BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING

Monday, April 14, 2008

Administrative Center – County Board Room

7:00 p.m. –  7:32 p.m. 

CALL TO ORDER

Howard Raymer, Jr., Committee Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  Let the record show that this meeting is called in full compliance with the requirements of Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.

APPEAL NO. 2008-05  Duane M. Witte, W4368 Gills Coulee Rd, West Salem WI  54669.  Permit denied to construct a second detached accessory building 480 square feet in size that in combination with an existing 864 square foot detached accessory building will exceed the 1000 square foot area limit for said buildings on this 2.58-acre lot.  The property is described as:  Part of the SE-SW of Section 29, T 17 N, R 6 W.  Tax Parcel 7-1057-1.  Town of Hamilton.

Appearing in Favor:  Duane Witte, W4368 Gills Coulee Rd, West Salem WI  54669. 

Question WITTE:  Did you receive a copy of the Town Board approval?

Answer WEIBEL:  I’ll have a copy and I’ll read it into the record.

WITTE:  I’m proposing to build this in addition to what we have.  We don’t want to attach what we have to our older building.  We feel that the size of the building would be useful for us.  We purchased additional land last fall from MHL, LLC.  We are going to use it as an accessory building to keep our equipment in that we will use to till and farm on the additional 1.5 acres of land we purchased.  We are not using it as a building site.  We feel that it would be an improvement to our lot.  That’s all I have.

Question RAYMER:  We have to make a few points from our Board’s position.  The maximum allowable building for this property because it’s under 3 acres is 1000 square feet.  The combined square footage with this proposed detached building will be over by 344 square feet.

Answer WITTE:  Correct.

Question RAYMER:  Are you aware that if you added a garage onto the end of your house there would be no size requirements to it?

Answer WITTE:  I knew that, but I also wondered if we connected the existing garage with a breezeway is it considered an attached building then?  I’m talking about going from the deck or house to the existing garage.

Discussion:
RAYMER:  It looks like you might have 20 feet between the house and existing garage.

WEIBEL:  There has to be a roofline connection from the house to the existing building.  A functional and structural roof connection.

WITTE:  That’s if the variance is turned down.

WEIBEL:  Correct.

RAYMER:  You can attach a garage to your house of any size – there is not limit.

WITTE:  As the house sits we couldn’t attach it to the garage.  It’s not feasible.  We thought it would be to our best interest to build a separate building.

No one else appeared in favor of or opposed to this appeal.

Correspondence: 

WEIBEL:  Letter dated April 6, 2008 from the Town of Hamilton approving the request, received April 8, 2008. 

Discussion:

The Board discussed how, if possible, the garage could be attached to the house.

Motion Houlihan/Hammes to deny.  Vote on motion to deny was unanimous.

APPEAL NO. 2008-06  Robert Lenox, 3050 Edgewater Lane, La Crosse WI  54603.  Approval requested for alternate flood proofing in lieu of providing the required 15-ft perimeter fill for a single family residence.  Variance requested from the required floor elevation to a proposed elevation of 648.65 (1929 adj).  A variance is also requested from the required 60-ft building setback from the centerline of Edgewater Lane and from the required sideyard to accommodate a 2-ft roof overhang.  The property is described as:  Outlot 73 of the Assessor’s Plat of the NE¼ of Section 12-16-8.  Tax Parcel 4-1700-0.  Town of Campbell.

