Page 1 of 2 Board Of Appeals

Agenda has been posted and distributed in accordance with Wisconsin State Statutes. A quorum of the Town Board and/or other Town Committeesor Commissions may be in attendance. However, the only business to be conducted is for the Board Of Appeals.

BOARD OF APPEALSMEETING AGENDA

DATE: Monday, March 23, 2020TIME: 4:00 PMLOCATION: VIRTUAL MEETING

General Public Can Participate via our Web Access: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3628605381115371788

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.

General public attendees can use their computer mic & speakers or telephone by dialing: 1-631-992-3221Audio PIN: 239-901-242

We strongly recommend registering in advance of the meeting and testing your connection to avoid any problems. Connection issues can be emailed to Town Administrator, Joel Gregozeski at joelg@townofgreenville.com.

OPENING

1.CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

2.VERIFY PUBLIC NOTICE AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA

3.APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

3.a. Approval of Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes October 28, 2019.20191028_BOAminutes.pdf

4.NEW BUSINESS FOR DISCUSSION & POSSIBLE ACTION

1

Page 2 of 2 Board Of Appeals

Agenda has been posted and distributed in accordance with Wisconsin State Statutes. A quorum of the Town Board and/or other Town Committeesor Commissions may be in attendance. However, the only business to be conducted is for the Board Of Appeals.

4.a. Public Hearing for a variance to Section 320-220A4 of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce therequired 100 foot separation of the driveways from the intersection of Alana Lane and NorthMagdalyn Court on North Magdalyn Court for proposed Lots 1 & 7 of Jennerjohn Estates andAlana Lane and South Magdalyn Court on South Madgalyn Court for proposed Lots 8 & 13 ofJennerjohn Estates to 50 feet.

4.b. Discuss/Consider/Act on a variance to Section 320-220A4 of the Zoning Ordinance to reducethe required 100 foot separation of the driveways from the intersection of Alana Lane and NorthMagdalyn Court on North Magdalyn Court for proposed Lots 1 & 7 of Jennerjohn Estates andAlana Lane and South Magdalyn Court on South Madgalyn Court for proposed Lots 8 & 13 ofJennerjohn Estates to 50 feet.Variance RequestConditions to Grant a Variance.pdf

4.c. Public Hearing for a variance to Section 320-56B3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an existingground sign to be modified from its original design and to encroach 48 feet into the required 55foot yard setback adjacent STH 15.

4.d. Discuss/Consider/Act on a variance to Section 320-56B3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow anexisting ground sign to be modified from its original design and to encroach 48 feet into therequired 55 foot yard setback adjacent STH 15. Variance Request.pdfConditions to Grant a Variance.pdf

CLOSING

5.ADJOURNMENT

2

Page 1 of 2 BOARD OF APPEALS

ALL MINUTES ARE CONSIDERED DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED AT THE NEXT MEETING.

BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

DATE: Monday, October 28, 2019 TIME: 4:30 PM LOCATION: Greenville Town Hall, W6860 Parkview Drive, Greenville, WI 54942 Opening 1) Call to Order and Roll Call The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. PRESENT: Tom Becher, Doug Butt, Tom Reimer, Jim Beard EXCUSED: Kip Zilisch 2) Verify Public Notice and Approval of Agenda

Motion by Jim Beard, second by Doug Butt approve the agenda. Motion carried 4 - 0. 3) New Business for Discussion & Possible Action

3.a Public Hearing for a variance to Section 320-94(B)(3)(b) to allow a 2.2 foot encroachment into the 55 foot front yard setback on proposed Lot 1 of CSM; Section 320-24(A) & 320-92(A) to allow for an accessory use to be permitted prior to a principle use existing or being constructed on proposed Lot 2 of CSM; Section 320-94(B)(4) to allow a 14.2 foot encroachment into the 25 foot rear yard setback on proposed Lot 2 of CSM for N1214 Municipal Drive Parcel 110083700.

The applicant was present to answer any questions the board had regarding the variances. A review of packet materials was provided by Community and Economic Development Director Brown.

Motion by Jim Beard, second by Tom Becher close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 4-0.

3.b Discuss/Consider/Act on a variance to Section 320-94(B)(3)(b) to allow a 2.2

foot encroachment into the 55 foot front yard setback on proposed Lot 1 of CSM; Section 320-24(A) & 320-92(A) to allow for an accessory use to be permitted prior to a principle use existing or being constructed on proposed Lot 2 of CSM; Section 320-94(B)(4) to allow a 14.2 foot encroachment into

3

Page 2 of 2 BOARD OF APPEALS

ALL MINUTES ARE CONSIDERED DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED AT THE NEXT MEETING.

the 25 foot rear yard setback on proposed Lot 2 of CSM for N1214 Municipal Drive Parcel 110083700. Application.pdf Explanation.pdf CSM.pdf Aerial.pdf Motion by Jim Beard, second by Tom Becher to approve a variance to Section 320-94(B)(3)(b) to allow a 2.2 foot encroachment into the 55 foot front yard setback on proposed Lot 1 of CSM. Roll call vote. Motion carried 4-0.

