HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter (BZA variance) - 12/13/2007City of Oshkosh
` Dept. of Community Development
215 Church Ave., PO Box 1130
O.IHKOIH Oshkosh, WI 54902-1130
ON THE WATER (920) 236-5059 (920) 236-5053 FAX
December 13, 2007
Adam Gardner
834 W. Packard Street
Appleton, WI 54914
Re: Application for Variances at 579 Evans Street
Dear Mr. Gardner:
Jackson R. Kinney
Director
On December 12, 2007 the City of Oshkosh Board of Appeals tabled your variance requests to permit
the creation of a new single-family dwelling with two space off-street parking area at 579 Evans Street.
Your variance requests will continued to be discussed at the January 9, 2008 Board of Appeals meeting.
Per your agreement with the Board of Appeals, you are required to provide official documentation from
the original insurance company involved with the fire in June 2006 that clearly indicates the dollar
amount and extent of damage at the subject property.
It may also be in your best interests to provide an itemized cost estimate of the proposed improvements
at the property.
Additionally, you will need to complete the enclosed application form entitled "The Board of Appeals
Administrative Ruling Appeal". This form is required because by virtue of your arguments to the board
it appears that you are now appealing to the Board that the improvements and alterations you are
proposing will not exceed 50% of the total assessed value of the structure. There is no additional fee
associated with the application form.
The official insurance information and completed application form must be submitted to our office no
later than 12:00 PM on December 21.2007 in order to be disseminated to the Board of Appeals.
If you have any questions, contact me at (920) 236-5059.
Sincerely,
Todd M. Muehrer
Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator
cc: Property File
City of Oshkosh
_I Planning Services Division
'- 215 Church Ave., PO Box 1130
JHK IH Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130
~""""'~ (920) 236-5059 (920) 236-5053 FAX
http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us
BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA
DECEMBER 12, 2007
3:30 PM
To Whom It May Concern:
Jackson R. Kinney
Director
Dept. of Community Development
Darryn Burich
Director
Planning Services Division
Please note the City of Oshkosh Board of Appeals will meet on WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2007 at
3:30 PM in Room 404 at the Oshkosh City Hall to consider the following agenda.
ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF A QUORUM
APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 14, 2007 MINUTES
HEARING OF NEW APPEALS AND APPLICATIONS
I. 579 Evans Street
Adam Gardner-applicant/owner, requests multiple variances to permit the creation of a new single-family
dwelling with a new two space off-street parking area.
The following requests are related to the proposed new single-family dwelling:
Required (Section 30-19 (B)(3)) Proposed
I) 25' front yard setback 6' front yard setback
II) 25' rear yard setback 3' rear yard setback
III) 7'/z'side yard north setback 3' side yard setback
IV) 7'/2'side yard south setback 2'6" side yard setback
The following requests are related to the proposed new two space off street parking area:
Required (Section 30-36 (C)(5)) Proposed
V) 25' front yard setback 2' front yard setback
VI) 71/z' side yard south setback 0' side yard south setback
VII) 12' maximum driveway width No information supplied
Required (Section 30-35 (I)(2)) Proposed
VIII) Solid fence, solid wall or dense. No information supplied.
hedge/evergreen shrub border at least
5' high along all lot lines abutting a
residential district,- except in the required
front yard setback.
II. 920 Bismarck- Avenue
Luanne Pupeterapplicant, Paula A. Pupeter-owner, request a variance to permit an attached garage with a 4'
side yard setback. Section 30-19 (B)(3)(b) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Two Family Residence District
requires a 7 '/z' minimum side yard setback- for an attached garage.
III. S. Oakwood Road (vacant loth
Kelly Claflin, Development Services-applicant, D & F Investments LLP-owner, request a variance to reduce
the building structure setback standard from the Ordinary High Water Mark to 50'. Section 17.20 (3)(a){1)(a)
of the Winnebago County Town/County Zoning Ordinance: Shoreland District (Overlay) requires a 75'
building structure setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark of Navigable Waters.
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
STAFF REPORT.
ITEM L• 579 EVANS STREET
GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
BOARD OF APPEALS-
-DECEMBER 12, 2007
Adam Gardner-applicant/owner, requests multiple variances to permit the creation of a
new single-family dwelling with a new two space off-street parking area..
The following requests are related to the proposed new .single-family dwelling:
Required (Section 30-19 (B)(3)) Proposed
I) 25' front yard setback 6' front yard setback
II) 25' rear yard setback 3' rear yard setback
III) 71/2'side yard north setback 3' side yard setback
IV) 7'/z'side yard south setback 2'6" side yard setback
The following requests are related to the proposed new two space off street parking area:
Required (Section 30-36 (C}(5))
V) 25' front yard setback
VI) 71/2' side yard south setback
VII) 12' maximum driveway width
Required (Section 30-35 (I)(2))
VIII) Solid fence, solid wall or dense
hedge/evergreen shrub border at least
5' high along all lot lines abutting a
residential district, except in the required
.front yard setback.
Proposed
2' front yard setback
0' side yard south setback
No information supplied
None
Proposed
The subject 0.05 acre (approx. 2,250 sq. ft.) property is zoned R-2 Two Family Residence
District. Generally speaking, the area was developed prior to the Zoning Ordinance
originally as asingle-family neighborhood. The subject parcel is abutted by single-
family homes to the north and south, while atwo-family home is to the west. Single-
family homes are also located across Evans Street to the east. The parcel is rectangular in
shape (45' x 50') and the general area can be characterized as low density residential.
