stated the addition would be 8,474 square feet for a total square footage of 14,968 once the project is completed.

      Mr. Frederickson stated that he did not have any recommendation on this particular variance, however he did feel this was needed space.

    3. Public Comment

      Chairman Stuettgen then opened the meeting for public comments on Variance #1 only.

      There being no comments, the public hearing was closed at 6:15 p.m.

    4. Final Testimony

Chairman Stuettgen asked if the Fire Department had any further comments regarding this variance. Mr. Zulli asked that the Board consider the overall concept of this proposal and the fact that the Fire Department has gone to great effort to be a good neighbor in the area. He stated that the proposed design was selected because it fit in best with the surrounding buildings.

Mr. Frederickson asked if there might be any easements within the setback that would need to be taken into account. Mr. Zulli stated there were none to his knowledge, other than an easement connected with an electrical transformer that was already located on the back lot line of the building and that was accounted for in this design.

 

  1. Public Hearing: Variance #2 – Setback Along Buchanan Street (Slinger Fire Department, 201 Oak Street – Section 3.10 G.1):
    1. Opening Statement of Petitioner – Variance #2

      Mr. Zulli explained that the second variance requested was to allow a 14-foot encroachment into the setback along Buchanan Street. The required setback is 35 feet and the Department is requesting authorization for a setback of 21 feet. Mr. Zulli stated that this variance is needed to accommodate a double bay garage that would house 3 to 4 trucks. He stated that the existing building already encroaches on the setback in this area as well.

      Mr. Reiser pointed out that although the design shows room for potentially 4 trucks, one of the bays would probably be dedicated to the aerial truck the Department anticipates acquiring to serve the higher buildings being planned within the Village.

    2. Zoning Administrator’s Report

      Chairman Stuettgen asked Zoning Administrator Frederickson if he had any comments or recommendation on this variance request. Mr. Frederickson referred to the memo he had addressed to the Board. He stated that one of the important points to consider is that the site is rather limited by being a corner lot and he commended the Department and its architects for finding creative solutions to these limitations. He stated it was his opinion that the impact on surrounding properties would be minimal.

    3. Public Comment

      Chairman Stuettgen then opened the meeting for public comments on Variance #2 only.

      Dan Kania, 209 Lawndale Avenue, stated that it looked like the Department was trying to put something large onto a small area and asked why the Department had not attempted to purchase more of the surrounding properties to provide more land to accommodate this expansion. Mr. Zulli explained that the Department had asked them to work within their existing boundaries and that was the approach they used. He pointed out that the existing building was already non-conforming in relation to the various setbacks.

      Mr. Reiser explained the procedure used by the Department to determine their needs and priorities. He stated that one of the most pressing needs was to expand the truck bay area and this design would be the best one to meet that need. It was also pointed out that the Department had already acquired two of the properties adjacent to their building in anticipation of future expansion.

      Greg Bayer, 205 Lawndale Avenue, stated that his property adjoins the back of the Fire Department’s lot. He further stated that he has been a member of the Department for 22 years and is very familiar with the Department’s workings and procedures. He stated he had a very difficult time accepting the Department’s proposed encroachment onto his property. Mr. Bayer stated the Department planned to use his trees as a buffer although they could not guarantee that the trees would remain intact after this construction. He expressed his concern for the negative impact on his property value that this expansion would have and stated it was his opinion that the Department had other options at their disposal involving the purchased properties to the west of their building. He also stated he did not feel there was an actual hardship to be addressed here.

      David Becker, 200 Oak Street, stated that the proposed expansion would be a definite infringement on him and the future value of his property. He stated that this variance would affect him directly, particularly regarding the roofline difference between the new building and his garage. Mr. Bayer presented a blueprint showing the difference in the building heights and this was reviewed by the Board.