Motion by Tom Becher, second by Jim Beard to approve a variance to Section 320-24(A) & 320-92(A) to allow for an accessory structure use to be permitted prior to a principle use existing or being constructed on proposed Lot 2 of CSM. Roll call vote. Motion carried 4-0.

Motion by Tom Becher, second Doug Butt to approve a variance to Section 320-94(B)(4) to allow a 14.2 foot encroachment into the 25 foot rear yard setback on proposed Lot 2 of CSM for N1214 Municipal Drive Parcel 110083700. Roll call vote. Motion carried 4-0.

Closing 4) Adjournment

Motion by Jim Beard, second by Tom Becher adjourn at 4:39 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. Wendy Helgeson, Town Clerk Approved:

4

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

Project Title:_______________________________________________________________________________

Site Address:_______________________________________________________________________________

Parcel #(s):________________________________________________________________________________

Applicant:_________________________________________________________________________________

Mailing Address:___________________________________________________________________________

City:_________________________ State:_______ Zip:____________ Phone:__________________________

Email Address:_____________________________________________________________________________

Property Owner:____________________________________________________________________________

Mailing Address:____________________________________________________________________________

City:_________________________ State:_______ Zip:____________Phone:___________________________

Email Address:_____________________________________________________________________________

PROPERTY INFORMATION:

Parcel(s) Sq. Ft.:_______________ Current Zoning:________________ Proposed Zoning:________________

Existing Land Use:___________________________ Proposed Use:__________________________________

Number of Employees:_____

Water Service: ☒ Public Water ☐ Well

Sewer Service: ☒ Public Sewer ☐ Septic

Inside Sanitary District Boundary? ☒ Yes ☐ No

Consistent with Comprehensive Plan?

☐ Yes ☒ No

Are there any assessments/lein on the property?

☐ Yes ☒ No

Description of Project/Request Requiring Application (attach additional sheets if necessary):

Variance to Section 320-220A4 Location to intersections which states: No driveway access shall be located with its closest edge

closer than 50 feet to a local street intersection or closer than 100 feet to a collector or arterial street intersection. To the extent

practical, driveways shall be located to maximize distances to intersection.

The request is to reduce the required 100 foot separation of the driveways from the intersection of Alana Lane and North

Magdalyn Court on North Magdalyn Court for proposed Lots 1 & 7 of Jennerjohn Estates and Alana Lane and South Magdalyn

Court on South Madgalyn Court for proposed Lots 8 & 13 of Jennerjohn Estates to 50 feet.

STAFF USE: CASE FILE:_______________________

RECEIPT #:___________ DATE FILED:_____________

PRE-APP CONSULT DATE:_______________________

Critical Areas: (check all that apply)

☐ Floodplain/Wetland ☐ Drainage/Stream

☐ Easements ☐ Heritage Overlay

☐ Airport Zone ☐ Gateway Overlay

☒ State/County Hwy ☐ TID

☐ Other: ________________________________

Jennerjohn Estates

Alana Lane and Hwy 76

110084180 and 110084181

Martenson & Eisele, Inc.