The applicant is requesting numerous variances from the Zoning Ordinance to allow the
development of a new, single-family dwelling with an uncovered two space off street
parking area on a substandard lot. The previous 50+ year-old dwelling was severely
damaged by fire in June 2006. According to City of Oshkosh Assessor's Office, the
applicant purchased the property October 23, 2006.. The previous legal nonconforming 2-
story structure included 1,964 sq. ft. of total area, 5 bedrooms, and 2 full baths.
Prior to the fire, the structure was being used for two-family purposes (i.e. upperJlower
duplex) and the applicant has submitted floor plans to the Inspection Services Division
showing another two-family layout. However, due to the severity of the fire damage, the
unit has been completely gutted and requires improvements that will exceed 50% of its
assessed value. Therefore, the structure must be regulated as a new structure for planning
1
STAFF REPORT BOARD OF APPEALS
ITEM I -2- DECEMBER 12, 2007
purposes. It should be noted that per Section
effective date of the Zoning Ordinance with
district. regulations may only. be used for onf
Appeals does not have the authority to grant
dwelling at this property.
30-35 (B)(4)(b), lots of record upon the
less area or width than required by the
single-family residence. The Board of
"a use variance" to permit atwo-family
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?
According to the petitioner's application, the variance requests should not affect any of
the surrounding properties as the building structure exists and nothing is changing. In the
applicant's opinion, the special condition related to the subject lot that does not apply to
surrounding lots is the lot was divided barely .larger than the building' in the past. The
applicant believes hardships will be imposed if the variances were not granted because a
financial hardship would be created due to a loan being out on the property. The
petitioner claims there was no indication that rehabilitating the property would be a
hardship when purchasing the property.
Despite the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the property, several issues are
involved .when attempting to re-establish a dwelling unit on a grossly substandard lot.
Foremost, the diminutive nature of the lot is best evidenced from the fact that 8 separate
variances are required for the proposed new development to be authorized. Such a
voluminous amount of requests and the degree of relief requested for each requirement
indicates the lot is severely limited in space and sound-planning practices cannot be
effectively implemented.
Another concern ..with .the proposal is the large proportion of impervious surface that
exists on the property. The severely reduced yard areas at the property, coupled with the
off-street parking area, and internal sidewalks limit available open space for snow
removal/storage and infiltration of storm water. Limited on-site open space and reduced
yard areas minimize leisure and recreational opportunities for residents and make storage
of garbage/recycling receptacles and materials difficult.
Also, while required setbacks effectively make the lot un-buildable, the land itself still
possesses value. Although the subject lot would not be able to maximize improvement
value, the land itself still possesses contributory value and could be sold to adjacent
property owners. Under this scenario, the property could be used as a rear yard area for
open space, garage, and/or accessory structure purposes.
2
STAFF REPORT BOARD OF APPEALS
ITEM I . -3- DECEMBER 12, 2007
It should also be noted that when analyzing the rest of the block, a consistent platting
pattern was originally implemented. For example, the two lots immediately west of the
subject lot are approximately 45' wide by 122' deep. While city,records do not indicate
when the subject parcel was split, it is clear the original intent of the platting of this area
was to create uniform lot dimensions. The subject lot and its subsequent division from the
parent parcel has created a disruptive flow to the neighborhood character and created an
un-buildable nonconforming lot.
The proposed unscreened off street parking area in the front yard is also a concern as it
will be a visual detriment to the neighborhood. Neighborhood safety is also an issue with
the proposed parking area due to the limited space between parked vehicles and the
sidewalk.
Finally, this is a classic example of a nonconforming structure constructed prior to the
effective ,date of the Zoning Ordinance that cannot meet current district standards.
Therefore, when events like this occur, no matter what the circumstances, it is an
opportunity to bring the affected nonconforming property into a conforming (or more
conforming) state with current ordinance standards. Every property owner with a
nonconforming lot runs the risk of similar incidents occurring and losing the investment
potential. However, financial hardship is not a deciding factor when granting variances.
Moreover, the public interest is best served by enforcing current districts standards
The City of Oshkosh has reinforced .this policy in its Near East Neighborhood Plan,
which was established to address similar circumstances where infill projects were
inappropriately designed and scaled. The following is from the "Land Use and Zoning
Recommendations" section: "Whether parcels are vacant or contain structures, if they are
so substandard in size that there is insufficient area for a structure, compliant parking and
recreation, they should be acquired, cleared if necessary, and combined with abutting
parcels to create viable lots. Substandard lots and lots with awkward configurations
would be disposed of to one or more abutting property owners on a case by case basis as
the dimension and shape of the subject lot relate to the dimension and shapes of abutting
properties."
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information provided within this report, staff recommends denial of the
variances requested.
3
Please Tvue or Print in BLACK INK
O.I~flCQlH
ON TXE VmTEq
CITY OF OSHKOSH
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
Return to: Department of
Community Development
215 Church Ave.
P.O. Box 1130
Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130
Please 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.) Please refer to the fee schedule for appropriate fee.
FEE IS NON-REFUNDABLE. The fee is payable to the City of Oshkosh and due at the time-the application is submitted.
