Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem III PLAN COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OCTOBER 6,2020 ITEM III: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW WINDOW CLOSURES ON THE FRONT FACADE AND EXTERIOR MATERIALS NOT THE SAME AS THE MATERIALS ON THE ORIGINAL BUILDING AT 603 CEAPE AVENUE GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant/Owner: Mike Brefczynski Action(s) Requested: The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow window closures on the front fagade and exterior materials not the same as the materials on the original building at 603 Ceape Avenue. Applicable Ordinance Provision the Variance is being requested: Code Reference Regulation Section 30-241(B)(1) Existing window openings on front facades including gables shall not be closed or filled (totally or partially). Section 30-241(D)(3)(c) Exterior patchwork,repair, or reconstruction that results in a multi-textured or multi-colored effect or an appearance not consistent with the overall design character of the original structure is not permitted. Property Location and Background: wow % rgg, rFr% f l F / 0 � i/ 2 1 /r OFF!)( /i 64sµ . j /� /0 r.r giffiff t, 614 ME �k0l it % t9 p y' . %f /� ITEMIII-603 Ceape Ave. -Design Standards Variance Page 1 The subject property is a residential lot located at 603 Ceape Avenue and is approximately 7,700 square feet in area. The property contains a 1,982 square foot 2 story two-family residential structure which was built in 1920 according to the City of Oshkosh Assessor website. The surrounding area consists predominately of single and two-family uses and mixed commercial uses. The immediate properties on the north, east and south sides of the subject property are single-family uses with varying character and similar scale. The property across the street to the west is a two-family use. The subject property and all properties immediately surrounding it are zoned Two-Flat Residential-10 (TR-10). The original applicant initially closed off the previous transom window and sidelights adjacent to the front door. The work was done without a permit or Plan Commission review. Due to the fact that the original applicant eliminated windows on the front facade, a design standards variance is necessary. The applicant originally filed for a design standards variance and the item was slated for review at the March 17t11, 2020 Plan Commission meeting. Prior to the meeting, the City Inspections Division contacted the applicant and had discussions regarding the work that originally occurred. The applicant looked at siding options for around the front door beyond the white vinyl siding that was originally installed. Since the discussions were ongoing at the time of the March Plan Commission meeting, staff requested that the Plan Commission withdraw the item from the agenda. The Plan Commission withdrew the item and did not take action on the work originally completed at the time. The item was returned to the agenda for the April 21st,2020 Plan Commission meeting. Between the March 171h and April 21s'Plan Commission meetings staff had not received a reply from the applicant regarding potential revisions to the original work completed. Therefore, staff decided to move forward with Plan Commission review and a recommendation of variance denial. Discussion on the item centered on the possibility of options that met the applicant's need for cost-effectiveness while meeting the intent of the Residential Design Standards. The Plan Commission offered the applicant an opportunity to speak regarding the item and the applicant did not provide a statement. The Plan Commission denied the variance request at the April 21st meeting. Since the April 21st meeting, the owner of the property has communicated with Planning staff on options to address the window closures and patchwork issues. The owner submitted images of alternative exterior doors to staff on April 28th and staff explained to him that the doors were an improvement on the door that was originally installed on the facade. Staff and the applicant discussed the proposed new door and siding options. The applicant installed the