      Mr. Zulli pointed out that the garage in question presently encroaches onto the Fire Department’s property. He stated that his company was confident that the new building could be constructed without any harm to the Becker garage. He further stated they had met with a landscape architect and it had been determined that the construction should not cause any damage to the trees on the Bayer property. Mr. Zulli indicated that the trees are presently hindered by the asphalt driveway now on the Department’s property and that driveway would be removed as part of this project. He stated that the Department has indicated that if any of the trees were to die during the construction project or for a period after its completion, they would be responsible for replacing them and this could be included as a condition of the variance approval. He pointed out that the replacement trees would not be the exact size but would be as large as possible as needed.

      Craig Wolf, 120 Park Court, asked Mr. Bayer to elaborate on his statement regarding the new building encroaching onto his property. Mr. Bayer clarified that the new building would not be encroaching onto his property but would be butting right up to his property within 5 feet as opposed to the 10 feet required. Mr. Wolf stated that the new design would improve the angle used for trucks backing into the building.

      Cindy Becker, 200 Oak Street, stated she lives right next to the present building. She pointed out that if their garage is already 1’4" over the lot line in back and the Department is requesting a 5’ variance in that location, the two buildings would be separated by only 3’8" and this was confirmed by Department personnel. She stated her concern for the overhang of the new building in relation to the Becker garage. Mr. Zulli stated the roof was planned to be a mansard style and would be approximately 10’ above the Becker garage. Ms. Becker expressed her concern over this with regards to snow and other winter conditions. Mr. Zulli explained that this was why the mansard style was chosen as it would reduce the slope of the Department’s roof.

      Ms. Becker stated she wished to express that their garage’s encroachment onto Fire Department property was a pre-existing factor when ownership of the lot was transferred. She asked if they would be granted a variance in the future if a tornado or other occurrence should destroy the garage and cause them to rebuild it. Zoning Administrator Frederickson stated such a variance would have to be requested from the Board of Appeals at the time it was needed.

      There being no further comments pertaining to the variance request, the public hearing was closed at 6:38 p.m.

       

    4. Final Testimony

Mr. Anderson stated he felt that a variance should be granted if the Beckers should ever need to rebuild their garage. Mr. Frederickson explained that would have to be addressed at the time it was needed, as this Board could not determine the actions of future Boards. Mr. Toraason pointed out that in the past, consideration has been given to special situations particularly when dealing with older areas of the Village.

Chairman Stuettgen pointed out that this variance would allow the Department to construct a building that would be only 3’8" from the neighboring structure and asked how this would impact any firefighting efforts that may be needed in the future. Slinger Fire Chief Bob Schaefer stated this would be no different than other situations the Department has faced when dealing with fires in the older downtown area. He also stated the new building would include a firewall with sprinkler protection.

Jane Bayer, 205 Lawndale Avenue, stated she understood the allowances made for existing non-conforming buildings, however this discussion was regarding a new building and she did not feel it was right to continue to create such problems.

Mr. Zulli stated that his company was required to submit all plans to review authorities at the State of Wisconsin and the State had stringent requirements for buildings to meet a variety of fire codes. Chairman Stuettgen explained that the reason he was asking about this was because the Board needed to consider the possibility of future variance requests of this nature and it was his concern that other property owners would attempt to build structures just as close together if the Fire Department is allowed to do so. He asked if the Fire Department would not have any problem with such proposals in the future.

Chief Schaefer explained that such situations would have to be considered on a case by case basis and many factors would be looked at, to include the uses of the buildings involved and potential occupancy rates.

  1. Public Hearing: Variance #3 – Setback Along North Side Lot Line (Slinger Fire Department, 201 Oak Street – Section 3.10 G.2):
    1. Opening Statement of Petitioner – Variance #3

      Mr. Zulli explained that this variance was requesting authorization to have a 5-foot setback along the north lot line, as opposed to the 10-foot setback normally required. He stated it was their belief that the new design would improve water runoff, as presently the area is largely under asphalt and runoff flows off onto neighboring properties. He also stated that the design would be lowering the grade of the Department’s site and thus would eliminate the need for such a large retaining wall. He discussed other design details that were implemented after discussion with neighboring property owners. Mr. Zulli stated that this variance was specifically needed to allow for the larger truck bay area.