Address of Parcel Affected: ~~ ~ ~~/ Cq V1~j ~-~
Petrtioner:___ ~~ Csw~ VI a r~ t'U~,,!'1 Home Phone: a~2.~ "~~~ - ~~iR
Petitioner's Address: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~c~ M Work Phone: ~ 2 J t-\ S ~ (.~ (a~~l ~
Signature Required: Date: \\ 'x.3 O`1
Owner (if not petitioner):- ~a ~., Home Phone:
Owner's Address: Work Phone:
Signature Required:. Date:
In order to be granted a variance, each applicanf must be able to prove that an unnecessary hardship would 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 what 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:
c o ~ S~ ~ y Cn/` ~ ~~ SL x~ irr~uS1L. \~\ns~ C ~'t~+~ n~ ~ S~ ~ ~n +S
="'C r e.e,~,~nr.. A~~B,~1C \5~ 1tis~ b~ \`~` r^yq ~rti.\~.~" ~aa CA ~. in,~ ~\\ ~' Y ~.-
~A5 Cw i(`Q W ~? >n\\~ i ~ Chi c~ ~tV~ 1y~..~ S''C ~~n~s~ \ a\\+g V 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1fT
c ~
r~,,.~c' r~.~ r~ i c, ~`,. A ~~ ~\ A ~ . ,. r, it. n~1 ~ Caw '~\\ ~ ~ ~,. ~ L
~~~MtTTED E3'YAPPL9T
5
' J 1
2. Describe how the variance would not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties:
5 ~.Y+r Dv.w c~ ~~L.S ~ ~ LAS cAH~-r ire a Y SL ~~ ~~V\ ~-t ~ ~.`~ --
3. Describe the special conditions that apply to your lot or structure that do not apply to surrounding lots or
structures: 99 tt
n ~ 11 [l i „~Gi ~ nnn.tr ~ o v,~•LP.___ - V1 ~1,•~2.. ~ ~+`i"1
4. Describe the hardship that would result if your variance were not granted:
C\~ (R"C G~. ~s\1h Pn ~h C>\~\ ~ o~~ 1 ~~ ~~ 1T 1 i~y+ O~ `1 1Mil .1~W\Ci~GISB t1~
~Ctn~~~.. W~~ V\J iVO~~C 2~10~\ ~V1~~~ 11~1Gtt\ sJ~ "i'1h1S ~/1~
:, r i
~.Y~ G-~ ~~,. a..~ ~ \ ~ ~ <,.1 ~ ti.~,~ `n G.v ~.. Y ~~Y~ 1wZC~ ~rrs'~ ~~.~t ~~4 ~~
6
D15CLAIMER
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor
a survey and it is noYintended to he used as one.
This drawing is a compilation of records, data
and itdormation located in various city,tounty
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-
sponsihlefar arty inaccuracies herein contained.
If discrepencies are found, please corrtact the
City of Oshkosh p~~g
~~~~dK~
r.e~~e.+ -,., +.,,.,,
579. Evans Street
Scale: 1" = 10'
7
O.IHKOfH
ON THE WATB3 -
I:ILy OT USnKOSn
Department of
Community Development
1.1!21/07
~~~~~~~
ooo~ooo
0 0 ~ N ~ 0 ~
~ _ N ~ q~
2 2 2 Z S S S
N O) fn 0) ~ fn lA y
~OOOF"000
V Y Y Y ~ Y Y Y
-~s2xaxxx
¢mcnma~nv~m
X000¢000
¢ ¢~
~~~~~~~
°~=~¢zzz
°aC9a°~»>
gwsw~www
¢ O O N M r n r -
~ m ~ ao co u1 1n u~
V M NM Md'
(NO tOD (NO tOD t~D f00 f00
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OvvvrnrneWe}}~
J 1[I tON~~N ~
W
¢ ¢
¢F¢FF-F-1-
c~ ~S V) to to [A
~ Z~ Z Z Z Z
°a¢a¢¢¢¢
°awwwwwww
OOaMONn r~rhn
J01000 tO L01[7N
-~ U
J Z
~ LL. Z
''W~, wU' WU
W~ W 0 O} W
w>o¢~a~
~?zW~~g
ZW~~~r>~
~¢ w z
o~v°'ic~c¢7~c0~=
m~~~~~~
0000000
{- N N N N N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OI~MN V'a0 ~0
Z L h M M M M N M
a. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
¢ r
0_00010010
9
0 53.6' _ - o _ -
0 0
o ~ N
O ~
O O -
N
~' o
N
r~
_ _
820 824 9.,02__ 9.4,8.--
806 810.
._ 134.0'
^
-~r _ c~ 903 ' 907 9
811 815 ~ 821 ~ o0 905
~`
811 a
~ _
- o 0
56.0' - ~
-' _ o
- ~ o
- . - . _ r
34.0 ~ ~ SUBJEC T 1- -
~
- `SITE
~ 4 0'
I 45.0' _
b
'i ~" - -
--
--- - . -
-
'
o - 134.0
' ~
44.0' 45.0 ti
_
134.4' - ~ 134.0' ~ . LC~_
i ~ _ - - _ 134.0'
- °
o o
~ N
o (`
`° 134.0' ~ - _ ~ ~ -_ _
o Ln'~ - 134.0'.... fI,
1
134.0 v - ~ k
- - -- --- Cfl - -
-
13~'.0' ~ ~ Lt?
0
c°o o ' LS7 (Q --- --134.0'
°v ~ ~ N
C9
134.0' 134.0' ~} _ _.
-
', - t- - 1 X4.0'
-- - _ _ -
°
. ° ~ O
_ ~
134.0'
0' - - -
1
34 134.01 ~ -
.
