HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Appeals Letter
e/:;C{,
~";""'_.-"/i}':'
~~i;'/;':'
OJHKOJH
City of Oshkosh
Dept. of Community Development
Planning Services Division
215 Church Ave., PO Box 1130
Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130
(920) 236-5059 (920) 236-5053 FAX
Jackson R. Kinney
. Director
Dept. of Community Development
Darryn Burich
Director
Planning Services Division
January 16, 2007
Mr. Harry Oestreich
353 W. 18th Av.
Oshkosh, WI 54902
Re: 353 W. 18th Av.
Dear Mr. Oestreich:
On January 10,2007 the City of Oshkosh Board of Appeals denied your variance request to reconstruct the
front porch with a fourteen foot three inch (14'-3") front yard setback at the above referenced location.
The decision ofthe Board was filed in the Planning Office of the Department of Community Development
on January 11, 2007. Section 30-6(C)(1) and (2) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance allows the same
variance request to be heard 3 times in any 12-month period. If this is the first or second time you have
requested this variance within 12 months, you may re-apply if you wish.
If your variance request has been denied 3 times within a 12-month period, but you feel there has been a
change in the circumstances affecting your request, you may submit a request for an additional hearing
stating the changes which have occurred. The Board will review this request, and if three Board members
feel there is sufficient change in circumstances to warrant an additional hearing, then you may re-submit
your variance request through the normal procedure.
You may call me at (920) 236-5057 if you have any questions.
/.-:7
,~~ ,,/
Sincerely, , ~::::.>'
-----~//
</---- ~U..
'\ ~//'C.
T oJd Muehrer
Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator
TMM/dff
cc: Inspection Services Division, City Hall
OJHKOfH
City of Oshkosh
Planning Services Division
215 Church Ave., PO Box Jl30
Oshkosh, VVI 54903-1130
(920) 236-5059 (920) 236-5053 FAX
http://www.ci.oshkosb.wi.us
Jac!<son R. Kinney
Director
Dept. of Community Development
Darryn Burich
Director
Planning Services Division
BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA
JANUARY 10,2007
3:30 PM
To Whom It May Concern:
Please note the City of Oshkosh Board of Appeals will meet on WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10,
2007 at 3:30 PM in Room 404 at the Oshkosh City Hall to consider the following agenda.
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 8, 2006 & NOVEMBER 22, 2006 MINUTES
I. 353 WEST 18TH AVENUE
Harry Oestreich-applicant/owner, requests a variance to reconstruct the front porch with a fourteen foot three
inch (14'3") front yard setback, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(e): Additional Standards and Exceptions of the
City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of a fifteen (15) foot front yard setback. This is the
second hearing for this application.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of BOA procedures
ADJOURNMENT
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE PLANNING SERVICES DNISION AT
(920) 236-5059, BETWEEN 8 AM - 4:30 PM, MONDAY THRU FRIDAY
~
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 2007
PRESENT:
Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Larry Lang, Moss Ruedinger, Cheryl Hentz
EXCUSED:
Edward Wilusz, Dennis Penney
STAFF:
David Buck, Principal Planner; Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning
Administrator; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary; Allyn Dannhoff, Chief
Building Inspector
The meeting was called to order at 3 :30 pm by Chairperson Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum
declared present.
The minutes of November 8, 2006 were approved as distributed. Cornell/Lang 4-0. The minutes of
November 22,2006 were also approved as distributed. Lang/Carpenter 4-0.
I. 353 WEST 18TH AVENUE
Harry Oestreich-applicant/owner, requests a variance to reconstruct the front porch with a fourteen foot
three inch (14'3") front yard setback, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(e): Additional Standards and
Exceptions of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of a fifteen (15) foot front
yard setback. It should be noted this is the second hearing for this application. The original hearing
occurred on October 25, 2006 and was denied 1-4.
Mr. Muehrer presented the item and noted that since the last hearing, new gutters have been installed on
the non-approved/illegal porch to eliminate pooling water. This installation occurred without a proper
building permit.