1377 Midway Road

Menasha WI 54952 (920) 427-8600

Jennerjohm Field of Dreams, LLC

131 West Winrowe Drive

Appleton WI 54913 (920) 470-3185 (920) 538-2750

chrisc@martenson-eisele.com

lauriejvb@gmail.com jackerman.abs@gmail.com

3.47 ac & 4.5 ac Two-Family

Residential

Two-Family

Residential

Vacant Single & Two-Family Residential

NA

5

6

Variance Narrative Summary, Jennerjohn Estates, Town of Greenville 1

Variance Narrative Hardship Narrative Jennerjohn Estates

Town of Greenville, Outagamie County, WI Project Background This proposed Jennerjohn Estates project is part of the larger overall Jennerjohn Field of Dreams residential plat. The original development design consisted of 56 separate lots along 4 public roadways. The entire development was planned to be constructed over 3 phases. The Jennerjohn Estates project consists of lots 7 and 8 of the overall development and is the 3rd and final phase of the overall development. We are proposing that lots 7 and 8 be further subdivided into 13 smaller lots which will contain duplex condominiums. Requested Variance We are requesting a variance to Section 320-220A4 Location to Intersections which states: No driveway access shall be located with its closest edge closer than 50 feet to a local street intersection or closer than 100 feet to a collector or arterial street intersection. To the extent practical, driveways shall be located to maximize distances to intersection. Alana Lane has been classified as a collector street and the driveway setback has been set to 100 feet from the roadway intersection. The variance request is to reduce the required 100 foot separation of the driveways from the intersection of Alana Lane and North Magdalyn Court on North Magdalyn Court for proposed Lots 1 & 7 of Jennerjohn Estates and Alana Lane and South Magdalyn Court on South Madgalyn Court for proposed Lots 8 & 13 of Jennerjohn Estates to 50 feet. Narrative for Variance Requirements Below is the narrative explainations for how this project meets the requirements listed in the variance application form:

a. The variance is not contrary to the public interest and that such a variance will be in general harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter.

The prior phase of the Jennerjohn Estates subdivision constructed in 2019 was not required to maintain the same 100’ setback from Alana Lane for lots 6 and 9. We understand that the prior plat was not held to the same requirements when it was approved as this current development is, however we feel that this demonstrates that approval of this variance would not grant the ability to develop this site that is not available elsewhere and would not significantly negatively impact the public interest or public safety.

b. The variance will not permit the establishment of a use that is not permitted or permissible in the district. The site is currently zoned for one or two family residential. The proposed and desired land use of the whole site is two family duplexes. The variance would alleviate hardships in site layout and allow the sites to be developed into more desirable residential lots, not allow for any additional non-permissible or

7

Variance Narrative Summary, Jennerjohn Estates, Town of Greenville 2

permitted uses. The proposed site layout for the four corner lots if the variance would be granted is shown in attachment A.

c. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. This Jennerjohn Estates development is significantly smaller and the layout is more constrained than other residential developments nearby. There are setbacks from Highway 76 and wetlands that were delineated onsite that need to be maintained in addition to the standard setbacks for this zoning district. The 100’ driveway setback from Alana Drive has a greater impact on the overall Jennerjohn Estates layout and density than it would in most developments of similar zoning. The setback from Alana Lane would directly impact the proposed corner lots 1, 7, 8, and 13. These lots are only allowed to have driveways that connect to the new proposed Magdalyn Court roadways and maintaining the setback would force the first set of driveways to be 1/3rd of the way into the overall development and severely limit how the remainder of the site could be developed. The proposed residential lot sizes are mainly limited by the minimum frontage requirements and the widths of the buildable areas, but our proposed layout still has an average lot size of approximately 22,900 square feet which is larger than the average lot size of the rest of the Field of Dreams development. These lots are all large enough to accommodate the construction of duplexes, however the driveway setbacks from the Alana Drive intersection would force the four corner lots to either be developed into single family residences on extremely large lots compared to the rest of the subdivision, or would require duplex layouts that are extremely undesirable which would be harder to maintain tenant occupancy. These layouts with offset driveways would require longer driveways with curves and would make it more difficult to maintain good drainage of the lawns and conveyance of runoff on the four corner lots. If the setbacks were maintained it would also result in a significant density disparity that is not consistent with the rest of the overall Field of Dreams development and the total density of the proposed development would decrease by over 15%. This reduced level of proposed development density would make it harder to justify the required roadway and utility infrastructure required to turn the site into residential development when there is such a lower number of units to split the costs over in the first place.

d. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. The main right that is relevant to this variance request is the right to access the residence and land of each lot in a safe and reasonable manner. Over the course of developing this site layout, no alternate layouts were identified that would allow for the four corner lots to be developed in a way that maintained the right of access without imposing the significant hardships described above.

8

Variance Narrative Summary, Jennerjohn Estates, Town of Greenville 3

e. The hardship is not shared generally by other land or buildings in the area. As stated in requirement A, the nearby subdivision constructed in 2019 was not required to maintain the same 100’ setback from Alana Lane. The adjacent developments were planned out as part of a larger development project and were better able to lay out roadways and lots to create a more uniform density of buildings. There was more flexibility to adjust to specific layout constraints and the infrastructure costs are also distributed over a larger number of lots.

f. The hardship results from the strict application of this chapter and is not the result of self-created or self-imposed circumstances. Because of the shape and size of the site there is little leeway in the layout of the roads and the lots. There are no other ways to create a different lot layout that would meet the 100’ setback and other zoning requirements while still allowing for these lots to be developed without the significant negative impacts previously discussed in section C.

9

10

11

12

13

§ 320-239. Powers and duties regarding variances.