--
-
DISCLAIMER
Thix map 4 neither a legally recorded map nw
rveyand it {, xwc intended tt be mad as tna
This dnwiag b a tompllatitn of recoxds, data -
579 Evans St
and Informadoa looted fo various dty, romry
.nd,eNe arrtrx .na atner aamte, .rctding ~`\
the area shown and it b to be axed for reference
purpoaa oNy. Thr City of Oshkosh 4 not re- N
aponxible kr any ioaccureda hrcin eontolned
If discrependex art (nand, plea,e canted Ne
ptyofOxhkash. 1 f _ f 1
S Ca I e: 1 50
12/5/2007
Created by - kjg sol,r~e: city or o5nkosn c ls
10
6,. 6,9 622 m2
_---_ .AV€-.__._
_
•
~ T ...__~_
- '-'~"-
r.'1B 824
., -~VaI*1G-
rm mr H1
._
- --...._
m I -
911
~ ~' _
',' >D/fi 1n1a 1025 1109
' I '
1189 1114
~ - _
V
641
sx4
518
~
I
p
y
.
' .-
-
I
_
s
p
._
-
I
I
_.
--
;
t .
-
,.
,
__
,.
r
-
- -
,
_
.-
,
.,
-
_
' 1 I
R T ~
'
a -,
--- - -! - W AVE. 1
eta °r - .. CLEVE
~ r--- -
~ ~~_ _ ~ __
--` - 1
a
--
_ ~ _
-
~
G -
- ~.
_
_ , I
• ja ~ ~ - - ~
- -
-
,--
- - ;~- _ I~ ~ -- -5PD
R
W~
~ -
~. _
-
_.
.
-
..
. , -
--
~. -
o
d _
_
,
~_
tl
~
_ .
-~-' .
- . .--
-
~
~ _~_ _._
~
.-
v _ ~ SUBJECT
' - - i
~
, ,
i
.. , I
.,:
I
e.9 ~
.
~z?
T
SI E
E.
A ~.
,
.,~
--
E -
,~r-
,os
. ,
,
618 a5i3 :_ ~. Tns- xg9o .~
L 1
_ _
9 ~~~ 36.
-a :II - -- - -. r.
'S
I t_'_
~
-
_
_ _
'I
_.,~ { -- - ...r ne~-
~ -ter-- ~ s Igo.
1
~• ~_ ,
_
- -
~~
~
f
_ r
-
.,.
-°F
Z
-
-
- _ ~ _~
~ o
~ - I -
~a.
_ _
- w
II t '~ ~ `~
&g gg
l p X
of
_,' .~
:h , - _~ _
a ~C' - _ -1
_ ~
_ -i - ~
_ ~j
- - -_.
p' ~ I -~ -. -
_
1L e ~
- 1
_'
..
_ s_ ~~-
- _
I, ~
a
-
~
-, I
r ~ ~ .,
I ~
~ 6
~
_ ~,.,. , . ~
~ -
l I
s
•
Vi
f
. ..
~ •810 ~d.a~
~I
609
~~
I
VE.
A
-..
-
0
19 AZS
m, 9
~y
r.-
d
0]b
1911
~_
1.
1101
2W
?, 1126
I6
~~
s.;
_
.
618
~
.
~ _ . _
_ U
F
~ i
~
t
4 _ I I
~ , f '
~ ~
--
~.:
f
. ..
- _
-
-
.
-
- ~_ Z
, ~-- -
,
~ ; l
I
t
g
W a ,_
#
w
U-J
r
F-
~ 17-
~
- _ _
_ i
~~
O ~~ O I _
- ~
m ...
- ~
_ .. s ~ I
- _
-
--
- - -
i
~ 1
~ ~ ~
~ !
- ~
- ]12 • ' id !92 t
_ -
B)2 S &. 900
949 au 916 - 1916
940 IOm 1910 10K tOr2 ,940 1106 ,~i1W 11]2 1128 i
~I
DISCLAIMER
u
/~5\
u neither a le ll recorded map tar
Thu ma
p ga Y
9rvey ami it iy not Inceoded t9 be toed as one.
Thisdnwing isae9mpiWtfon ofrecatds, data
~ 579 Evans St
/
\
mJ iuformad9n Iocaced N various dry, county ~_\
aMstele afff«a end ~thers~urces aQectlng
the area shown end k h to be used Wr referemx
.purposes 9nty. The Clty 9f Oshkosh unot re- N
sponsible for any inaccuroela herein co9talned.
Ifd'uerepeneie5.re faand, pleas999ntaet the
Scale: 1 "= 300'
City of Ushkaab. 1 2/5/2 007
Created by - kjg So~f~: CltyOf osnkosn GIS
11
•_•
- <,r
. _ - _~`~
"~
.l - ~+n n
F' ~ ~ 4. 1~i .G.
a~ ~ i 4 Yj -
" -_
_ i ~i.' .. _ _ _ 4
99 ti~ 'i~
~;y _ ' ~•
a ~"~~ ~
1 ~ ,~ ~' 4 7 ~ ~ ~
_ __ _ - - ~~ ~~'~.7r~ ij_' ~'
5555 4
~t { ~ ~` i.
_ _ ~~ " ~.
~~ ~ ; ``c.
_. ~ `~"
_ ~> ~s~~
~_.