Mr. Oestreich commented that he thought the gutters were included in the permit issued for the porch
an9- roof.
Allyn Dannhoff, Chief Building Inspector, stated that he would not make an issue of this.
Mr. Oestreich stated that he had the contractor present at this hearing that performed the reconstruction
of the porch so he could answer questions from the board regarding this matter.
Anthony Schmidt, 2127 Linway Court, Oshkosh, stated that he had drawn up the plans for the porch
reconstruction and brought them to the Inspection Services office for approval. He was told that the
plans looked fine and a permit was issued. He said he spoke with Nicole Krahn, Building Inspector,
when the posts and concrete were already in place and she said that everything looked good. She did
ask if the reconstructed porch was the same size as the original structure. He told her he did not know.
Ms. Hentz inquired if Ms. Krahn did not tell him at this point that the project was not acceptable.
Mr. Schmidt responded that she did not.
Board of Appeals Minutes
January 10, 2007
Mr. Lang commented that he examined the site this afternoon and had a few questions regarding the
sketch of the plans that the contractor had drawn up.
..;
A brief discussion followed regarding items relating to the drawing of the proposed reconstructed porch.
Mr. Carpenter inquired if the contractor knew where the original footings were located for the porch?
Mr. Schmidt replied that the cornerstones had been removed prior to construction, but he thought the
new porch was almost identical. The original structure was pulling away from the house so it was hard
to tell.
Mr. Cornell questioned why the porch was extended beyond the roofline.
Mr. Schmidt responded that the package purchased for the porch came that way.
Mr. Lang inquired if this package had certain dimensions and if the columns supporting the roof were
moved.
Mr. Schmidt replied that the package was created using computer imaging software at Menards and that
the support columns were not moved.
Ms. Hentz asked if the Inspection Services office had told them that the porch could not be increased in
size, why was it reconstructed that way.
Mr. Oestreich responded that he did not remember asking to have the porch built larger. Mr. Schmidt
stated that he did not intend to build into the setback area.
Ms. Hentz asked if Nicole Krahn was available to answer questions regarding this issue since she was
the inspector who dealt with Mr. Schnlidt on this issue.
Mr. Dannhoff responded that Ms. Krahn was not able to be present for this hearing but he could answer
questions relating to this issue. He stated that he issued the original permit from the drawing submitted
by the contractor. The project was to replace the original porch and there was no discussion to enlarge it
at that time. If that had been communicated at the time the permit was issued, they would have been
. .
required to submit a scaled site plan and have a zoning review before obtaining the permit.
Mr. Carpenter asked if there was a problem with the integrity of the deck and if the base of the original
porch extended out from the roof.
Mr. Dannhoffresponded thathe could not comment on the integrity of the deck as he did not inspect it
and that the original porch may have flared out on the bottom, however, that would be considered
ornamental projection which is allowed. The decking is now what extends out and the floor area is not
considered ornamental.
Ms. Hentz asked if the building inspector would inspect a project midway through construction.
Mr. Dannhoff responded that there is a checklist that designates at what point to call for inspection and it
is the responsibility of the contractor to do so. If the contractor does not hear from the Inspections office
within 48 hours of the call, it is permissible to proceed.
Board of Appeals Minutes
2
January 10,2007
~.
') Ms. Hentz requested that the original drawing of the proposed reconstructed porch be reviewed, Mr.
Buck retrieved the original document from Inspection Services and the board reviewed it.
Mr. Cornell asked if the porch could be fixed to be code compliant.
Mr. Dannhoff replied that it could.
Mr. Cornell inquired if it would be possible to remove the extension that was encroaching into the
setback area and move the steps back.
Mr. Schmidt responded that it would be possible, but would be a major expense as the support posts are
buried four feet into the ground and attached to the deck. He further stated that he was not told that the
porch was noncompliant until the work was completed.
A brief discussion followed regarding when the contractor was notified that the porch was
noncompliant. There appeared to be some discrepancy between the contractor and Inspection Services
as to when this notification occurred.
