HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (variance) - 04/16/2010 O City of Oshkosh Darryn Burich
Dept. of Community Development Director
Planning Services Division Planning Services Division
CaigM 215 Church Ave., PO Box 1130
�..., Oshkosh, WI 54903 -1130
(920) 236 -5059 (920) 236 -5053 Ittp://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us .us
April 16, 2010
FILED
BOARD of APPEALS
Mr. Del Tritt
6228 County Rd. N APR 15 2010
Pickett, WI 54964
OSHKOSH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Re: 1308 W. New York Av.
To Whom It May Concern:
On April 14, 2010, the City of Oshkosh Board of Appeals approved variances to permit a single
family residence to exceed the maximum driveway width and to establish a 24' x 30' uncovered off -
street parking in the front yard.
The decision of the Board was filed in the Planning Services Division Office of the Department of
Community Development on April 15, 2010. Per Section 30- 6(C)(3) and (4) of the City of Oshkosh
Zoning Ordinance, your variance will expire on October 15, 2010, unless you have started
construction for the activity allowed by the variance. If you fail to begin construction by this date,
you must reapply for a variance if you intend to go ahead with the activity allowed by the variance.
Please be advised that any person or persons aggrieved by any decision of the Board of Appeals may
commence action in Circuit Court within thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision. Permits may
be issued on approval of the Board, but you should be aware that further action could take place until
as much as 30 days after the date of the decision.
Building permits may be applied for from the Inspection Services Division in Room 205 at the
Oshkosh City Hall between 7:30 - 8:30 AM and 12:30 - 1:30 PM, Monday thru Friday, or call (920)
236 -5050 for an appointment. Please bring all required building plans and information necessary for
review when obtaining your building permit.
If you have any questions, feel free to call me at (920) 236 -5059.
Respectfully,
Todd M. Muehrer
Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator
TMM/dff
CC: Inspection Services Division, City Hall
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
April 14, 2010
PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Jane Cryan, Dennis Penney, Mark Nielsen (late), Ed
Wilusz, Cheryl Hentz
EXCUSED: None
STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator; John Zarate, Building
Inspector; Deborah Foland, 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 March 10, 2010 were approved as presented. Carpenter/Hentz 4 -0 -1. (Abstained - Hentz.
Not present for March meeting.)
ITEM I: 1308 W. NEW YORK AVENUE
Del Tritt- applicant, Ridgeview Investments LLC- owner, request variances to permit a single family
residence to exceed the maximum driveway width and to establish a 24' x 30' uncovered off - street parking
in the front yard. Additionally, a variance is requested to permit a patio within the required side yard setback.
Section 30 -36 (B)(1)(c) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Off - Street Parking Facilities requires the maximum
driveway width to not exceed 12' where no garage exists, Section 30 -36 (D)(2)(a): Off - Street Parking
Facilities requires open parking areas to provide a front yard setback no less than the setback of the front
facade of the principal structure, and Section 30 -35 (B)(2)(d) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Additional
Standards requires a 2' side yard setback for uncovered patios.
Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He commented that the owner
purchased the property in 2009 and is in the process of extensively remodeling the interior of the structure
and is proposing various site improvements to the exterior that require variances. The proposed paved off -
street parking area would be located in the same place where an existing gravel parking area is currently on
site and the proposed patio would intrude 2' into the required side yard setback. A justifiable hardship is
present in this case as the parcel's unique configuration, principal structure placement, and limited rear and
side yard areas preclude feasible placement alternatives for improvements within setbacks. The applicant is
also proposing a 2411 of 6' solid board fencing along the north lot line to screen the proposed patio from the
property to the north.
Mr. Penney questioned what the dimensions would be for the patio area.
Del Tritt, 6228 County Road N, Pickett, petitioner for the request, responded that he had revised his plan to
exclude the addition of the patio area and was proposing to place a concrete area for storage of garbage cans
and a step for the back porch in that location instead. The proposed fencing would remain.
Mr. Wilusz inquired how many curb cuts existed on the subject site.
Mr. Tritt replied that there was only one curb cut.
Board of Appeals Minutes 1 April 14, 2010
Ms. Cryan questioned why the parking area could not be located on the east side of the parcel.
Mr. Tritt explained that if the parking area was relocated to the east side, it would create a situation that
would require stacked parking of vehicles in the driveway. This would result in vehicles having to back out
onto W. New York Avenue on a frequent basis creating an unsafe situation.
Mr. Penney asked if the gravel area would be paved with concrete.