A. Powers. The Board shall have the power to authorize upon appealin specific cases such variance from the terms of this chapter aswill not be contrary to the public interest, where owing to specialconditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapterwill result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, so thatthe spirit of this chapter shall be observed and substantial justicedone. [Amended 2-10-2003]

B. Requirements for a variance. In general, the power to authorize avariance from the requirements of the chapter shall be sparinglyexercised and only under peculiar and exceptional circumstances.No variance shall be granted for actions that require anamendment to this chapter. Variances shall only be granted whenthe Board finds that:

(1) The variance is not contrary to the public interest and thatsuch a variance will be in general harmony with the purposeand intent of this chapter.

(2) The variance will not permit the establishment of a use that isnot permitted or permissible in the district.

(3) Special conditions and circumstances exist which arepeculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and whichare not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings inthe same district.

(4) The literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapterwould deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed byother properties in the same district.

(5) The hardship is not shared generally by other land orbuildings in the area.

(6) The hardship results from the strict application of thischapter and is not the result of self-created or self-imposedcircumstances.

:114

15

16

17

18

Shepherd of the Hills

Variance Request Narrative

Feb. 2020

a. The variance is not contrary to the public interest and that such a variance will be in general harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. The sign base was constructed in approximately 1970. At the time of construction the location met applicable ordinances that were in place. Since the construction, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) acquired additional right-of-way (ROW) but kept the sign in its original location. The additional ROW width has caused the sign to be non-compliant. The sign is approximately 7.9’ from the property line. See Exhibit A.

b. The variance will not permit the establishment of a use that is not permitted or permissible in the district. The ROW width along State Trunk Highway (STH) 15 is very large when compared to other road ROWs within the Town. It is unlikely or rare that Town roads would dictate such a large ROW width so as to create similar situations in the future.

c. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. The acquisition of ROW by the WisDOT has created the non-conformance. The location of the sign on STH 15 is critical to direct traffic into the site. Relocating the sign to meet ordinance will reduce its visibility from STH 15. Therefore relocating the sign to meet ordinance creates a sign that does not adequately function for traffic traveling STH 15. Furthermore, the existing sign is 12’long x 2’ wide x 5’ high. The sign is too low to be functional in winter. Even in relatively mild winters such as 2019-2020, snow cover hinders the visibility (see picture below). The owner desires to make improvements to the existing sign base in order to:

1. Install sign materials of construction to match the new church 2. Increase the height of the sign to reduce visibility issues caused by snow

An architectural elevation of the proposed sign (attached as Exhibit B).

19

d. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the

applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. The widening of STH 15 ROW has created numerous similar circumstances which appear to include the CENEX, Greenville Community Park, Greenville Junction, etc. Other facilities in the area were allowed to make improvements to their existing signs, for example, Wolf River Bank.

e. The hardship is not shared generally by other land or buildings in the area. There a numerous other instances in the Town along STH 15 where the ROW acquisition has created similar circumstances. The widening of the ROW was beyond the control of the property owner. The taking of property by the WisDOT should not impose a hardship upon the property owner. Other facilities in the area were allowed to make improvements to their existing signs.

f. The hardship results from the strict application of this chapter and is not the result of self-created or self-imposed circumstances. The hardship has been created by the acquisition of ROW by the WisDOT. The widening of the ROW has created the non-conformance. Relocation of the sign will reduce its visibility from its main traffic route and thereby decrease it effectiveness.

20

4'-8"

12'-0"

21

22

23

§ 320-239. Powers and duties regarding variances.

A. Powers. The Board shall have the power to authorize upon appealin specific cases such variance from the terms of this chapter aswill not be contrary to the public interest, where owing to specialconditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapterwill result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, so thatthe spirit of this chapter shall be observed and substantial justicedone. [Amended 2-10-2003]

B. Requirements for a variance. In general, the power to authorize avariance from the requirements of the chapter shall be sparinglyexercised and only under peculiar and exceptional circumstances.No variance shall be granted for actions that require anamendment to this chapter. Variances shall only be granted whenthe Board finds that:

(1) The variance is not contrary to the public interest and thatsuch a variance will be in general harmony with the purposeand intent of this chapter.

(2) The variance will not permit the establishment of a use that isnot permitted or permissible in the district.

(3) Special conditions and circumstances exist which arepeculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and whichare not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings inthe same district.

(4) The literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapterwould deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed byother properties in the same district.

(5) The hardship is not shared generally by other land orbuildings in the area.

(6) The hardship results from the strict application of thischapter and is not the result of self-created or self-imposedcircumstances.

:124