#'-, 5,
i
,' ~~ ~ .a' ~ ` 'g~ ~` -~ *~~~
~ ~~i~~s. @ ~'~ soy. ~ .~ ~
k' ~
~H ~r:- ,
~' SUBJECT ~ ~~`k`y ~~ ~ ~'
SITE ~. I :, ~6L ~~} ~as~ ~ ~ ~,
~~
_ ~. ~`
., I
~[_~~~''~~ itW a fir. ' ~` ~ 3~ ~ ~
~ratx ~ 3. 2 -~ ~ e. ~4-:,~ ` ~~:s y-d~.~., yix.1 ~ ~,~. .S
c=r a~ a
,~~ ~~ A~ ~r y ~ ~ w ~ .r ~ ~~~
-.-~ ,~
_ ~ - _ .. i
Y
~~~u
- - e - - Rf I')' ,~ - l
n .. 1~,
r
...
.-
14
~t'A~,
?L~
w ~.
.. _
~„ ~ ~ -~F.
- ~ ':.rAr~. r.~..
2 i
~ sf ~, 4 - _._ - - -- -- - - - t
'' .r
yam. ,, ~ z _.. ~ -x. . ~ y ._x~~l~.'
DISCLAIMER
T6B map 6 nekner a legally worded map oar
rvy and it h not Intended to be med ax one.
7blxdrawingN.eamplia,ka of rerarax. aa,a 579 Evans St
.na mrorm.non locaea h, wrioua eiry, county
.nd xate arrnx and atner xnnrrex .frernng
the urea shown and it k ro be axed for refereon A 1
purpoxn mly. The Ciy of Oshkosh fs oot re- ~ V
spuaxihle for eqv Waccur.elex herein contained
If dkcnpenciex are foaod, please ~oubct We Scale. 1 "- 20'
Cly of Oshkoxh ~ ~I~I~oo7
Created by - kjg sol,ff~:/cnvofo5nkosnois
12
~-~c~ T°~.~:r; ~i~~~
r ~ H~~~~~
"'.~~ ..
_~.~
~. ~ ~~
~ ,
r- z.
~ ~-._
t .~ r f t . . ~.~
,t ,~.~r
~.
~ _
~ ~~'~+w.
~ M °'
-- c-.,..~ tr.c: - ,
~ ~;
rF
.~~!'Y Cr ria ~~
_
'_ t.
~
~~
F
j
f~~..
7 i
~ !
i }
j
3
1 ~ ~_
~ ~ }~ e.
~! ~ ..
~ ,
~ -
{4{ '' -
. ~'1q~( Y .'~ `
I
~ 3 I
9 ~~I
1
. ~
F
V~p, ~~
~ ~ r
-
f Yr _~~ ~N
rte: v~
~` _
JH~ .j~~~~f'~
T^~F. ~~
... .~ t
'- ..airy .-.._'\ ~ ~;_;
,fly~f` ~{,..~ ^.
9~
.3~~F ~~ ~
~ R
,S
^
W...~.~_F wrr.....__. .,"..~{Hw ~~~ r
.
r~`~1 ~~~
.,_r ~ z ~1 ^w~
~
~ ~9Yu.:~
TV„
~" ~~ ^t
~, r
~,
n
~,_
_ , s ~„-Y t
1 -,. ~ .
~,`
.a.r--
f! ~.
_> _I,~..
`~ ~'
x -'"`~ k~~v ~f :ate ~~ ~ - ~~li
___t
14
a
~, ~ '~"~~ ~`1';}!~4 ~~fEr~i
~.
~~
E~~
t i~~~+ _~f rat
~ ~vT~~r ~~~;
~ „~" -~
a "
H l e ~ ~
~+~ ^yu ~ T..w ~~ i p ty a ., ,~.
{ ~
s;
~ t ~rw 1 It ~:K ~`~"t."`~~r~usrfit~,~,r~ww~n(n~,~-~, <,1"x.~~f-,.G. ~~~
75
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
DECEMBER 12, 2007
- PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Mark Nielsen, Cheryl Hentz
EXCUSED: Moss Ruedinger, Edward Wilusz
STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator;
John Zarate, Building Inspector
Karin Gehrke, Recording Secretary
Chairperson Hentz called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken. and a quorum declared
present..
The minutes of November 12, 2007 were approved with the following correction: Page 2, paragraph 4 was
corrected to reflect that board member Mark Nielsen (not Dan Carpenter) arrived after the meeting began.
ITEM I: 579 EVANS STREET
GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Adam Gardner-applicant/owner, requests multiple variances to permit the creation of a new- single-family
dwelling with a new two space off-street parking area.
The following requests are related to the proposed new single-family dwelling:
Required (Section 30-19 (B)(3)) Proposed
I) 25' front yard setback 6' front yard setbac
II) 25' rear yard setback 3' rear yard setback
III) 7'/2'side yard north setback 3' side yard setback
IV) 71/2'side yard south setback 2'6" side yard setback
The following requests are related to the .proposed new two space off street parking area:
Required (Section 30-36 (C)(5))
V} 25' front yard setback
VI) 7'/2' side yard south setback
VII) 12' maximum driveway width
Required (Section 30-35 (I)(2))
VIII) Solid fence, solid wall or dense
hedge/evergreen shrub border at least
5' high along all lot lines abutting a
residential district, except in the required
front yard setback.
Proposed
2' front yard setback
0' side yard south setback
No information supplied
None
Mr. Muehrer presented the item.