Mr. Tritt responded that the paving would be constructed with an asphalt surface.
Mr. Cornell inquired if there would be plantings around the foundation.
Mr. Tritt replied that there were some existing plantings on site but they would be enhanced.
Roger Rose, 1302 W. New York Avenue, questioned the reasoning for the installation of the fencing.
Mr. Tritt responded that the fence was for the purpose of screening the driveway to the garage and the
garbage receptacles and that there would be no fencing located on the east side of the property adjacent to
Mr. Rose's property.
Mr. Rose then questioned if the fencing would be 24' long and 6' high.
Mr. Tritt replied that was his initial proposal but it could be reduced to 16' as that would be more practical.
Mr. Muehrer stated that the fence was not an issue at this hearing as it was allowed by city ordinance and no
variance was necessary for the placement of the fencing.
Mr. Rose commented that he would be in favor of the driveway area being constructed with concrete instead
of asphalt.
Ms. Hentz questioned why Mr. Rose was objecting to the asphalt paving.
Mr. Rose responded that he felt it was easier to shovel concrete than asphalt.
Ms. Hentz stated that a motion would be required to change the proposed fence from 24' to 16'.
Mr. Muehrer commented that no action would be required regarding the fencing as it is not an issue with the
variance request.
Mr. Wilusz questioned if the board was required to deny the portion of the request regarding the patio as the
petitioner was withdrawing that aspect of the variance request.
Mr. Muehrer replied that the minutes would reflect that the request for the placement of the patio has been
withdrawn so no action would be required when a motion was made for the variance request.
Mr. Penney inquired if the term "paving" meant it was required to be constructed of cement.
Mr. Muehrer responded that the zoning ordinance recognized both concrete and asphalt as an acceptable
paving material.
Board of Appeals Minutes 2 April 14, 2010
Motion by Hentz to approve the request for a variance to permit a single family residence to exceed
the maximum driveway width and to establish a 24' x 30' uncovered off-street parking in the front
yard.
Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0.
Finding of Facts:
The parcel is a unique lot.
No adverse impact.
Safer for the public.
ITEM II: 207 S. SAWYER STREET
David Schettle, owner, is requesting a variance to the City of Oshkosh Building Code. Per Oshkosh
Building Code Section 7 -33, persons may file an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals as provided in the
City Zoning Ordinance, Section 30- 6(B)(2)(a) if an equivalent degree of health, safety and welfare is
proposed. All appeals shall be accompanied by supporting data.
This appeal is to allow for a modification and an expansion of an existing stairway without providing the
required headroom of 76" at the intermediate landing. Comm 21.04(2)(d) requires that a minimum
headroom of 76" (6' -4 ") be maintained for the entire stairway. The headroom also is required to be provided
for the minimum width of the stairway which is 3'.
John Zarate presented the item and stated that the City of Oshkosh adopts the State of Wisconsin Uniform
Dwelling Code to apply to alterations and additions to one and two family homes in existence prior to the
effective date of this code. The variance is required for the construction of a new stairway to the second
floor for which a building permit was issued on February 19, 2010. Mr. Zarate reviewed the details of the
staff report and commented that there was conflict in whether the stairway was reconstructed within the same
stairwell opening and that the owner did not want to conform to the current building standards as it would
require significant structural modifications to the roof and use up too much space on the first floor.
Jeff Schettle, 3251 Old Orchard Lane, distributed enlarged building plans and photos of himself standing on
the stairways of both the old and newly constructed stairway. He also explained the differences between the
layout and height of both stairways and stated that he felt that the stairway was reconstructed within the same
stairwell opening therefore it should be allowed as it would fall under a portion of municipal code which
provides for reconstruction of stairways in existence prior to June 1, 1980 providing they are rebuilt within
the same stairwell opening. He further explained that the landing had been lowered to increase the amount
of headroom and the outside of the stairway on the second landing was the only area that may be an issue
with a lack of headroom.
Ms. Hentz commented that it appeared there was a difference in opinion between the inspector and the
petitioner as to whether the stairway was reconstructed in the same opening.
There was further discussion on if the stairway had been rebuilt within the same stairwell opening and the
modifications made constructing the new stairway as compared to the layout of the original one. It was
determined that the newly constructed stairs were less steep and the second landing was relocated however
the difference in opinion still remained whether the new stairway was constructed in the same opening.
Mr. Wilusz asked for clarification of the building drawings submitted.