    2. Zoning Administrator’s Report

      Zoning Administrator Frederickson pointed out various issues that had to be taken into consideration. He indicated he had no particular recommendation regarding the variance but it was his opinion that the Fire Department was integral to the community and it was important to allow the Department to establish adequate facilities to support their mission within the community.

    3. Public Comment

      Greg Bayer stated he was a member of the Department’s Planning Committee and he was told that the maintenance of the trees on his property could not be guaranteed. He also stated that he felt the other plans should have been given greater consideration as they would not have required the variances discussed here.

      Ken Reiser stated that the other plans did not accommodate all of the needs as determined by the Fire Department.

      David Becker stated that in his opinion there was no hardship that would justify this variance. He also stated his concern for the safety of children in the area.

      Scott Risse, 207 Lawndale Avenue, stated he was on the Fire Department and was also a neighbor of the Fire Department’s property. He stated that due to the lower level of his property, he believed he would have even more of an impact in terms of view and building height. Mr. Risse stated it was his opinion that the Department and their architects had made a great deal of effort in reducing or eliminating the negative impacts for their neighbors. He stated he felt the appearance of the building was excellent and it would not be an eyesore.

      Craig Wolf stated it was his opinion that the hardship was not self-imposed as the Fire Department has no control over the rate of growth within the community it serves. He also stated that limiting the number of garage doors would delay response times by requiring trucks and equipment to be stacked within the limited bay areas.

      Chief Schaefer addressed the safety concerns raised by the Beckers. He stated there was already a safety issue caused by vehicles driving along the Becker property. He also pointed out that the expanded building would serve as a deterrent to juveniles who presently tend to congregate on the property and use the open area for skateboarding. He addressed the concern regarding the north lot line and stated that the Department would already be authorized to build within 10 feet of the lot line, which would still have an impact on neighboring properties.

      Cindy Becker asked how actual construction could be realized with such little distance between buildings. David Kecht with MSI stated their company has extensive experience in building in such confined spaces and great care would be taken to avoid any damage to the Becker garage.

      Brian Pittrof, 3911 Elaine’s Way, asked Zoning Administrator Frederickson how lot setbacks are determined. Mr. Frederickson explained that lots zoned for institutional use, such as the Fire Department’s property, are governed by the most restrictive setbacks of adjacent zoning areas, which in this case would be RD-1 residential. He further explained that setbacks are used to establish and maintain green spaces and circulation around buildings.

       

      Greg Bayer stated he was not disputing the fact that the design of the proposed building was very attractive, however his property would still be facing a large wall and that was his concern, especially if the trees on his property should be killed off during construction.

      Chuck Ruetten, 213 E Washington Street, asked the Beckers and the Bayers whether the negative effect on their property values was being determined by the size of the new building or its proximity to their lots. The Beckers stated it was a combination of both factors. Mr. Ruetten stated that the building could be constructed without any variance and still be located very close to their properties. He also addressed the 3’8" separation between buildings and stated it was his opinion that this issue would have to be looked at on an individual basis.

      Greg Lighthizer, 220 Lawndale Avenue, stated the driveway around the present Fire Department building was already a safety concern and he felt the proposed design would alleviate that.

      With no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:18 p.m.

    4. Final Testimony

Chairman Stuettgen requested Ken Reiser and Tony Zulli to present final testimony on this variance request. Mr. Reiser stated he felt safety factors would be improved with the new design and indicated that the Fire Department had gone to great expense and effort to make the building as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Mr. Zulli explained the process used in creating this design and stressed the fact that the Department had worked with the neighbors’ concerns as much as possible.

