The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTESBOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES August 12, 2009 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Edward Wilusz, Cheryl Hentz EXCUSED: Mark Nielsen STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Kathleen Fredrick, Recording Secretary Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of June 10, 2009 were approved as presented. Hentz/Carpenter 5-0. ITEM I: 500-520 N KOELLER ST Gries Architectural Group Inc. – applicant, Dumke & Associates LLC – owner, request variances to permit a shared driveway with a 0’ side yard setback and to exceed the permitted amount of illumination attributed to exterior lighting along the shared driveway. Section 30-34 (D)(4)(b) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Highway 41 Corridor Overlay District requires a 15’ side yard setback and Section 30-35 (K)(4)(b) Exterior Lighting Standards limits exterior lighting levels to 0.50 foot candles at the property line. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. Dumke and Associates LLC currently own a 1.6 acre parcel of land located at 524 North Koeller Street and also own a 0.6 acre parcel of land addressed 1815 Taft Avenue. Their plans are to combine the parcels into a singular 2.2 acre site and subsequently develop the property with an office building and provide land area for future development. Mr. Andy Dumke, 2030 Menominee Drive, was present for the meeting and stated that the shared driveway would be safer and also keep in line with the properties to the south. Mr. Cornell asked if there would ever be a future entrance off of Taft Avenue. Mr. Dumke replied if anything it would be an exit only driveway. Mr. Kevin Penkert of Sullivan Street Garden Apartments LLC, W31052736 WildRose Ln, Waukesha, WI was present for the meeting and expressed that he had no problems with the variances. Motion by Hentz to approve the request for variances to permit a shared driveway with a 0’ side yard setback and to exceed the permitted amount of illumination attributed to exterior lighting along the shared driveway. Seconded by Wilusz. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: Least variance required. Reduced curb cuts improve safety. th ITEM II: 656 W. 17 AVENUE Dennis L. Youngwirth-applicant/owner, requests a variance to permit a pool and patio with a 0’ side yard setback. Section 30-29 (B)(3)(b) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: R-2 Two Family Residence district requires a 71/2’ minimum side yard setback. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. The petitioner is requesting a variance to permit an 18’ round pool and patio that would leave the subject property with a 0’ side yard setback. A property file search indicated a correction notice was issued to the property owner in May 2009 that advised construction activity Board of Appeals Minutes 1 August 12, 2009 had commenced prior to a building permit being issued. Subsequently, the property owner obtained a building permit to construct a 6’ tall privacy fence to enclose an open space area approximately 40’x20’ on the north side of the lot between the principal structure and detached garage. Within the newly enclosed area the property owner is proposing to construct a pool and associated patio. th Mr. Dennis Youngwirth, 656 W 17 Avenue was present for the meeting. He apologized for not pulling a permit as he did not know the work required one. th Ms. Mary Youngwirth, 656 W 17 Avenue was present for the meeting and wanted to say that the patio and pool were tastefully constructed and enhance the look of the property. Mr. Cornell articulated to the Youngwirth’s that the Board feels ill at ease when presented with a request for a variance after the fact. Mr. Youngwirth reiterated ignorance of the ordinance. th Mr. David Buskirk, 642 W 17 Avenue, was present for the meeting. If the variance is denied his concern is that if the pool has to be relocated, the Youngwirths would have to bring in loads of fill causing Mr. Buskirk’s yard to flood when it rains. Also, the pool would be closer to the Buskirks’ lot line causing their dogs to bark. th Ms. Lori Buskirk, 642 W 17 Avenue, was present for the meeting. She stated that the pool is an improvement to the Youngwirths’ property. Mr. Penney inquired as to what criteria the Board should use to base a decision on if the pool and patio weren’t already there. Ms. Hentz replied in her opinion the hardship would be the same whether the pool was there or not. The drainage issues would still be there if the Youngwirths had to bring in loads of fill to place their pool on the east side of the garage. Motion by Penney to approve the request for a variance to permit a pool and patio with a 0’ side yard setback. Seconded by Hentz. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: Hardship with lot as is. No adverse effect on neighbors’ property. No harm to public interest. ITEM III: 1031 BAY SHORE DRIVE William L. & Beth M. Lippert-applicant/owners, request variances to permit a horseshoe driveway on a lot less than 100 feet in width; to permit one section of the driveway to be 16’ in width; and to permit the spacing of the two curb openings to be 37’ between the inside driveway edges. Section 30-36 (B)(1)(d) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Off- Street Parking Facilities permits horseshoe driveways on lots with 100 feet of width; restricts driveways to 12’ in width; and requires the spacing of two curb openings to be a minimum of 50’ between the inside driveway edges. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. The subject parcel and associated single family dwelling unit is currently accessed from Bay Shore Drive by a 16’ wide concrete driveway located on the east side of the property. The petitioner is proposing a second curb cut and 12’ wide driveway on the west side of the property that would curve and connect to the existing 16’ wide driveway to create a horseshoe-type driveway. Variances are being requested to because the lot possesses less than 100’ feet of width and subsequently, the two curb openings would be only 37’ apart. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum of 50’ of separation. A third variance is being requested to permit the existing 16’ wide driveway to remain at its current width if connected to proposed 12’ wide driveway. The zoning ordinance limits horseshoe driveway widths to 12’. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 August 12, 2009 Mr. Bill and Mrs. Beth Lippert, 1035 Bay Shore Drive, were present for the meeting. Mr. Lippert stated the horseshoe driveway would not be out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. Mrs. Lippert added there is a large tree between the existing driveway and horseshoe driveway they are proposing, making it difficult to see when backing out of the existing driveway. Mr. Penney asked Mr. Lippert how wide the property is at the street. Mr. Lippert answered 86 feet. Mr. Carpenter inquired if the curb cut from the original house was still there. Mr. Lippert replied yes, that the horseshoe will be attached to the original curb cut. Mr. James Lang, 1115 Bay Shore Drive was present for the meeting. Mr. Lang lives two doors down from the Lipperts and has a horseshoe driveway. Mr. Lang expressed he believes there is a safety issue for the Lipperts to back out of their driveway without the horseshoe due to traffic on Bay Shore Drive. Mr. Cornell stated in his opinion there wasn’t a lot of traffic flow on Bay Shore Drive. Ms. Hentz asked if there was a boat landing on Bay Shore Drive. Mr. Lang replied yes, and in his opinion the boat landing impacts the traffic on Bay Shore Drive. Mr. Cornell stated that looking at the site plan submitted by the Lipperts, there appears to be 35’ of concrete in the existing driveway (where the garage is) and he believes there is enough room to back up being able to exit the driveway moving forward to the street. Motion by Hentz to approve variances to permit a horseshoe driveway on a lot less than 100 feet in width; to permit one section of the driveway to be 16’ in width; and to permit the spacing of the two curb openings to be 37’ between the inside driveway edges.. Seconded by Penney. Motion carried 4-1. Ayes- Carpenter, Penney, Wilusz, Hentz. Nays-Cornell Finding of Facts: Safety is improved. The property is unique to neighborhood homes having similar driveways. DISCUSSION OF BOA PROCEDURES The Board discussed what, if any, amendments should be made to the Procedures and Regulations of the City of Oshkosh board of Appeals. There was some debate whether remarks regarding findings of fact for denials should be included in Article III, #4. Also, under Article III #5, the Board talked about changing the verbiage to read “…members who voted in the majority to approve a variance shall state the findings of fact…” Finally, under Article VII, #1b, the Board discussed changing the verbiage to read “…such as that caused by ignorance of the law…” Mr. Muehrer said he would talk to the city attorney regarding the potential changes and get back to the Board. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. (Cornell/Wilusz). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 3 August 12, 2009