Board of Appeals Minutes 3 April 14, 2010
Mr. Schettle further explained the construction drawings and the amount of headroom provided both on the
steps and landings. He commented that part of the stairway was code compliant other than 18 inches on the
top landing and 9 inches on the lower landing with the deficit being on the outside of the stairway, not on the
inside where the handrail is located.
Mr. Carpenter questioned if the petitioner felt that changing the stairway to meet code requirements was
creating a hardship.
Mr. Schettle responded that to remedy the situation would involve a lot of time and work to gain the few
inches that are necessary to make the stairway code compliant. It is a very old home and the work to
increase this small amount of headroom would be significant.
Mr. Wilusz asked for clarification of the variance request standards for building code variances in regard to
"providing an equivalent degree of health, safety and welfare ".
Mr. Zarate replied that the variance could be granted if the board felt that the situation would provide an
equivalent degree of safety as it would if the stairway met code requirements. From the perspective of the
Inspections Department, they cannot approve work that it not code compliant, and the decision would have
to be determined by the board members.
Mr. Penney questioned why the variance was not applied for until after the work had been completed.
Mr. Schettle responded that they had obtained a building permit but the problems arose with the addition to
the house and once he was made aware that a variance may be possible to obtain, he decided to pursue it. He
further stated that they could have sold the house in its original state, but the reconstruction of the stairway
was an improvement to the present condition that existed and major structural changes would be required to
make the stairway code compliant.
Mr. Penney commented that expense to the petitioner could not be considered when granting a variance.
Discussion continued on whether the stairway was reconstructed within the same stairwell opening, if the
exception to the code for stairways rebuilt in the same opening would apply, and if the plans submitted for
the building permit were accurate or modified when constructed. The petitioner contended that the plans
were not altered after the issuance of the permit and the dormer over the top had not yet been completed.
The inspector claimed that the stairway headroom plans were not provided at the time the permit was issued.
Further discussion on which parts of the stairway were not code compliant and the number of inches
necessary to meet code, the age of the home, and the complications involved to make the stairway compliant
without the granting of a variance. It was concluded that although complicated and costly, the stairway
could feasibly be constructed to meet current code standards. There was also discussion on the fact that staff
was correctly performing their duties by denying approval of the plans for lack of code compliancy however
it appeared that the reconstructed stairway was safer than the condition that existed prior. There was not
consensus on whether the stairway was reconstructed in the same opening although there was understanding
that remodeling in a 110 year old home was complicated and some board members felt that even though the
stairway did not meet current code requirements, it was safer than the conditions that existed prior to the
reconstruction.
Motion by Hentz to approve the request for a variance to permit a modification and an expansion of
an existing stairway without providing the required headroom of 76" at the intermediate landing.
Seconded by Penney. Motion carried 3 -2. Ayes- Carpenter /Penney /Hentz. Nays - Cornell /Wilusz.
Board of Appeals Minutes 4 April 14, 2010
Finding of Facts:
It is a unique situation.
The age of the home.
Condition of stairway safer than what previously existed.
Ms. Hentz excused herself from the meeting at 4:20 pm.
ITEM III: 1225 JEFFERSON STREET
Gary Dietenberger & Anne Sanfelippo- applicant/owner, request a variance to permit a 6' high solid wood
fence with a 0' front yard setback. Section 30 -35 (E)(3) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Additional
Standards and Exceptions requires fences 6' high to be erected on those parts of a lot that area as far back or
farther back from a front property line than the principal structure.
Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He explained that the petitioner
was requesting the fence for privacy and safety purposes and that the property was unique in that it fronts
two road right -of -ways and therefore possesses two front yards by zoning ordinance definition. He also
explained that it would have no adverse effect on surrounding properties because there are no driveways
fronting the east side of Harrison Street so the fence would not create any sight or safety issues for vehicular
or pedestrian traffic and Jefferson Street is a one -way street with adequate distance between the intersection
and the proposed fencing. He further stated that the property is unique and a justifiable hardship exists with
the current parcel configuration.
Mr. Cornell stated that the map showing the location of the fence was difficult to read and asked the
petitioner to clarify its location.
Ms. Sanfelippo explained that the fence would be going from the right corner of the garage back and Mr.
Dietenberger displayed the location on the site plan.
Mr. Penney asked if the house faced Jefferson Street.
Ms. Sanfelippo responded affirmatively.
Motion by Wilusz to approve the request for a variance to permit a 6' high solid wood fence with a 0'
front yard setback
Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5 -0.
Finding of Facts:
No safety issues.
The parcel is a unique lot.