Mr. Lang stated that it was apparent from the photos that the porch had increased in size and the
building permit issued did not reflect this change.
Mr. Carpenter commented that he had also reviewed the subject site and he did not have a problem with
the reconstructed porch as is. It appeared to be an improvement to the property.
Mr. Cornell stated that he did not feel the appearance was the issue. Thefact is that it is not a
replacement of the original structure as was approved with the permit and although it may involve
additional expense, the situation is correctible.
Mr. Lang agreed and further commented that it is an owner created hardship.
Motion by Lang to approve the request for a variance to reconstruct the front porch with a
fourteen foot three inch front yard setback.
Seconded by Cornell.
Motion denied 1-3. Ayes-Carpenter. Nays-Cornell/Lang/Hentz
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Carpenter asked about an article he noticed in the newspaper regarding a setback issue involving
Bergstrom's and the Plan Commission. He was curious about the issue as Bergstrom's had come up at a
previous hearing for allegedly parking cars in the setback area.
Mr. Buck replied that the issue with the Plan Commission involved display pods that they wished to
place in the setback area. This issue involves a Planned Development area that has a special zoning
overlay district which could permit exceptions to the code as a base standard modification if deemed
appropriate. This is different than the issues heard by the Board of Appeals since a base standard
modification in a Planned Development area would not require them to apply for a variance. At this
time, the display pods have been removed from the site plan until further review of the site can be
completed.
Board of Appeals Minutes
3
January 10,2007
~
Ms. Hentz commented that she felt the item reviewed today seemed to be created by a misunderstanding
between the contractor and the Inspection Services division. She questioned if the staff does a sufficient
job explaining issues when the permit is obtained to avoid these situations.
r""
Mr. Buck responded that the inspectors do the best they can to explain the criteria when the permit is
issued. The level of understanding of building issues that the person obtaining the permit has is not
always evident.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:47 pm. Lang/Cornell 4-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Todd Muehrer
Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator
Board of Appeals Minutes
4
January 10,2007
'lit.
STAFF REPORT
BOARD OF APPEALS
JANUARY 10, 2007
ITEM I:
353 WEST 18TH AVENUE
GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
It should be noted this is the second hearing for this application. The original hearing occurred on October
25,2006 and was denied 1-4. Harry Oestreich-applicant/owner, believes a change in circumstances has
occurred and is requesting the second hearing. Specifically, the applicant has stated the contractor who
physically performed the construction work will be present at the second hearing to answer questions the
Board of Appeals may have regarding this item. Additionally, the applicant has stated that since the
original denial occurred on October 25,2006, new gutters have been installed on the non-approved/illegal
porch to eliminate pooling water. Staff would like to emphasize the new gutter installation occurred
without a proper building permit.
Harry Oestreich-applicant/owner, requests a variance to reconstruct the front porch with a fourteen foot
three inch (14'-3") front yard setback, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(e): Additional Standards and
Exceptions of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum ofa fifteen (15) foot front yard
setback.
The subject 0.14 acre (approx. 6,000 sq. ft.) property is zoned R-l Single-Family Residence District and is
developed with a one-story single family home originally constructed in 1940. The parcel is bordered by
single- family homes in all directions and the general area can be characterized as a low-density residential
neighborhood. Zoning for the area south of 18th Avenue and east ofIowa Street is R-l Single Family and
is R-2 two family to the North of 18th Avenue and west of Iowa Street.
ANALYSIS
In reviewing a variance request, the following questions should be addressed:
When considering an area variance, the question of whether unnecessary hardship or practical
difficulty exists is best explained as "whether compliance with the strict letter of the
restrictions governing area, set backs, frontage, height, bulk or density would unreasonably
prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or would render
conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome."
Are there any unusual or unique physical limitations of the property, which create a hardship?
Will granting of a variance result in harm to the public interest?
