Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES June 10, 2009 PRESENT: Cheryl Hentz, Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Edward Wilusz EXCUSED: Mark Nielsen STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Kathleen Fredrick, Recording Secretary Chairperson Hentz called the meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. REORGANIZATION-ELECTION OF OFFICERS Ms. Hentz opened the floor for nominations for Chairperson. Motion by Hentz to nominate Mr. Cornell as Chairperson. Seconded by Penney. As there were no additional nominations for Chairperson, the floor was closed for nominations. Mr. Cornell accepted the nomination. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Cornell opened the floor for nominations for Vice-Chairperson. Motion by Penney to nominate Mr. Carpenter as Vice-Chairperson. Seconded by Hentz. As there were no additional nominations for Vice-Chairperson, the floor was closed for nominations. Mr. Carpenter accepted the nomination. Motion carried 5-0. The minutes of May 13, 2009 were approved with the correction of the spelling of Ms. Hentz’ name and the words Co- Chairperson Cornell changed to Vice Chairperson Cornell. Carpenter/Cornell 4-0-1. Ms. Hentz abstained as she didn’t attend the meeting. The Board decided to the move the agenda item, Discussion of BOA Procedures, to the end of the meeting. ITEM I: 918 LEEWARD CT Mark Martin-applicant/owner, requests a variance to permit a reconstructed driveway with a 3’ side yard setback. Section 30-36 (B)(1)(b)(iii) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Off-Street Parking Facilities requires driveways leading to attached garages to be setback a minimum of 7’6” from the side lot line. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. The petitioner is proposing to reconstruct a driveway that would leave the subject property with a 3’ side yard setback. The property currently has a 35 year old legal nonconforming driveway that is in need of replacement. The reconstructed driveway would be placed in the exact same location as the existing driveway. Board members will recall the same request was made by the property owner on August 15, 2008 at which time the Board approved the request. Board of Appeals Minutes 1 06/10/2009 Mr. Mark Martin, 918 Leeward Court, was present for the meeting. He stated the proposed project was delayed because of budget reasons. Motion by Penney to approve the request for a variance to permit a reconstructed driveway with a 3’ side yard setback. Seconded by Hentz. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: No harm to public. Unique property. Least variance required. ITEM II: 750 BISMARCK AVENUE Jeramiah and Rhonda Housworth-applicant/owners, request variances to permit a driveway to be wider than a garage at the property line as well as to permit an off-street parking area with a 0’ rear yard setback to be unscreened. Section 30-36 (B)(1)(c) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Off-Street Parking Facilities limits driveways to be no wider than the garage at the property line, Section 30-36 (C)(1)(b) does not permit uncovered parking spaces to be located between the principle structure and the rear lot line, and Section 30-35 (I) requires a minimum 5’ high solid fence, wall or evergreen shrub border to screen the uncovered parking area. Mr. Cornell, Mr. Penney, and Mr. Wilusz declared they received phone calls from either Mr. or Mrs. Housworth regarding their variance requests. Each board member explained to the Housworths that they could not discuss the variance request until the Board of Appeals meeting. Mr. Carpenter and Ms. Hentz received voice mails from the Housworths but did not speak with them. Apparently, the Housworths were advised by Mayor Esslinger to call each of the Board of Appeals members to discuss their variance requests. Mr. Muehrer stated that once Mr. Cornell informed him of his conversation with Mr. Housworth, he consulted City Attorney Lorenson who advised him that this was considered ex-parte communication and should not happen. She would contact Mayor Esslinger and inform him of this. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. The petitioner is proposing to reconstruct a 57’x9’ off-street parking area that would be located on the north side of the existing attached garage. The proposed parking area was previously established as a nonconforming structure. In addition to the rear yard placement, variances would need to be granted to leave the parking area unscreened as well as to permit the approaching driveway to be wider than the attached garage in order for the structure to be re-established. When the former nonconforming structure was established the concrete was poured up to and around the trunks of five pine trees. Over time, the pine trees and their roots continued to grow triggering severe heaving and damage to the concrete parking area causing it to fail. The property owner removed the nonconforming structure before realizing replacing the area in question would not meet current code. Mr. Jeramiah Housworth, 750 Bismarck Avenue, was present for the meeting. Mr. Housworth apologized for calling the board members prior to the meeting. He didn’t know it was inappropriate. He then passed out a petition signed by 15 surrounding residents supporting his variance request. Mr. Housworth stated that he understood the City of Oshkosh Municipal Code to read that he needed to comply with current code only if he was expanding the surface by more than fifty percent. Since he was not expanding, merely replacing what was there in a nicer condition, he thought he was in compliance. Ms. Hentz asked Mr. Housworth if he knew the dimension of his garage. Mr. Housworth replied he didn’t know. Ms. Hentz inquired if Mr. Housworth had a storage shed. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 06/10/2009 Mr. Housworth answered no. Ms. Hentz asked Mr. Housworth if he had a copy of the municipal code he used for his “assumptions”. Mr. Housworth gave Ms. Hentz a copy of what he printed off of the City website. Mr. Cornell asked Mr. Muehrer if there was a minimum standard for a double garage. Mr. Muehrer replied no. Mr. Housworth added that if there was an issue with the chain link fence not being solid, his intention is to replace the chain link fence with a wood one once he can afford it (12 to 18 months). Mr. Wilusz asked Mr. Muehrer what the compliance window would be if a solid fence condition was added. Mr. Muehrer replied that once Mr. Housworth pulled a permit he would have twelve months to comply. Mr. Wilusz wanted to know how many vehicles Mr. Housworth has. Mr. Housworth answered 3 vehicles, a snow blower, and a trailer. He clarified there is two drivers in the household. Ms. Betty Durant, 751 Bismarck Avenue, was present for the meeting. Ms. Durant supports the variance request and feels it will improve the looks of the neighborhood. Ms. Carmen Zamudio, 310 Idaho Street, was present for the meeting. Her son, Sergio Rojas, spoke on her behalf. She is in favor of the variance request and feels the removal of the pine trees is a good thing. She does not care if the chain link fence is removed and not replaced. Mr. Shawn Nordmeier, 401 Idaho Street, was present for the meeting. He supports the variance request. Mr. Wilusz asked Mr. Muehrer if Mr. Housworth hadn’t removed the nonconforming structure what could he have done. Muehrer replied that Mr. Housworth could have altered 50% of the nonconforming structure (half of 57’ x 9’). The 50% is cumulative, meaning that Mr. Housworth could not alter or remove 50% of the nonconforming structure now, and then at another time alter it again. Mr. Penney asked for clarification if the Board had to meet all three criteria for approving a variance. Mr. Muehrer clarified the Board must meet all three. Ms. Hentz, after reading what Mr. Housworth printed off the City website, could understand why he perceived the code the way he did. She feels the code is somewhat confusing as Mr. Housworth is not expanding his driveway, only replacing what was previously there. Mr. Housworth purchased the property with the nonconforming structure on it. If it hadn’t fallen into disrepair, he wouldn’t be in front of the Board of Appeals. Mr. Wilusz asked Mr. Housworth if he had known could he have complied within the 50% window. Mr. Housworth replied yes. The Board discussed the possibility of Mr. Housworth using a tapered approach instead of paving all the way to the street. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 06/10/2009 Mr. Muehrer asked the Board what they felt the unique property circumstances are to this property. Ms. Hentz replied the corner location, the existing placement of the structures on the lot, and because he didn’t understand the code properly he removed more of the nonconforming structure than he needed to. Motion by Wilusz to approve the request for a variance to permit a driveway to be wider than a garage at the property line. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion denied 1-4. Ayes- Penney. Nays- Hentz, Wilusz, Carpenter, Cornell. Motion by Wilusz to approve a variance to permit an off-street parking area with a 0’ rear yard setback with the following conditions: 1) The parking area must be accessed by an appropriate tapered approach. 2) A solid fence with a front yard setback to be approved by the City of Oshkosh Department of Community Development must be constructed within 18 months. Seconded by Hentz. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: Least variance required. No harm to public interest. ITEM III: 2111 MINNESOTA STREET Jim and Darla Leuthold-applicants, Catalina Properties LLC-owners, request variances to permit an open storage area with a 15’ rear yard setback, a 0’ rear yard setback, and 0’ side yard setbacks. Section 30-30 (B) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: M-3 General Industrial District requires a 30’ front yard setback, a 25’ rear yard setback, a 50’ side yard (south) setback, and a 20’ side yard (north) setback. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. The petitioner is proposing to raze the 50+ year old nonconforming single family dwelling currently located on site. Setback variances are requested to construct an open storage yard on the lot, which will be used and redeveloped in conjunction with the abutting industrial property to the north located at 2107 Minnesota Street. The existing detached garage is proposed to remain in its current location. Since the structure will no longer be considered accessory to the residential use, building code mandates the south wall of the structure to be modified for proper fire rating. As an alternative, the structure could be moved 6’ farther north away from the property line (10’ setback required) or the structure would need to be removed. The proposed open storage area would need to be screened by a 6’ tall solid fence on all sides to meet the zoning ordinance standards. The applicant is proposing to relocate/construct a 6’ wood fence on the east side of the subject lot, 15’ from the property line. Shrubs and green space will be planted in the front yard setback area. Likewise, a relocated/constructed 6’ wood fence with accessible gate is proposed to be erected on the north side of the subject site running down the property line shared with 2107 Minnesota Street. Ms. Darla Leuthold, 911 Windward Ct was present for the meeting. Ms. Leuthold plans to combine the two parcels into one. She questioned why they would need to put up both a fence and plantings; why not one or the other. Ms. Leuthold also questioned why they would have to put up a fence abutting the Pepsi building. Mr. Penney inquired if the Pepsi building was abandoned or still in use. Ms. Leuthold replied she wasn’t sure, but she believes it is used for storage. Mr. Muehrer explained the reason for the fence along the property line abutting the Pepsi building is if the Pepsi building was torn down, the Leuthold’s property would then be an open storage facility (against code) which could affect the marketability of the Pepsi property. With this being an older urban core area there will be a fair amount of redevelopment in the coming years and the storage of vehicles and other materials should be screened from neighbors. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 06/10/2009 Ms. Hentz asked Ms. Leuthold if she was receptive to the conditions recommended by City staff if the variance is approved. Ms. Leuthold answered she didn’t like the condition that the side yard setback (south) would be 10’ if the garage is moved. She prefers 4’. Also, she prefers either a solid fence or plantings along the south and west property lines; not both. Mr. Wilusz asked Ms. Leuthold if she was comfortable going forward with the variance request or if she would like to table the request until next month. Mr. John Roush, 918 Windward Court, was present for the meeting. He has known the Leutholds for many years and has worked with them on this project. He believes the Leutholds will uphold the property to the City’s standards. Ms. Hentz asked Ms. Leuthold again if she wanted to table her request until the July meeting. Ms. Leuthold replied no, she would like a decision today. Ms. Hentz asked Ms. Leuthold to state what she wanted in regards to the conditions City staff recommended for the variance. Ms. Leuthold replied that she was okay with all the conditions but wants the side yard (south) setback to stay at 4’ and wants to put up only a fence along the south and west sides (no plantings). Mr. Jody Lucas, 2117 Minnesota Street was present for the meeting. He’s concerned about the setback (east) off the road with regard to the fence. His house sits back approximately 25’ from the street and he does not want a fence to go beyond the front of his house. If a fence were to extend beyond the front of his house it would obstruct his view of the street from his front window. Mr. Wilusz asked Mr. Lucas if he had an opinion regarding the side yard (south) setback or the stipulation of planting arbor vitas. Mr. Lucas replied he is happy with the 10’ side yard setback. He is in agreement of wherever else a fence is put up except for the setback (east) off the road. The Board discussed the staff recommended conditions of approval. Motion by Hentz to approve the request for variances to permit an open storage area with a 15’ front yard setback, a 0’ rear yard setback, and 0’ side yard setbacks with the following conditions: 1) Parcel Number 14-1095-0000 & 14-1094-0000 shall be combined to form one parcel. 2) A 6’ tall solid privacy fence shall be installed and continued along the south and west property lines to completely enclose the proposed new open storage yard. 3) The remaining accessory building shall be modified to meet commercial/industrial building code or shall be removed. If the remaining accessory building is modified, the side yard (south) setback shall be increased to 4’. If the remaining accessory building is removed, the side yard (south) setback shall be increased to 10’. Seconded by Cornell. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: No harm to public interest. Least variance required. Board of Appeals Minutes 5 06/10/2009 DISCUSSION OF BOA PROCEDURES Mr. Cornell asked the Board if they wanted to discuss BOA Procedures and Regulations. Ms. Hentz suggested that the Board review the BOA Procedures and Regulations and bring questions and/or suggestions for changes to the next meeting. Mr. Cornell would like the discussion of BOA Procedures and Regulations to be put on the agenda for the next meeting. Ms. Hentz also suggested in light of what happened with Mr. & Mrs. Housworth regarding ex-parte communication, the contact information of the Board be removed from the City website. Mr. Muehrer said he would discuss this with the City Attorney’s Office. It was discussed perhaps a statement explaining that board members should not be contacted prior to a meeting be placed on the City website. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. (Wilusz/Hentz). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 6 06/10/2009