Ms. Hentz returned to the meeting at 4:30 pm.
Board of Appeals Minutes 5 April 14, 2010
ITEM IV: 3110 KNAPP STREET
Steve Taylor, EAA- applicant, Winnebago County - owner, request a variance to permit a proposed garage and
concrete slab with a 20' front yard setback. Section 30 -30 (B)(1) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: M -3
General Industrial District requires a 30' minimum front yard setback.
Mr. Muehrer presented the item and stated that he was not able to obtain photos of the subject site prior to
today's meeting. He explained that the variance was being requested because W. Waukau
Avenue has restricted access east of Knapp Street and the proposed new structures would be too close to the
existing air traffic control tower if built at the required 30' front yard setback. The variance, if granted,
would not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties as they are all owned by Winnebago County and
developed in conjunction with the airport facilities. He further stated that a justifiable hardship existed as the
proposed structures could not be adequately accessed due to the location of the air traffic control tower. He
also noted that while the zoning ordinance may technically define the area in question as a front yard, the
practical use of the area is side yard in nature.
Steve Taylor, 3000 Poberezny Road, petitioner for the request, stated that he was present for any questions
regarding this request.
There was no discussion on this item.
Motion by Hentz to approve the request for a variance to permit a proposed garage and concrete
slab with a 20' front yard setback
Seconded by Penney. Motion carried 5-0.
Finding of Facts:
It is a unique situation.
A hardship would be created if variance denied.
No adverse impact on adjacent properties.
DISCUSSION OF BOA PROCEDURES
Ms. Hentz stated that at January's meeting, there was discussion on issues that can or cannot be discussed
under this portion of the agenda. Mr. Muehrer reviewed the matter with the City Attorney Lynn Lorenson
who informed the board that matters that are not specifically noted on the agenda cannot be randomly
discussed. Ms. Hentz contacted the State Attorney General's office regarding the matter who felt we were
being overly cautious. She was informed that particular properties could not be discussed without notice
however city codes or other general conversation should be allowed.
Board members briefly discussed the process of requesting specific items to be placed on the agenda for
conversation and other details regarding disclosure matters.
Mr. Muehrer stated that Attorney Lorenson was not able to be present today as she had other obligations at
this time but he would let her know about the discussion and see if she could make arrangements to attend a
future meeting. He inquired about the name of the individual at the Attorney General's office who provided
Ms. Hentz with this advice.
Ms. Hentz replied that the party's last name was Olsen and that his assistant's name was Amanda.
Board of Appeals Minutes 6 April 14, 2010
It was decided to place this item back on the agenda for May for clarification if the City Attorney could be
present for discussion of the matter.
Ms. Hentz stated that the wording on this portion of the agenda stating "Discussion of BOA Procedures" was
not entirely accurate and she would like to further discuss the matter when the Procedures and Regulations
for the Board of Appeals are reviewed in June.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. (Wilusz/Hentz).
Respectfully submi ed,
Todd ehrer
Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator
Board of Appeals Minutes 7 April 14, 2010
STAFF REPORT BOARD OF APPEALS
APRIL 14, 2010
ITEM I: 1308 W. NEW YORK AVENUE
GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Del Tritt- applicant, Ridgeview Investments LLC- owner, request variances to permit a
single family residence to exceed the maximum driveway width and to establish a 24' x
30' uncovered off - street parking in the front yard. Additionally, a variance is requested to
permit a patio within the required side yard setback. Section 30 -36 (B)(1)(c) of the
Oshkosh Municipal Code: Off - Street Parking Facilities requires the maximum driveway
width to not exceed 12' where no garage exists, Section 30 -36 (D)(2)(a): Off - Street
Parking Facilities requires open parking areas to provide a front yard setback no less than
the setback of the front facade of the principal structure, and Section 30 -35 (B)(2)(d) of
the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Additional Standards requires a 2' side yard setback for
uncovered patios.
The subject property is located on the northeast corner at the intersection of W. New
York Avenue and Elmwood Avenue. The parcel is irregular in shape, .10 acres in size
and zoned R -2 Two Family Residence District. Adjacent land uses include single family
residential to the north and east, while two family residential is located to the south and
west. The general area is composed predominately of low density residential land uses.