The request is for a setback variance from the Zoning Code to allow the expansion of the front porch at the
home at 353 W 18th Avenue with a 14' 3" front yard setback, intruding 9 inches into the minimum IS-foot
front yard setback. The background on this variance request is that the property owner pulled a building
permit in August to, among other things, replace the front porch deck, guard rails, handrails and stairs
(attached please find a copy of the building permit with plans). According to Inspection Division staff, the
contractor and owner asked if the porch could be extended and they were told that they could not.
Subsequently, work commenced at the site though a footing inspection was never requested. The Building
Inspector inspected the site after the work was completed and found that the porch was built differently
than the submitted plans and extended beyond the original roof into the setback area.
The applicant states that the change in the porch, including the reduced setback, will not have an adverse
affect on the surrounding lots or structures and that it is actually an improvement to the neighborhood.
Additionally, the applicant expresses that the neighbors like the improvements and that he has not heard
STAFF REPORT
ITEM I
-2-
BOARD OF APPEALS
JANUARY 10, 2007
any complaints. The change in character of the home from its original condition to its current state (photos
attached) mayor may not be an improvement as this is in "the eye of the beholder" but is not relevant to the
case of determining a hardship as defined by the courts or Board criteria. Additionally, the feelings ofthe
neighbors, though important, do not dictate a hardship as well as that homes sell and neighbors (therefore
opinions on what is attractive or not) change.
The petitioner contends that there is an unnecessary hardship/practical difficulty in reconstructing the
porch, as he is elderly and unable to perform the work himself. Additionally, he states that the contractor
who had performed the work should have known the setback was being encroached upon. Staff
understands and sympathizes with the owner. Staff feels that it is very unfortunate that the work contracted
was done incorrectly but point out that the ultimate responsibility for code and building permit compliance
falls on the shoulders of the property owner. Staff would like to suggest that if the contractor performed
unauthorized work or work that did not match what the owner employed them for, that it could be grounds
for civil action.
Staff feels that the expansion does have a visual impact on the entire block and is concerned that the
precedent that could be set if the variance is granted. The desire to use more of the front yard area is
common in the City, especially the older areas, and allowing this expansion could open the code to be
challenged frequently.
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff recommends denial of the variance request.
Please Type or Print in BLACK INK
~
OJH<QfH
ON TMEWA.TEJI
Return to: Department of
Community Development
215 Church Ave.
P.O. Box 1130
Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130
CITY OF OSHKOSH
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
Please write legibly with black ink and also submit a complete reproducible site plan (maximum size 11" x 17"). (A
complete site plan includes, but is not limited to, all structures, lot lines and streets with distances to each.) There is a
$125.00 fee for each variance application. The fee is payable to the City of Oshkosh and due at the time the application is
submitted.
Address of Parcel Affected:
'I 1)
Petitioner: /"t-c::(" R .1'- 4
I
. Petitioner's Address: .3,s "J
Signature Required: ~,~
/~
"'.
. 11
3S:-8'V\1'.. Jr;-~.
C.e;/ TA IQ/ iA
- /1/ -! ~;;I
i!~
tJ~lI-' IN'I SO -/9 t7:;;'
Home Phone: i;;l 0 - :2.., f~:A 8j
Work Phone:
~ '2-{7 z;,
, t
Date:
Owner (if not petitioner):
---
Home Phone:
Owner's Address:
Work Phone:
Date:
q'l ~ryOlo
Signature Required:
>i.. ·
In order to be granted a variance, each applicant must be able to prove that an unnecessary hardship vvould be created if
the variance is not granted. The burden of proving an unnecessary hardship rests upon the applicant. The attached sheet
provides information on vvhat constitutes a hardship. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary, to provide the information
requested. Additional information may be requested as needed.)
1. Explain your proposed plans and why you are requesting a variance:
0dJ ~~ ~ ~~ AtHhIL
~~
~.~-;5ftv~ ~,a..#,~ ~
. . ~ ~" .~ ~- t"K6l}f>lY)/11b7> /~rJkOlo
(Continued on Reverse Side) Ct!Ji1.f\ L'l
~,3
3. Describe the special conditions that apply to your lot or structure that do not apply to surrounding lots or
~ structures: '. ~.. _
~~ .A.A/d::6 ~ t:f ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ..-t.A./~i'.J ~ ~ ~ ~~~.