Proposed
Board of Appeals Minutes 1 December 12, 2007
Ms. Hentz began by indicating she had been confused with information in the staff report. Specifically, page
1, paragraph 2 refers to the applicant requesting variances to develop asingle-family dwelling but in
paragraph 3 it indicates the applicant submitted layouts for atwo-family dwelling. She also asked where the
copies of the two-family layout were as it would be helpful for the board members to see them.
Mr. Muehrer explained that it was the owner's understanding that since it was atwo-family dwelling before,
that he could automatically be qualified to have atwo-family dwelling on that lot. Mr. Muehrer referred to
page 2, at the top of the page, to Section 30-35 (B}(4)(b) where it explains the requirement to meet current
regulations and pointed out that the Board of Appeals does not have authority to grant "a use variance" to
permit atwo-family dwelling at this property. .
Ms. Hentz said she was still confused since the staff report indicates he is requesting multiple variances for a
two-family dwelling.
Mr. Muehrer said the only way he can have any type of structure on that site is if it is asingle-family
dwelling.
Ms. Hentz pointed out that the applicant is not asking for variances for asingle-family dwelling. He wants a
two-family unit. Ms. Hentz said she had read the report several times and it was still confusing to her.
Mr. Muehrer apologized for the confusion and explained that his intent was to delineate that even though the
applicant applied for approval of atwo-family unit, the board does not have the authority to grant such a
request.
Ms. Hentz said she understood that part of the report. It just has conflicting information. She asked if there
were copies of the floor plans.
Mr. Muehrer passed around the copies from the file.
Adam Gardner, 834 W Packard St. Appleton came forward to present information and answer questions.
Mr. Gardner said the property had been empty for six months. He said neither the title company nor any one
else involved in the transfer of the property made him aware that it would be a problem with him
rehabilitating it into atwo-family home. It was not until this past August that he received something
informing him that there was a problem. He said the City of Oshkosh Inspections Department indicated they
had sent something to the previous owner. He said he had recently talked with the previous owner and he
said he knew nothing about these problems with the property. He questioned why this did not come up right
after the fire if it was such an issue. He said in regard to the amount of damage, it is minimum compared to
what the city is saying. He went on to explain the house was gutted by his choice because it had been
remodeled so many times. He felt it would be easier to start from scratch inside rather than work with what
was there. He said the city is trying to say this is a new structure but it isn't. He stated that this is an existing
structure that's been there at least fifty years and people have been dealing with the snow removal and water
drainage right along.
Ms. Hentz asked if he had anything from the fire department or the insurance company indicating how much
of the structure was damaged.
Mr. Gardner said he did not because he did not own it at the time of the fire. He did not know if the previous
owner had any paperwork either. He said the previous owner told him that when the City of Oshkosh
Board of Appeals Minutes 2 December 12, 2007
Inspections department looked at the building they did not indicate that it would have to be torn down or that
it was condemned or that it could not be rehabilitated.
Mr. Penney asked what the assessed value of the property was before the fire.
Mr. Gardner said he thought it was around $43,000.
Mr. Penney asked Mr. Gardner if he would keep it for rental income or was he planning to sell it if the
variance was granted.
Mr. Gardner said he prefers to sell it.
Ms. Rentz asked if there was anything further he wanted to share.
Mr. Gardner added that there were no "red flags" when he purchased the property that there would be a
problem. He has a $52,000 loan out for purchase and improvements. The building is useless unless he is
able to do the improvements on it.
Ms. Rentz asked when the fire took place.
Mr. Gardner said it was June 2006. He questioned why something wasn't done because of the fire before he
purchased it October 23, 2006.
Mr. Carpenter asked if he purchased it through a realtor or the owner.
Mr. Gardner said he purchased it directly from the owner.
Ms. Rentz indicated that the time span between the fire and the purchase was 4 months, not 6 months as the
applicant had indicated.
Mr. Penney commented that staff is saying it is an unbuildable lot (because it is substandard) but there have
been other variances granted for similar situations because failure to grant the variance would. make the
property un-useable for the purpose that it was intended. In this case we're saying it cannot be built on for
that reason (that it is substandard). He asked staff to explain why this is different.
Mr. Muehrer asked the board to keep in mind that the intent behind the zoning ordinance minimum standards
of lot width and lot depth, etc. is so that when events like this occur to a property that is substandard, it is a
rare opportunity to bring the property into compliance with the current code. This is very similar to the
circumstances with Mr. Kargus' property. That lot was 54x42 and this parcel is around 45x50. You can tell
from looking at the maps what the original intent was (in regard to lot sizes in the neighborhood).
Mr. Carpenter commented that it is really unknown how much was damaged by the fire. We're calling it a
new building because of the amount of damage that was done. Mr. Carpenter questioned how much damage
needed to be done in order for it to be considered a new building.
Mr. Muehrer said more than 50%. In this case it exceeded that amount, so any type of new dwelling
established on the lot is considered a new structure even though the outside shell is still there.
Board of Appeals Minutes 3 December 12, 2007
Mr. John Zarate, City of Oshkosh Building Inspector informed the board members that there was a raze order
.issued by the city for this property and the current owner has a temporary restraining order against the city
for the raze order. A judge issued the restraining order in October `07, which gave the owner the benefit of
the doubt to get the property repaired if he could get approval from the Board of Appeals. The City had all
of the burden of proof met with the judge in regard to the 50% rule and had every right to issue the raze
notice but the judge wanted to be a good Samaritan and give the owner an opportunity to rehab the property
even though the damage exceeded more than 50% of the value.
Mr. Carpenter asked if gutting the building had already begun.