present door and appears to have painted the siding surrounding the door. On July 27th the applicant emailed staff with images showing a door with window area in place of the initial replacement door. This additional work was done without permits. Staff informed the applicant that he would have to re-file for a design standards variance. On September 4111,2020, the applicant re- filed for a design standards variance. ITEMIII-603 Ceape Ave. -Design Standards Variance Page 2 Subject Site Existing Land Use Zoning Two-family Residential TR-10 Adjacent Land Use and Zoning Existing Uses Zoning North Single Family Residential TR-10 South Single Family Residential TR-10 East Single Family Residential TR-10 West Two Family Residential TR-10 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Recommendation Land Use Light Density 2040 Land Use Recommendation Residential VARIANCE CRITERIA The City's Zoning Ordinance establishes design standards for single and two-family homes with the overall purpose/intent to: "Maintain the basic architectural quality of residences within the community, to minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties and neighborhoods resulting from architectural and building construction practices that may detract from the character and appearance of the neighborhood as a whole, and to ensure compatible design between existing and new homes." The standards apply to all single and two-family structures within the City and include the regulation that"Existing window openings on front facades including gables shall not be closed or filled." These standards seek to prevent blank monotony on the front facades of residences. Oftentimes these front, street facing facades are the most prominent portions of the properties. The standards also include the regulation prohibiting "exterior patchwork, repair, or reconstruction that results in a multi-textured or multi-colored effect or an appearance not consistent with the overall design character of the original structure." This intent of this standard is to prevent piecemeal patchwork use of materials on facades. The Plan Commission is authorized to grant variances from the strict application of the standards when it is determined that one or more of the following apply: 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. 2. Substantial justice will be done by granting the variance. 3. The variance is needed so that the spirit of the ordinance is observed. 4. Due to special conditions,a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. 5. The variance will not allow an alteration of a historic structure, including its use,which would preclude its continued designation as a historic structure. ITEMIII-603 Ceape Ave. -Design Standards Variance Page 3 ANALYSIS The applicant removed the previous transom and sidelights that were around the front door on the front fagade. The applicant also removed and replaced the front door. Additional work was done when the applicant replaced the initial replacement door with a new replacement door. The work was done without zoning or inspections approval or Plan Commission review. The applicant had conversations with Planning Services staff regarding the modifications to the front facade. Planning staff informed him that staff could not issue a permit by-right due to the front facade window closures and that Plan Commission review and a design standards variance were necessary. 603 Ceape Windows Previous Current %Change Door 32N 80" 32"x 80" No Change Window 1 40N 54" 40"x 54" No Change Window 2 40N 54" 40"x 54" No Change Transom 10"x 48" 0 100% Reduction Sidelight 1 6N 48" 0 100% Reduction Sidelight 2 6N 48" 0 100% Reduction Window 3 24N 48" 24"x 48" No Change Window 4 24N 48" 24"x 48" No Change Window 5 24N 48" 24"x 48" No Change Total Window/Door 79.11 71.78 sq. Area sq.ft. ft. 9.27% Reduction Estimated % of Windows to Facade Area cover 1.4% less (Windows/Doors) 15.07% 13.67% facade area ITEMIII-603 Ceape Ave. -Design Standards Variance Page 4 Window s Window 3 Window 4 Transom i Sidelight 2 Window 2 Sidelight 1 Window 1 Dom Previous Fagade (Above) F r ���tNieor tt r Fagade—Initial Appearance after Window