4. . Describe tbe bardship that would result if your variance ~e not ,granted: ~
~"n, K~ ~ ~ ~J. ~ ~ v4l~~ ~ ~ JA.. ~
~~~'f1'''' ~ ~~~v.~ ~ a~ ~ ZLt. ~
L~~ ~~.7?'-;f.:r ~ Alt..,. ~~..tI- ~~ ~ '~ A b-v
~ I~.~ /. ~~-I ;,.,.,.~. ~ ~~~.." ~ -4 ~c.\r, ~
rk ~..~ ~~ ~ *$tI......",. Sf, ?r'~~ _~Jr.,-
/ ~.f ~ Aa...v.J~. -t1:1~. ~~. at!. ~ ~ ~.A..J2
~ J-~ ~~. !: -h.< <;f ~ '1::: A 4lc-"~~
~~~~,...c-.JJ~ ...M--~~
~~~ ~~~;.c".~~~
~~~~
'......,
~.":--~.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITH MAILING ADDRESSES
. 1)
'.
....,...........
'...............
'-...'-....
5)
.........,.,.~...................~,...
2)
6)
3)
7)
............
4)
8)
"'.~
......,
............... .
"
.'.....
4
e
OSHKOSH
ON THE WATER
Job Address 353 W 18TH AVE
CITY OF OSHKOSH <<: 0 f~21090
BUILDING PERMIT - APPLICATION AND RECORD
Owner HARRY J/DELORES J OESTREICH
Create Date 08115/2006
Designer
Contractor OWNER
Category
141 - Exterior Remodeling Plan
Type
. Building
o Sign
o Canopy
o Fence
o Raze
Zoning
Class of Const:
Size
Unfinished/Basement
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
Rooms
Height
Ft.
o . Projection I
Finished/Living
Bedrooms
Stories
Canopies
Garage
Baths
Signs
Foundation 0 Poured Concrete 0 Floating Slab
o Concrete Block 0 Post
o Pier . Other
o Treated Wood
existing.
Occupancy Permit Not Required
Park Dedication
Flood Plain
Height Permit
# Dwelling Units
o
# Structures
o
Use/Nature ~es /Install vinyl siding, 1/4" foam backer, alum soffit, facia, casings, sills. Replace front porch deck,guardrails, handrails, stairs.
of Work
HV AC Contractor
Plumbing Contractor
Electric Contractor
Fees: v..u~ $6.000.00
Issued By: "
Plan Approval
$0.00 Permit Fee Paid
$60.00 Park Dedication
$0.00
Date 08/15/2006
Final/O.P. 00/00/0000
o Permit Voided I
Parcelld # 1405100100
In the performance of this work I agree to perform all work pursuant to rules governing the described construction.
While the City of Oshkosh has no authority to enforce easement restrictions of which it is not a party, if you perform the work
described in this permit application within an easement, the City strongly urges the permit applicant to contact the easement
holder(s) and to sure any necess ry./pprovals before starting such activity.
Signature 6/ ~
Date ,7 //t;/b~
Address
353 W 18TH AVE
OSHKOSH
. WI 54902 - 6813
Telephone Number
~OfPV
?UP.JilI1f~ 8'1
PrV Ph) tJl j\tf
To schedule inspections please call the Inspection Request line at 236-5128 noting the Address, Permit Number, Type of
Inspection (i.e. Footing, Service, Final, etc.), Access into Building if Secure (how do we gain entry), your Name and Phone
Number. Unless specified otherwise, we will assume the project is ready at the time the request is received. Work may
continue if the inspection is not performed within two business days from the time the project is ready. 5
~,
(C(Q)[p1f
-
'0
. 0
~ .
N ~
~ N
~
50.0'
50.0'
250.0'
6lJlbml1f~ "BLf
~P"hl c.A~
This map is. neither a legally recorded map nor
a survey and it is not intended to be used as one.