Appearing in Favor:  Chuck Felker, 1516 Cliffview Ave, Onalaska WI  54650.  I’m here on behalf of Robert and Linda Lenox concerning their property at 3050 Edgewater Lane, La Crosse.  Originally, Linda’s parents owned this parcel, now Rob and Linda would like to replace the original masonry house and garage with a 2-story single family dwelling with an attached garage.  We are appearing here to request the following variances:  Keep in mind that all roof overhangs are 2 feet, but the County gives a 1-foot relief or credit.  The front setback from the centerline of Edgewater Lane is 60 feet and it is shown on the plot plan that the distance will be 35 feet to the garage from the property line or 45.62 feet from the centerline, so we need a variance in the front yard of 14 feet 4 inches.  The rear setback requirement from Edgewater Drive is 60 feet.  The back of the house will be right at 60 feet from the centerline of Edgewater Drive.  The south side setback requirement is 10 feet.  The dwelling will be 11 feet subtracting another foot for the one foot overhang allowance gives us 10 feet.  The north setback requirement is 15 feet.  The dwelling will be 16 feet subtract another foot for the overhang gives us 15 feet, however the garage wall extends another foot closer to the lot line so we need a one-foot relief for the roof overhang on the garage.  We are also requesting a one-foot elevation relief from the County’s 3-foot requirement for the first floor elevation above regional flood elevation.  We are dealing with a new flood elevation from new FEMA maps and instead of 647.25 the new flood elevation is 646.45, or eight tenths of a foot below.  Our first floor is going to be 648.65.  We are also requesting an alternate means of flood proofing with an engineered 4-foot foundation wall.  We are going to attempt to put a 4-foot wall there, however we don’t know exactly what we are going to find under the slab (of the existing house).  We may have to change the wall from 4 feet to 6 feet, but the design I have will work in either case.  The roof water will all be directed to the rear of the lot.  The owner will construct a short retaining wall on the north and south property lines to contain the water.  The actual height won’t be over 2 to 3 feet.  We will taper it down so that it blends with the neighbor’s lot.  A retaining wall will be constructed in the front yard to help slow down any run-off.  Most of the runoff will be kept on site.  The driveway water would drain towards the street and that slope is 10 percent on the driveway.  There will also be 2 parking stalls in front of the front retaining wall.

Question RAYMER:  You have a dormer on the front of the garage, why did you need to move the garage out that one foot?  It looks to me that it could line up with the rest of the house it’s doesn’t seem to affect the rest of the house plans.

Reply FELKER:  I will defer that to Mr. Lenox.

Question RAYMER:  Are there any other questions for Mr. Felker?

Question WEIBEL:  I noticed on the north elevation you are showing a retaining wall.  But you said there is an existing wall there now?

Answer FELKER:  Yes.

Question WEIBEL:  Is that coming out?  Or will it match in with that?

Answer FELKER:  If he is on the line we will probably touch it.  It is Rob’s desire to protect and take care of his own water. 

Question WEIBEL:  So it could be possible to have 2 walls back to back. 

Answer FELKER:  It’s possible but the yards will probably be blended together.  Although his wall may not adapt to our grade.  We want to ensure what we are doing and then we will work it out.

Appearing in Favor:  Robert Lenox, 3050 Edgewater Lane, La Crosse WI  54603. 

Question RAYMER:  Why do you need the one-foot jog on the garage?

Answer LENOX:  I’m trying to get the garage as big as possible.  When I designed it I forgot about the one-foot infringement and I would like to keep the 2-foot overhang because it’s a craftsman style house.  I like that little bump out because on that side is the mechanical room and it would be nice to keep the gas and electric meter tucked in from the street.

Question RAYMER:  So there isn’t any other reason?

Answer LENOX:  Other than the extra room in the garage, yes. 

Reply RAYMER:  If you moved the garage over you would just lose a foot off your entrance. 

Question LENOX:  How about if we clip the tails of the roof overhang and make them one foot?

Answer RAYMER:  Well, the overhang to me isn’t the issue.  It’s the foundation line that we are dealing with.  They are giving you that foot.

Question LENOX:  It’s 15 feet from the lot line to the garage foundation and the one foot is on the infringement of the overhang.  So if I clip those tails down in the field from 2 feet to 1 foot then I would be in compliance, correct?
Question RAYMER:  Were you planning on a 1-foot overhang?

Answer LENOX:  It was drawn that way and when I applied for the variance I also applied for that too.

Remark RAYMER:  If you could cut the tails it would have the same effect.

Remark LENOX:  If you want me to cut the overhang down to one foot then I will.  I would like to leave that corner in the garage.

No one else appeared in favor or opposed.

Correspondence:

WEIBEL:  Two pieces of correspondence:  Letter dated April 10, 2008 and received on April 11, 2008, from Don and Marilyn Rieser, supporting the variance request.  Letter dated and received on April 11, 2008, from the Town of Campbell.  The Town Board had no objection to the variance requests, letter signed by Travis Parish, Town Administrator.

Discussion:

HOULIHAN:  As we know this is a unique area down there. 

RAYMER:  Other properties in this neighborhood have had to deal with the same thing.

HOULIHAN:  I would agree with cutting the overhang back.

Question RAYMER:  Was there anything from the DNR?

Answer WEIBEL:  Nothing.

Motion Hammes/Houlihan to approve with condition that the overhang be reduced by 1 foot.

Motion carried unanimously.

Motion Hammes/Houlihan  to adjourn at 7:32 p.m.  Motion carried unanimously.

Meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m.

Ron Peterson, Recorder