Closures The above images show the original condition of the facade with the previous entry door and surrounding sidelight and transom windows contrasted with the appearance of the facade in early 2020 with the window area closed off and a new door installed in its place. ITEMIII-603 Ceape Ave. -Design Standards Variance Page 5 OR i Fagade—Current Appearance with New Replacement Door The above image shows the facade as it appears currently. The applicant installed the new front door and appears to have painted the siding to better match the house since the variance denial in April. Staff has had some in person and phone discussions with the applicant. Staff attempted to reach the applicant around 2:15 pm on February 21yt and left a voicemail asking the applicant to call back so staff could obtain window dimensions from the applicant. Staff originally did not hear back from the applicant. Therefore, all window/door sizes in the above table were staff estimates based on images. Staff generally asks for window and door areas for the fagade(s) in question either at the time of application submittal or afterwards during the process of preparing a recommendation. ITEMIII-603 Ceape Ave. -Design Standards Variance Page 6 Since the April 21s'Plan Commission denial of the original variance request, the applicant made modifications to the front facade by installing a new door that has a window and painting the siding brown to more closely match the tone of the existing materials. The owner re-filed for a design standards variance and submitted a new application. In the application he stated that they changed the front door because all areas around the door and previous windows were rotten. He stated that the variance would not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood because the door looks fine and all surrounding properties are rentals. The work consisted of installing a header and all new doubled up 2x4s to the wall and sheeting it with 7/16" OSB, plywood, and siding. The person that did the work stated that he has spent over$400 to correct the work that was not approved and that the homeowner would not reimburse him for the extra cost. Staff evaluated the completed work previously described and the impact on the design of the home in regard to the purpose and intent of the residential design standards. The standards relate to preserving the home's architectural integrity and the potential impact on adjacent properties, the neighborhood character and "curb appeal" of the block. In working with the applicant, staff considered: • The potential impact of the completed modifications on the architectural integrity of the home • Potential impact on neighborhood character • Whether the proposed work met the intent of the Residential Design Standards Staff considers the work the applicant has completed to be a change to an existing building under the zoning ordinance. Per Section 30-241(D)(1) a change includes any alteration to existing architectural features (in this case windows or doors) on a wall plane. After evaluating the petitioner's application, examining the property and surrounding context and discussing the property internally, staff was of the opinion that the initial completed work had a detrimental impact on the architectural integrity of the front fagade. The subsequent work which included the installation of the current door and painting of the siding has improved the appearance beyond its initial appearance. The installation of a door with window area has helped the appearance of the area. Based on staff conversations with the applicant, the applicant stated that the cost of obtaining matching siding was prohibitive. The original work was a reduction of window area. Perhaps more importantly,the work was an example of the patchwork use of materials and trim that the ordinance intends to prevent. The fagade in its previous condition did make use of two main siding materials before. However, the previous windows and entry door broke up the area and the white trim tied in with the white trim of the other windows on the fagade. The current siding appears to be vinyl and adds a third siding material and