This drawing is a compilation of records, data
and information located in various city, county
and state offices and other sources affecting
the area shown and it is to be used for reference
purposes only. The City of Oshkosh is not re-
sponsible for any inaccuracies herein contained.
If discrepencies are found, please contact the
. City of Oshkosh.
353W.
rF> <<1J f~
18th A'. . q ..
ve;""".
~ ~
~ ~
'i".~.!,
N
A
DISCLAIMER
City of Oshkosh Wisconsin
Community Development
OJHKOfH
ON TlfE WATER
1" = 20'
Created by - dpb
8/15/06
~ e-vr
..."....
.
f
1
t
~
l
~o
.,
\
i
G:
P-"
6
. ~ .
~
~
~
~
-.r.
D
Qy--
~ y
~ci ~ --r~
'" .:< n/b ~
,r \,)' &.? 0 1
L..f.? ,X 'j 0 _, if.
tCO\F>'Yr
//
h
~
"'"'--
--to
f\
'2-'( e? )(~
,.. ,/ if
;-- ~,:._. r.o C.(,~
<- '
e"Z~
".> LEJl~ ~ -P-
~'t~,tSI I '
. <J. nl'l?'i~~
'jP"....I dJi~
!~ -) I J;r\~' 1~ 11
rj .... J () L'\:
R.alt.e ded": $ ~ ao 0
;;:=::> ~\ n-""~;'~'\l7
"".'.,"',: ., ./
-6LJ€>"'lrr~ 1;l1
f;t() PH Cf)Nf
8
'BOA 10-25-06
353 W 18TH AV.
HARRY OESTREICH
OESTREICH HARRY J/DELORES
353 W 18TH AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54902 6813
ELSINGER SALLY S
346 W 18TH AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54902 6814
SCHWARTZ JOSEPH L/PAULA M
354 W 18TH AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54902 6814
SOSNOSKI KATHY A
2612 OAKWOOD CIR
OSHKOSH WI 54904
FRANK ETAL MICHAEL G
357 W 18TH AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54902 6813
MEYER RUDY
1814 IOWA ST
OSHKOSH WI 54902 6831
9
i
i
i
i
i
-.- -- --.-. -.---'-. -- -. - --. -. -.- ..-. - - -. ---. -.- . -. -.-.-.- -- -- - -.-.---. T -- -- -. -. -- ---. -. ---. -----. -- -- - --- - .---.-----. ---- -. -'- ----. -- -----. -- -.------ -. -.- .---- -_ _ ___ _. _. ___.__ _____._, _.__ ___
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
,
i
i
i
i
iE-f
:00
i<
l:=:
!~
100.0'
N
"...
50.0'
to
N
o
L!)
137.5'
o
ci
L!)
o
ci
{O
1<'"
V_^.:.~
DISCLAIMER
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor
a survey and it is not intended to be used as one.
This drawing is a compilation of records, data
and information located In various city, county
and state offices and other sources affecting
the area shown and it is to be used for reference
purposes only. The City of Oshkosh is not reo
sponsible for any Inaccuracies herein contained.
If dlscrepencles are found, please contact the
City of Oshkosh.
Created by - dff
i
,
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
,
i
i
i
i
. i
i
!
100.0'
50.0'
o
ci
N
"...
354
346
w.
18th AVE.
<(
300.0'
~
300.0'
353 W 18th Av
Scale: 1" = 60'
75.0'
342
3
o
N
"...
"...
N
"...
50.0'
250.0'
OJHKOJH
ON THE WATER
City of Oshkosh
Department of
Community Development
09/25/06
10
~.
~"- ~l!J~ ~:!O~ ~OA
- ~ Ii -<Q; --- - ""-- -.;;:
~.............. '-' ~ ~ p- ~
· : E~~~~-e: ~~
'": 7~~~~-J ~l!/1k~
; I -: c- D '<.Q!
o . E. Q J
g~_ 2 0:'1 -
-< <i: fjj r' .,..