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 property owner purchased the subject property in December 2009 and subsequently
acquired a building permit in January 2010 to extensively remodel the interior of the
principal structure. In an effort to further improve the property, the owner is proposing
various site improvements to the exterior that require variances. Specifically, per the
submitted site plan (see attached), primary vehicular access to and from the property is
proposed via a 24' wide driveway located on the west side of the property on Elmwood
Avenue. A variance is needed as this proposed width exceeds the code standard by 12'
due to no garage being present. Similarly variances are needed to establish a paved open
off - street parking area (24'x30') in the front yard setback area and to construct a patio
that will intrude 2' into the required side yard setback.
In the applicant's opinion, the variance requests would not have adverse effects on
surrounding properties because the proposed paved driveway and open off - street parking
area are in the same location as the existing gravel parking area that has been in place for
STAFF REPORT BOARD OF APPEALS
ITEM I -2- APRIL 14, 2010
years. The petitioner feels the limited yard area makes the situation unique and if the
variance requests are denied, the applicant feels a hardship will be imposed because the
property improvements will not be permitted.
Justifiable hardship is present in this case as the parcel's unique parcel configuration,
existing principal structure placement, and limited rear and side yard areas preclude
feasible placement alternatives for improvements within setbacks. For example, rear yard
placement of the parking area or patio is not feasible as there is only 3' of width between
the principal structure and the north lot line. Alternatively, placing the parking area in the
side yard (east) also has limitations as only 14' of width is present between the principal
structure and the lot line. While a driveway and parking area could be established in this
area due to ample parcel depth, the limited width would only allow for stacked vehicle
parking. Subsequently, residents would then be frequently re- positioning vehicles and
would need to walk increased distances from the parking area to the primary building
entrance on the west side.
The submitted plan presented appears to be the most desirable alternative for establishing
open off -street parking and a patio for the property due to the limited area present. It
should be noted the petitioner is proposing 24 1.f. of 6' high solid board fencing along the
north lot line to screen the proposed patio from the property to the north. In general the
variances will not be detrimental to adjacent properties and will not be contrary to the
public interest.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information provided within this report, staff recommends approval of the
variances as requested.
Attachment to BOA Packet 04/14/10
1308 W. New York Avenue
, 7 A ,,
,- ,-, ,
f
- '''' -„, ...---- - ---- 44 k S'.
ifijr;i ya 1 1 , "y' lowite ,'-' ,; , ,;..k..4
1, 1 1 9 . .. 00. 4 all grrati':' : A N ' '1, ' ' -
. ".., 1 , ■41410,1 $ A. , .... 0 -10* „. 'it iim' 4,,,,,,,.- -',. ' .1- ' ' 7 ' ,, , ,7:;r r, , 41 gfr "4„, --,--
1 tiny'' r "1" VIV.; . ..mitrr i lrk..,.% 0 7 .- * 1,1 ...... ,', . ,,,,.' ,,-- ',,, ',,. 1,,,,, ■ , 4 ' '10 -1--. '-' '"-, , li. 4ttli-,..,„?,,,
. il
, ,, . .....,.„?..„..... .,,,,, ,- ,,,,,, .,, . ---;=-..-"• - ... iv- ,,
,,, t, ip .4,/ V. . :,,,,, , 1 : _ --') _.,-------- __ _ i - :_rt,t, , ,., ',.- tt ' ■i- f if- gi, ,,,,, , -
. ,
, i , _
.,, ,:-.. ____,_, ___-_,.., _____ __ A - -... — Pit,: l • -11P t .
1 1;1
,,,, ,
( • !F 1 1111",4-t0443 1 , : -- — - -------- ' - ---------------1 .4::- --''''''''' i ,, • 1,,,,...-, .
: • ' - ...,■4 1 _r --, (, ' --,-3P+7.1...: ' --,..-- 7 -- 771117 - -1, ;,;;;;%:-.." ;Ar ' 1 1-::: ., ' -4.-
• - 1 - ■ 7 1. gl 'A4::-4 i '72 ":" 'i - - „,--AN.,,,,,,,..,., - _ j, . ,-,4„ .' - ,;•,',,---2-.7 -'7.."..'77-7 " ---, ,
, , z„.. _ ,. -..-„-:".- .•::;' . , ,„7,- -,•
, ,
'•-1 „ '
-- - -! ‹,-,„ --.;,,,,, .-..,-,.,-- , ,_
-
_ --
,
______ _
-„,
MAR 31 21
View of subject property looking east
),
...r, :',.
, „,„4".■ , .., ' '''''
:4,,
4k.
"..,,,,, ,„,
, 'N ) - ‘pi
4 0 1, ', . ' , ', A ' ", "7"-,,".‘ -, .-, - , -- N§k.„,,, , f l.,,, , 4 '-'.