texture to the fagade. The brown trim (brick molding) around the door stands out from the other materials on the facade. The addition of materials and textures not consistent and not complementary to the remainder of the facade created a patchwork scenario inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance. Staff would have preferred to see siding that matched the appearance of the first floor siding or had a smooth surface rather ITEMIII-603 Ceape Ave. -Design Standards Variance Page 7 than the lap siding. Staff would also have preferred to see the applicant obtain approvals and building permits prior to doing additional work on the fagade. However, the new door installed by the applicant is an improvement on the initial replacement door. The applicant painted the siding to more closely match the other cladding materials on the front fagade. Staff is of the opinion that the work has improved the appearance of the front facade beyond what it was after the initial window closures and door replacement (see above images). If the variance is approved, staff recommends a condition that the applicant must paint the brick molding to match the color of the vinyl siding. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow for window closures on the front fagade and exterior materials not the same as the materials found on the original building with the following conditions and finding: Conditions: 1. Variance is for the work already completed (window closures and siding as installed) only. All future work proposed not in conformance with the Residential Design Standards shall be filed as separate requests for Department of Community Development and Plan Commission review prior to the start of work. 2. Applicant/owner shall paint the brick molding to match the color of the vinyl siding. 3. Applicant/owner shall obtain all required approvals and building permits for the work already completed and any future work at the property. Finding: 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. ITEMIII-603 Ceape Ave. -Design Standards Variance Page 8 w <r r Please Type or Print in BLACK INK u f City fle CITY OF OSHKOSH Oshkosh APPLICATION FOR DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCE REVIEW APPLICANT INFORMATION 1 P Z k , Petitioner: !C Date: -., _ Awl Petitioner's Address: City: W State: Zip: f Telephone #: ) -7 9" 7 7/9 Fax: ( ) Other Contact# or Email: Status of Petitioner(Please Check): ❑Owner ❑ Representative ri lenciKt ❑ Prospective Buyer Petitioner's Signature (required): Date: PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION m Owner(s):M ! `a✓@� Date: Owner(s) Address:/r / City: State: Zip: 1/ Telephone #: ) Fax: ( ) Other Contact # or Email: Ownership Sta us (Please Check): ❑ Individual Trust ❑ Partnership C]Corporation Property Owner Consent: (required) By signature hereon, I/We acknowledge that City officials and/or employees may, in the performance of their functions, enter upon the property to inspect or gather other information necessary to process this application. I also understand that all meeting dates are tentative and may be postponed by the Planning Services Division for incomplete submissions or other administrative reasons. Property Owner's Signature: Date: SITE INFORMATION Address/Lofication of Proposed Project: Proposed Project Description: ,: °� Z ,F Current Use of Property: _._ear Zoning: In order to be granted a variance,each applicant must be able to prove,in the judgment of the Oshkosh Plan Commission,that at least one of the following criteria applies: 1) The intent of the;standards have been incorrectly interpreted 2) The standards do x�iot apply to the project The enforcement"of the standards cause unnecessary hardship Page 9 1. Explain in detail your proposed plans and why a variance is necessary: 2. Describe how the variance would not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties or curb appeal of the neighborhood: wgyg � _ ® 1"fl. M n 3. Describe in detail the materials and construction methods that the proposed project would use. Attach any supplementary information including, but not limited to, material data sheets, product information, supplemental