::< 6 ~I'"'.)PD
ui E. ii: ~ "'~"
o
o
~
6C \I 'Z ~ ~. ~ ,L:;;;; .' ~ ~ ......
== ~ 0 CIl ~~ "IV/:-- .J m!lo.
V <9 ~ ~ ~ . -=n.. . ~ ~ -.......
W.5TH1k I;t.. ~ . ~ ,
. ~ . ~ '-11 ~_., I I..-tv. 6TH .Ill
.-: >: <911 VII E 0 ~ 1iV. TH Av;1 T
CIl . .= <( .----.
n ~ ~ U ~ I I Cl .... 8TH AV l..-.--l
JII CIl1100:?;: 1000" 6001\ 700 I 600 .15,*~ 400 ~
.. r--l W. 9TH AVE. 0 " I
~ .-: L-.-J W. OTH AI .
11TH / E.Il&.: ~ I ... 11TH A 0
lllli ~ v~1 W.0:1 TH AVE. E!.I ~
N ~ :s: r;Jtl ~UTH ~RK Avd
?""
~~COR:A ~ E.::.- .; ~ 14TH AV . :
CD~ ~ $: f-::< t1 rI.- L~H A\i . ...
/mw::S CIl::l 11 f-
'~ n ~ ~~";; 1i:';~L-J L~ ~ ;
~ RO",OAAVE ~ 0.' ~ 0, ~
r ~ @W."'HVE. Q :~_~ ~_~ 'g C.
LAAGER LN.. I HARMEL AVE.'nD - D BROCKWA
l l~ 1r-:IW.19THAVE.ILEJ ~ tii.-: ::< ~1._~E. F.~ A
G" I:~~ ~ ":~TCT I i ~ ~ ODD; i ~ ~ ,..~, J
M. 1 1..511j 1ci :,: ::T ~ ;
\ ~' ~ .., ~ W. 23R AVE. l~.-
, g~h~VE. , \1~4
~,M- ~ \\
: ~ ,~
~ <M.~ )i~\ ~
~ 5 CIMAR h., 'T__"_ ~ ~ ~~,ih:
~ ~ "' '( '01:.p..C 'WI. H'
~,~,O~ ~ gs -wl~~ ~ ~~/," Ii
'?' (;-~
~.
",.
iJ"" .-: ~ LN.' BEACHC
<","AVE~2A~~~ I .. ^ \'"H~'~~
E.
3
I
SUBJECT
SITE
\<.0.'
WITTMAN RD.'
~ M-3
CAPP AVE:
AUDREY LN:
,
c:i
0: ,
2 , Z
0 ~ ...J
~ (f) , 2
- <(
Cl <L c:i <9
.2 <L 0: ii': ,
<( c:i
::l 2 W 0::
0 ~ Cl 0 0::
Ll- W '-' 2
<(
GALATIN AVE: ::<
t:
This map Is neither a legally recorded map nor
a survey and it is not intended to be used as one.
This drawing Is a compilation of records, data
and information located in various city, county
and state offices and other sources affecting
the area shown and it is to be us.ed for reference
purposes only. The City of Oshkosh Is not reo
sponslble for any inaccuracies herein contained.
if discrepencies are found, please contact the
City of Oshkosh.
353 W 18TH AV
DISCLAIMER
OJHKOJH
ON THE WATER
Scale: 1" = 1500'
City of Oshkosh
Department of
Community Development
Created by - dff
09/25/06
11
Attachment to BOA Packet 10/25/06
353 West 18th Avenue
~-------:;::.~~.:.--::._---- .
-~----- ,~.,
,--
Current Condition with Porch
12
Attachment to BOA Packet 10/25/06
353 West 18th Avenue
"~.".:
:,.~. .. """
<.
, ,#
Previous Condition
13
f
~
OJHKOfH
Of<"" WATal
BOA SUPPLIMENT 10/25/06
353 West 18th Avenue
Scale: 1" = 50'
City of Oshkosh
Community Development
Source: City of Oshkosh GIS
14