,,,--,,-.' • \ ,... :,..- ■?....?; ,..:.,'?..-,,
, 10 4 -......':.,.., , - ' A "V• ' ..""" -N i 1 f, ,.--. ,, 0- -
.-pf :,,;„.„-
_ ,,,, ,.._. ....- - ',--- . \ ' ' - - I'
4.„ -: ' ■' q c .. '',,-... , ,;-* — ',or - - y .-
: ' ' r `'-: -
-. a z.
, 1 1- v.,.•\i- ,,
4 "%Wk ''-'s '-. k. --- 46 :' , 5-;,,, •''1/43.,, i ' t -
MI
A r.,,,,_::, _ _.,..._,..z,,,,,..i....:_7:f.. ,,,,.,., 1...,w.,
_ ?_.., 1 , ;', i
.r; gill i ,
..., 1 ,
1m Ai
1 M M if . , 1 I 1 _, Fri .4.-
,,, i ip - I i -,- , , .:;;•-t4 c 1; ,I,A '''' 1 Jar if
. , ,
-II ,-./ . .
- ',..4 ' , ' ' ' -■-
. '.-. 10 1 ,, ,,,. -, t ' =, 1 11 '','y , „ , _ ,_,, , -,."'
. - , ,t 1.-- _ IF , , II 7 , _— :---:'' '' r- -- --- Ir...,-,..---' Alseliffleimo
---;-.-.,..,... ..„.... 0 - q 4— , A - . " !,-,..,,, L..-,..... ,_..- vow a a irc __
,,,, - „,:, ",,- ' ,. .:- , ;',.-..-..,--,.... . -''' ' --- -- - - '-
` ' '''' '-,- - - .,,,..,- ‘-,,,‘,, ,,,,,,,,---, --,, -, _ ,„,,,,,,,,..,...,_-,,,,,,,.‘ _
-. -.- , - 1 ' 74 ; 1 . , ,,..., '''..".- -- ' _ ----...- - - * ' .."---' ' '
'
..----
---'—' --- "*I'r'' - - le - ---- ---- View of subject property looking northeast
3
Attachment to BOA Packet 04/14/10
1308 W. New York Avenue
_ .
,--- r
- .-
Av -..,...„_ , ......„
7 stf - - -r-.177------ r ,-., - ,:/„-{ , ,4: -:4- ,4: _- .....L.,_ h --1
, ,i,.r,,,, 1 , 71 ,. - , P' 1 . , , ■ . - "",
. 4... ';
-= " t
l' r
— ti. . ■
„ .' , ilig , 'Lfr- 4 ... .; :Y .: * L - ,.. .
,---.`,, MI .... 11111, • I .,.,:_- - .....,,,,,, , AlweR.a..... _ ier; at ..., ,„..,
-.7.,-, INW ',.
a
, _ 21 - Q, ' C ' i 0 , ''• r :- A , l', .
i ' - ` ' - .*.- -'3? ',, '' • ,' ,,- - -- ....„ .`;i ' -:4‘11N''' 7c.,,,,1
.:.5.
,.. — , , - , ,,,I, ..5..„„,... ,„... -.40,vp.,,, 4 ..;7- --- .' -" -- 4 , - 1''' .' ' '... - - ' ' ' It_,,,...4 4
-- -- - '-.." ; - - «_, ,_ -- ? :2 ' ' ' ... ' ' " *- 4- 4".t1, ..7....4;•.:--- -;.•'-'«'------ - . ' 'Ti' › 'i l: 3 - ' 4 " 4 - -.4 - ','Ti'' '' '''' I t.1 --- "'"% - , , , 7 ., i -',„
, - _._. ,,-.--- ':' , - , , , i7: 0 4er ..<„ .,.4 -,...._ '- ,- _--..--,. , --- ",•.,- - --:z .- -,=--,--: , ',.. , ,-;';'," :."-- -, ..., - „, ., ..i.--46 '' - _
g
to 4 : - P' ,,,,,,, , . \ ''"°`: ak * ',--4W- ''.1- ...1, " .« ' -4-': ' ' --. ' - ,.•
,,,..«... - -. - ;44 , - , - «.-'42' ..in 4 'v,',•,`':;k,,,14'4,,;«,,,e.„_if-„4'o,' , - ',. -«. ' -i 4, :.'• 4 .0 1 , .4 I 4_, f,.....m ..n 4. 4' -",'",- - -'' ' v ,. , ....-_--..« ....----- -
- -- A-'" , ----
_ .