photographs, elevation plan(s) and site plan(s): c � L"a Le It Page 10 4. Describe why the intent of the design standards have been incorrectly interpreted (if applicable): S. Describe why the design standards do not apply to this particular project(if applicable): 6. Describe the unnecessary hardship that would result if your variance were not granted (if applicable): A o m Page 11 DSV PAYTON VENTURES LLC MICKEY P/SARA E OLEARY 603 CEAPE AVE N5360 BLACKBIRD RD 611 CEAPE AVE PC: 10-06-20 BEAVER DAM WI 53916 OSHKOSH W154901 BREFCZYNSKI INVESTMENTS LLC MARY L ULRICH JOLEEN G SCHNEIDER 3438 CHARLIE ANNA DR 60 BAY ST 54 BAY ST OSHKOSH W154904 OSHKOSH W154901 OSHKOSH W154901 MD'S REMODELING & HOME ELISABETH CARTER RICHARD F PFEIFFER IMPROVEMENT LLC 57 BAY ST 3624 EDGEWATER LN 2355 HICKORY CT OSHKOSH WI 54901 OSHKOSH WI 54902 OSHKOSH W154901 AARON P/SARAN A PALMER ALBERTA NEVE/CASSANDRA BRAITHWAITE MARY K SCHMUDE 519 S WESTFIELD ST N3018 US HWY 12& 16 612 CEAPE AVE OSHKOSH WIS4902 MAUSTON WIS3948 OSHKOSH WIS4901 CLARENCE E KOCH MICHAEL BREFCZYNSKI MICHAEL BREFCZYNSKI 315 LAMPERT ST 603 CEAPE AVE 603 CEAPE AVE OSHKOSH W154901 OSHKOSH WI54901 OSHKOSH W154901 MICHAEL BREFCZYNSKI BREFCZYNSKI INVESTMENTS LLC BREFCZYNSKI INVESTMENTS LLC 603 CEAPE AVE 3438 CHARLIE ANNA DR 3438 CHARLIE ANNA DR OSHKOSH WIS4901 OSHKOSH W154904 OSHKOSH W154904 Page 12 ........ d ..... Lp o 400 0 / 7 71 40.0 40.0 . +..,0 4 ,,,+..,,,+..,,,, 33.1 6 , 0 .............. WIND / al N Qµ 40.00 ,�r � '� o.,,,, f �ME Mnm .... ......... / L pp n / / p �. o O o o40, " ,,,,, 17 6 02 , N % 54� j nn AAA � 1,, o 40. h „ 60 N 400, / N EMO +mnnnnnnMy�n o FM 612 6 p 0 6 r �i �� o v " 6� ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, og 4 ,,,,,,,,,,, p °o . �% / f « j p ,,,,,, ..... 16 MI �`0 ®;, .,,, ,,, .... ff��ll f C� � � Illrl ��� � C ii(y Dif 0 ahrlrcavl n imalps and data are=Il me i nde d b Ik e used for ge=IrneMlralll Ilde iffic„do n purposes iDInlly,and ............................................................ tlhe Cllty of l911ken,lh assurnes no IIability fern tlhe accuracy of tlhe Illnhminnrnhion Ihose using the � nf01`In ctiorr pole= Ire Sponln iilkalle br ve=Iriif iilne accuracy or Iua1111 rtisc,lainrneMl slleMa r go to � �111���':�I�kall�li��li � M W y Y I,. �<.:M ,t F°Irulnl'��lilnl Oshkosh vuvucnr c.i��anah7lsca lm v�ru uu,7/ I14 ryli�acJrn'u`inc r LAIr�paired Ib Cwut^of 0,�Ih�ll��ashn, ^"II G',P nnii7,"I'011 C orr misskm Silo 4lhn Ifl:p ,oi71 Hv i.?i;i I'1,7ir oor7rr7r„um ih 4'hir Ifl 71.E ,oi71 1 rlo rrra, Page 13 b;rpi�; UMU / SC , WINN A O AV �1 Hp .... pAV UA.- GooqV ~ U ~ UMU UMU-P ~ �,,, -20 , Q UMU m 1 .. cI'll. j Berm �� ,,,,,,� -PD-RFO ,,,, UMU ~~~~ r 7 V„ UMU- F .... -36 ~ ~ =5-L 0 RMU- F -5 -L IU= D- FO RMU- D- FO -12L0 =3- cii(y Dif Oshrl ash i'naps and data ai e=lime rode d b Ik e used for ale=irneMiralll ude iffic atio n purposes iainlly,and .... .... ........ y dhe slily can l 911kcn,lh assurnes no Iiability fcnn tlhe accuracy anc y of tlhe uintai i natio n I hose using th e ntenirin bD1`1 Foie= ire=npoin iilkalle bi variif nine ac.c,urac, or Iua1111 atisclainrneMi slleMa r go to � �III���. �l�kall�li��li � M W y Y I,. �<.:M ,t IF°Irulnl'��lilnl vuwwd oshlscash vvil us/GlSdisdal incur LAIr�paired Iby�Cwut^of Oshkosh,M GIS Ph III!IYa;,"111 11 Corr INsskm Silo 4lhn Ifl:p ,oi7l Hv~i.?i;i I'1,7ir oor7rr7r„um ih 4'hir Ifl 7I. ,oi7l l rlo rrra, Page 14 ,gym b;rpi�; a� < �VVuI J � Illpl Y„ a 6� I nllllllllllllllllllll / b I I y9rm �d Y � � Y Y��, I�I� � ✓ ''�.0 y Y f' � I M I I I ��" , v I � 0� n in 0.0'1 Irr l r �� � ` n Il �� / p a dh��y if c( ��' �)n�al°rlrcwh Irn�LIYD and data re lin(eirnded b Ik e used for ge neMiralll de i� fficatio n purposes ininlly,and ���l�y Cully of 0911ko;lh assurnes no IialvulnCy fon (Ihe un,ccuiaouy of(Ihe uiffariirr;ntioin IIPuose= using lhneM Y ii l i i IFIrini'bln� �' I t&:9I6l2020 f01`1in bD1 Fi= r Sp i ilrle br varif in� accuracy or I Illl disclainnMi IsllM :r go to Oshkosh vvncoshsasvvilus/GIlSdisccr'un I:AIrepairec Ib Cwut^of Oshkosh,N G',P mill 11j'"IMlr C orr mikskm Silo 4'lhn Ifl II.I I',olYl Ylv I.!4;1 I'hrlr Y;,eorYrrYr„ulY7 Ih 4''hlr Ifl rla I',olYl l rlo rrra, Page 15 ,Ym b;rpie^,k;