Mr. Zarate said yes. It was completely gutted.
Mr. Carpenter then asked if the construction had begun already.
Mr. Zarate responded that this would be considered the demo part of the work (not construction). Typically
when there is a fire there-will be some amount of gutting done to determine how much actual damage was
done. Sometimes people think that if it is a small fire, the damage is minimal, but as they open up walls they
find that there is more wrong then they had planned. In this case they were probably doing the right thing by
taking the interior apart to see what was there.
Mr. Carpenter asked at what point does it become the responsibility of the previous owner .since they had
insurance at the time of the fire.
Mr. Zarate said he thought that would depend on how the property was sold. He thought it was sold as
salvage as the sale price was around $16,000. He could not imagine it was sold as a habitable dwelling.
Ms. Hentz asked for clarification that the current mortgage is $52,000.
Mr. Gardner mentioned that there had been another person interested in the property and had plans to live
upstairs while working on the downstairs. He felt this indicated that the damage is not as extensive as staff is
indicating. If you see the pictures of the house, you can see there is no damage to three sides of the house.
The only damage that is noticeable from the exterior is a little bit on the back and why there are no pictures
of that he did not know.
Mr. Cornell questioned if the current structure was to be removed, could another house be built on the lot
with more defined variances for setbacks to make it a useful property.
Mr. Zarate said yes, if the variances were.. approved.
Mr. Muehrer stated it was similar to the situation on Wisconsin St. (908).
Mr. Penny asked if there was any paperwork that shows the actual estimate of damage. He felt that was a
key point and did not feel comfortable voting on the item one way or the other until that question was
answered. He said it needed to be proven to him that the damage was over 50% since they were getting
conflicting information from the applicant and city staff.
Ms. Hentz agreed that it was important. In regard to the items the board is expected to address, there are
clear unusual and physical limitations of the property, obviously because of size, and if he is not allowed to
Board of Appeals Minutes 4 December 12, 2007
do something it does impact his ability to use the property for the purpose he bought it for. The burden has
been met that those two items are crucial.
Mr. Zarate said the building permit application indicates $34,200 for the building and $10,000 for
mechanicals, which includes the plumbing, electric and heating for a total $44, 200.
Mr. Penney said that was true but the applicant claims he just gutted the property which was not part of the
fire damage. Mr. Penney said he was having a problem with how much was damaged by fire.
Mr. Carpenter commented that he understood no money in essence had gone into the property yet other than
the original $16,000 for purchase. The remainder of the loan is sitting somewhere waiting for construction.
If he stops here the house can be razed and the lot sold off. So he can recoup part of that $16,000.
Ms. Hentz said there is still the issue of the mortgage.
Mr. Nielsen asked who gutted the building.
Mr. Zarate did not know.
Mr. Gardner said he hired it out. He said he has already invested money in the project with removal costs,
and a mortgage payment every month. He said equipment and materials have beenpurchased for doing the
project. It is almost the full amount of materials ready to go. He has attempted to move forward on the
project but had been stopped all along the way by the City. He stopped the raze order but then he had to
make it a single family home. Then when he tried to get it worked out for a single family home he finds out
he has to get variances. The issue did not even come up until after the raze order was stopped. Now the city
is recommending that the variances not be approved. He questioned why this was not dealt with way before
he purchased the property. It should have been the previous owner's problem to deal with.
Ms. Hentz asked what was happening to the property between June when the fire occurred and October when
the property was sold.
Mr. Zarate said nothing was happening. The windows were boarded up on the areas where the fire was, and
it was just sitting until something was worked out with the insurance company or the owner figured out what
he was going to do with it. Now it is on the third owner.
Mr. Gardner said he was not the third owner. He purchased it from the individual who owned it when the
fire occurred.
Ms. Hentz referred to page 2, last paragraph of the staff report where it states that even though the lot is
unbuildable it still possesses value. She said it only possesses value if it can be used for. something or sold to
another owner. There is no guarantee that an abutting property owner would be interested in acquiring the
land or be able to afford to purchase it. Therefore if that doesn't happen the land is rendered useless to the
property owner who is Mr. Gardner.
Mr. Nielsen asked who received the raze order.
Mr. Zarate said the raze order was issued to Mr. Gardner.
Board of Appeals Minutes 5 December 12, 2007
Mr. Nielsen questioned if it was the burden of the board to make sure Mr. Gardner gets his investment back.
The previous owner had no guarantee that someone would come along and buy the property, even for
$16,000 until Mr. Gardner did. If the board approves the single family dwelling that still does not guarantee
he gets his money back. Is that what we're here for?
Ms. Hentz said they could not guarantee Mr. Gardner can get his investment back but it is not in the board's
purview to intentionally keep someone from using their property. To tear down a building and hope that
someone who lives near by is going to buy it is a crapshoot.
Mr. Nielsen agreed.
Mr. Cornell stated that if the building were razed, asingle-family building could still be approved and he
could potentially get his investment back.
Mr. Penney stated that if the damage was not 50% of the value then the building could be repaired as a two-
family dwelling.
Mr. Zarate asked Mr. Penney if he was questioning whether the damage was more than 50%.
Mr. Penney said yes, he was questioning if the fire specifically caused 50% of the damage.
Mr. Zarate said that is the way the property is being looked at. It is not habitable and the fire is what created
the situation where he gutted the building to see what was there. Now the cost to repair the building due to
the fire and taking the interior down to the studs made this building need repairs that cost more than 50% of
the assessed value.