...,,,,,„ 312 1-10---
......
_ _
.
..,---' -----. _..-----.-.-.=-;------0°' - - - , __ ------,---
_-
_ .
_ _...
- ,-
,- -
View of subject property looking north
.....-------
i ,.'
,
.....---
_.....------
'' - • , •1 ' ,, ,,,,,--__--,---.,-- ,-: s- ',--' ' -- --- --
_—,
I-- f--- ./ - ',.,. .-- ._----_-_.-__
- - - : ----- _---4 , - - ,
, _
, ----- -----‘-- ' ' -----2-- ' -----
_ ---------,, _ ------- • ' .',00,00.NN...„..
— '
' 4 1 4 1 -■ - -
• ; ' litr ' Al
4Tr —
---
_
f _____
•
- '
1 '......,
-
t .
iii 1 : 4 t. 1 : - - :,,4•., _____ ',;7% .--= .t,s71 --- :' ,1 . , - , - - r-,..",'1:-.T . --.. - I - - - -=i..
'-',.•'-- ._.,,,_____ -
...,k.t
.
r -
- f = " -
. ------. .
- ,-
-. ...- , ... , _,,f...,..,,,.5,- ,: _-_,_---
.
' - -'.: - .7 ,, ,'1,620." - "------
- -..
...- , ..
_
__
-. ,-"-'-':,-
.
-
MAR 31 2011Y
_ .
_.
Alternate view of subject property looking northeast
4
Please Type or Print in BLACK INK e Return to: Department of
Community Development
QII KQIH 215 Church Ave.
ON ME WATER
P.O. Box 1130
Oshkosh, WI 54903 -1130
CITY OF OSHKOSH
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
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 M
ity of Oshkosh and due at the time the application is submitted,
Address of Parcel Affected: 3 0 ? "C S 4- �V .P (A) york
Petitioner: D e / - Fr- 1 1 1 Home Phone: 3 ? 9 - e
Petitioner's Address: 6, a. a P a. . c P,' 0.k. ,Work Phone: 37 9 - 6 oR . Q
Signature Required: �� z..- � Date: a 13 /
Owner (if not petitioner): Q x'1'1 - 9 — _ Home Phone:
Owner's Address: Work Phone:
Signature Required: Date:
In order to be granted a variance, each applicant 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:
E
Qi1 ct �t . p CFCs i
4. ;
5
2. Describe how the variance would not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties:
i
/ f
/ - .Aii r0 - .. _ I. its d . _. ... �./ ... i i_i _.0"_._. �_ i
Cr...e.-LI. CLE 4_6 -- C. - - - e - t - -C p/ •
3. Describe the special conditions that apply to your lot or structure that do not apply to surrounding lots or
structures:
4. Describe the hardship that would result if your variance were not granted:
. ` �■ 4, - - 0 /
•
6
ITIIIIIII) ' ' — — —. — — — _
Ni) . 1
l i x6 il q�, a ar`A TTTt:
41' e 1
1 - iii---?.
(9-
8 • Q- Driv -e.
A r- e4 3 y-
J2 i In
c5` fi ****.a.: 0 th •
) •
26
47.0' i, t.. 1 3(
-...„..., /
DISCLAIMER N _
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor
a survey and it is not intended to be used as one. A
This drawing is a compilation of records, data (J /
and information located in various city, county 1308 W. New York Ave.
and sate offices and other sources affecting
the area shown and it is to be used for reference
purposes only. The City of Oshkosh is not 02 -03 -2010
responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained.