  1. Deliberation of Petition:
    1. Discussion: Variance #1

      Chairman Stuettgen asked the Board for their comments regarding this variance.

      Todd Anderson stated he was in favor of approving this variance.

      Larry Toraason stated it was his opinion that this variance would not further impact on what was already in place and he did not see it as detrimental to the Oak Street side of the building.

      Erwin Rauh stated he was for this variance.

      Robert Stuettgen stated he also did not have any problem with approving this variance. He indicated that the Findings of Fact would be addressed after all variances were discussed.

    2. Discussion: Variance #2

      Chairman Stuettgen asked the Board for their comments regarding this variance.

      Todd Anderson stated it was his opinion that this variance would allow the Fire Department to meet their needs at this location and he was for approving this variance.

       

      Larry Toraason stated there were already variance issues with this particular corner and he felt that it would be in order to approve this variance.

      Erwin Rauh expressed his concern regarding snow removal or any problems created by snow coming onto the Becker garage from the higher roof. He stated he would like to see this issue addressed as an additional condition of approval. Mr. Frederickson stated he felt that snow guards could be required that should alleviate this problem.

      Robert Stuettgen stated he wished to express his appreciation for the Fire Department and its service to the community, however he had serious concerns regarding the small measure of separation between the proposed new building and the existing neighboring garage. He stated he would vote against approving this variance.

    3. Discussion: Variance #3

      Chairman Stuettgen asked the Board for their comments regarding this variance.

      Todd Anderson stated it was his opinion that the needs of the Fire Department justified approving this variance.

      Larry Toraason stated he felt adequate measures had been taken to address the concerns of the neighboring property owners and in view of the needs of the Fire Department, he would approve this variance.

      Erwin Rauh stated he felt there should be some type of condition placed to ensure the replacement of any of the neighbor’s trees that might be damaged during construction or for a period afterwards. He indicated he would vote for approval once that condition had been included. Ken Reiser stated it was the Fire Department’s desire to be a good neighbor and in view of that they would be willing to utilize cranes if necessary to replant any damaged trees. A warranty period was discussed and it was determined that a 5-year warranty would be adequate. This term was also agreed to by the neighboring property owners.

      Robert Stuettgen advised he did not have a problem with this particular variance, except for the front part by the Becker garage where he felt the buildings were too close.

    4. Findings of Fact

The findings of the Board of Appeals are as follows:

    1. Preservation of Intent

The use of this property would not be changed although the intensity may increase as dictated by the increased services required from the Fire Department.

2. Exceptional Circumstances

The fire station is a non-conforming structure with limited areas to expand. The existing building is 20 years old and it is believed that the proposed added areas are the best choice for this property.

    1. Economic Hardship & Self-Imposed Hardship Not Grounds for Variance

      Adequate fire facilities are critical for any community. The hardships addressed here are not self-imposed as they are directly related to the growth of the community and the need of the Fire Department to provide increased services.

    2. Preservation of Property Rights

      Granting the variances will enhance and improve the overall operation of the Fire Department.

    3. Absence of Detriment

The impact to surrounding residential properties would be minimal and the public interest would be improved by a substantial upgrade of the fire service.

All Board members expressed their agreement with these findings. Chairman Stuettgen indicated he would not be in favor of Variance #2, however the majority of the Board members were in favor and the variance would be approved.

    1. Additional Conditions

      Additional conditions placed on the approved variances were that adequate snow guards be installed to prevent any damage to the Becker garage and that a 5-year warranty be given for any trees presently located on the Bayer property.

    2. Action to Approve, Modify, Deny:

      Chairman Stuettgen announced that all three variances are thereby approved.

    3. Notice of Appeal Rights

As all variances had been granted, the Notice of Appeal Rights was not read.

IV. Adjourn Meeting:

There being no further business, motion Rauh/Toraason to adjourn the meeting of the Board of Appeals at 7:40 p.m.; carried.

Margaret Wilber, Interim Administrator/Clerk