Mr. Penney said he was not trying to be argumentative but he was trying to help Mr. Gardner if he could. He
understood Mr. Gardener to claim he gutted it because it was an old building and to remodel it properly. He
didn't gut it due to the fire as exploratory to see what needed to be done.
Mr. Carpenter asked what the assessed value of the property was before the fire.
Mr. Zarate said it was $35,800 for the building only.
Ms. Hentz asked if the item was laid over until the January 9, 2008 meeting, would there be enough time to
contact the previous owner to get documentation regarding the fire damage, either from his own records or
from the insurance company.
Mr. Gardner said yes. He added it bothered him that the city keeps saying the work that needs to be done is
greater than 50% of what the property was worth. He said by the time the work is done the assessed value
will be far beyond what it was before. The home will be virtually new and should be worth twice its
previous value. If you put something into a property it will automatically bring the value back up.
Ms. Hentz said she could not say which way things will go, whether a one family or two family but she is
inclined to have it laid over to potentially resolve the. situation where both the. applicant and the city will be
happY•
Mr. Cornell asked if the building was in the Near East Neighborhood.
Board of Appeals Minutes 6 December 12, 2007
Mr. Muehrer said it was not.
Mr. Cornell asked if anything that pertains to the Near East Neighborhood would also pertain to this
situation. Logically, because of the non-conforming standpoint it should.
Mr. Muehrer said yes, anon-conforming situation is looked at in the same way regardless of where it is in
the city.
Mr. Carpenter verified that the value of the house before the fire was $35, 800 and it was sold for $16,000.
He went onto question if the 50% damage refers to the financial amount of damage or physical amount of
damage.
Mr. Zarate clarified that the 50% amount is the cost to make the building habitable again.
Ms. Hentz said in this case they are looking at $44, 200 to do what he wants to do but he is saying that not all
of that is fire related. A lot of it is improvement that he is choosing to do.
Mr. Penney voiced his opinion that more information was needed.
Mr. Cornell asked for clarification. His understanding is that if the item was laid over, when it comes back
the board is still not in a position to consider this as atwo-family unless it is considered a repair.
Ms. Hentz confirmed this was correct.
Mr. Cornell went on to say if the building was torn down and the board granted variances for a single family
(which would obviously be a very small structure), the parking for a two family would not be needed and the
amount of impervious surface would be reduced and solve some of the circumstances that surround the
problem.
Ms. Hentz said that is her understanding. She asked staff to confirm they were on the right track.
Mr. Muehrer said essentially it is correct.
Mr. Cornell said he did not want to lay it over if in fact they were going to have other snags they were not
aware of.
Motion by Ms. Hentz to lay the item over for the January 9, 2008 meeting.
Seconded by Carpenter.
Motion carried S-0. Ayes-Cornell/Nielsen/Penney/Carpenter/Hentz. Nays-None.
Mr. Gardner asked if he needed to bring the previous owner with him.
Ms. Hentz said yes, that would be helpful but also it would be important to bring some written
documentation. Something from the insurance company or something notarized would be acceptable. It
cannot. be something scratched out on a piece of paper or generated from a computer that someone has to
swear to. If there is no written documentation then the previous owner needs to be present so that board
members can ask him questions.
Board of Appeals Minutes 7 December 12, 2007
After further discussion it was decided that Mr. Gardner will need to provide official documentation from the
original insurance company involved with the fire in June 2006 that clearly indicates the dollar amount and
extent of damage at the subject property.
Mr. Cornell asked if the information could be provided to the city early enough so that it is included in the
January packet for board members.
Mr. Muehrer advised Mr. Gardner that the documentation needed to be received at the Community
Development Department no later than noon on December 21, 2007, as that is the official cutoff for the
January meeting.
Mr. Gardner left the meeting at this point.
Mr. Nielsen asked if the city could get verification as to whether Mr. Gardner was the second or third buyer
after the fire.
Mr. Zarate said yes. He then mentioned to the board members that when the raze order was done, .a title
search had been completed and there was no lien on the property or other interested parties listed for a loan
of any kind. He indicated he would search again to verify the status of possible liens.
Luann upeter-applicant, Paula A. Pupeter-owner, request a variance to permit an attached gara ith a 4'
side yard back. Section 30-19 (B)(3)(b) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Two Family Re, ' ence District
requires a 7 ' 2 inimum side yard setback for an attached garage.
~~
Mr. Muehrer presente e item. ~'`~ ~ .
Ms. Luanne Pupeter, 610 W. venue, petitioner, and Jim Pupeter-T ~'b r, 904 Brookwood Ct., owner
were present to provide informatio ° ~ d answer questions. j'
Mr. Pupeter-Troiber explained that he ands ife were the c 'ent owners of the property and they were
selling it to Luanne Pupeter. There is an existing orch on 'e back of the house and they want to extend it
by 8 ft. They have already had a contractor view the Wand everything is set with him. He went on to say
the neighbors would not even be able to see the adori:~~,
Mr. Penney asked if this was the same prope that had the pro m with the tree in the back yard.
Ms. Hentz said no, it was the same a icant but a different property.
Mr. Cornell asked if this was. common situation where an addition would r s t in a garage being
considered attached.
Mr. Muehrer saic),~was fairly common on smaller lot sizes in the city.
Mr. Corne~sked if there were any fire hazard issues with the garage now being so close to the
Mr..,Muehrer said no.
Board of Appeals Minutes 8 December 12, 2007