If discrepancies are found, please contact the 10 0 10 20 Feet. Scale. 1" = 20'
City of Oshkosh. - 1 ■
L
Source: City of Oshkosh GIS
SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT 7
BOA CHARLES CHRISTOPHER D SCHNEIDER LESLEE S
1308 W NEW YORK AV 1217 RIVERSIDE DR 1406 W NEW YORK AVE
04 -14 -10 SUAMICO WI 54173 8112 OSHKOSH WI 54901 2713
RE 1208 ELMWOOD AV
RIDGEVIEW INVESTMENTS LLC ROSE ROGER P CHARA PROPERTIES LLC J
6228 COUNTY RD N 1302 W NEW YORK AVE 1635 MARICOPA DR
PICKETT WI 54964 OSHKOSH WI 54901 2757 OSHKOSH WI 54904 8231
RE 1308 W NEW YORK AV RE 1134 ELMWOOD AV
MONTAG DANIEL R /JOANNE VANRAVENSTEIN DAVID P
1145 ELMWOOD AVE 3459 SHENANDOAH TRL
OSHKOSH WI 54901 3521 NEENAH WI 54956 9044
RE 1209 SPRUCE ST
8
1�� 5 101.8'
O \
� � — NI o (\i ,
6
` I o 124.21' in i
■ s �'7 85.6'
*".-
\, i (,)
N b ■
= v 124.23'
1 '3 _
1
N N'
J �' 1 124.25'
�j e , 74.25'
\` 310 j •R C•4
\ \ --) j I R 1
x
s \ • Y d' G Y l cv
fr<b ` ,1 ! fir ' ' "' . x; a£ •
1
in
1406 ® K v it. 1220
1406 \ ,o X & - 1302
> xi ,,: , ' v •, < x ;r 74.3'
s 150.0' ' Y .-K
W . NE�I_.Y_ORKAVE----------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ` \- - - 1
\
\
\'\ 138.1' 77.5'
68.0'
5
s
141 `l 1.1
r -fit I I ■ Q
a' 0 \'\ <1-°. 6 • � O
1 v
at
:
aa5�° '� &iA ' \\ � 191
(.5 o o 120
, v
.n: , \,
DISCLAIMER b
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor 1308 W NEW YORK AV
a survey and it is not intended to be used as one.
This drawing is a compilation of records, data N O.IHKOIH
and Information located In various city, county
ON THE WATER
and state offices and other sources affecting
the area shown and it is to be used for reference „ , City of Oshkosh
purposes only. The City of Oshkosh is not re- Scale: 1 = 60
sponsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. Department of
If discrepencies are found, please contact the Community Development
City of Oshkosh.
Created by - dff 02/22/10
9
0 ■ GT, rtn i r, r .. . ._ I — 1 t■ ■■I - -.
1 '' 11►' 11111 11111 1111 p1 = 1 ; — �■ , �� "
.. i � mi': �ddn III�NNNNN CEMETERY ./ ■— - r �ITI Y•r!'imilli '� G'1 ?,�
"'_ V ■ -- == —. ■■■ ��1_ 1•� - �.]l I Z 1111
z ! : — -- -: — L'�a�rL3h111L1Ji : it 'l
co L' !Lill 1�= �_� �rw s �"1 :_ i-� ur
.:� �r kd ��'� a o0 . I I . . - ►.T% . 800 . Mill Q � .L1 i It �• .
>' It■► a�u + -,may _■
�■r�s — —_ .7 ■= == -= "� -_ __ = limes■ __� =e
i , r __—_ -■— __ ' i�•,,11�,II■• �— ors n
�♦ ♦� —: " ICs =
w� +� ♦ ♦ /11111111' ������ 111111 ■�: Il•i 11� _- �� 11i1111i1� A, QE's! IIL:I 1
♦ _ _ SUBJECT == == IIIIIIII ■— • -�i —a
, \� ri ������if if l� �� ��rr��■ 11=1 Il'_ SITE __ _■ x:11 %51111 �J
\ X111 ►117 =11111 —_ _= = ■III ■111 �:: �■� �■- 1 11'!!
��. t I 1 ��Illllilllll �— '■-'r — nr
W j.. __ x.1111111:
ii\ � m f!�fll C — == •'11111! - iiiI
�►,, ii = ._._
� �11 ^ — — w r.._ � a r ■ ■. 11111— r
' - r .7 =� r.i •. __ is
r.r ■. ■. _ S ■■II'� 1
.I o - • VE. ♦ of r ■ .. —
�t1 X� �1''iIIIiI,Cf► • Iir,I 111111��e.� 1�:1 If�a a 11'�illl
nlln
rUNUMAa �►' ,�►..,;�� �,► � +`111111, 31111111111 0
— �Ii�laliirlil
lIIIIUII 11111 , '' �, ����� :: . ' C= _� _ ; ��I
. t. 17:411 ..,,
�� �9: II 1d u�i111 S� 'r _ _ _ —,
d1i 1 ♦
G !L i��L'.� ♦ �1 1� e AVE. = t .--, —,
- � \ / �'•� � ♦�' �\ 11 �IIIII�I1111 uN�'C:�L•s•illi ••f� — ,IIIIII !1111
i
MINIMU � Ill!■■\ �1 / . y.. �. ■ . ,
J — —
p � 1, �i lllhiiii�1111111f� — _ = �a� Ll.1�G►j' i
�I� 54i�1 "1'r � � ' 11111111 ■11 �' I�lll�� u■ ,E�. '
53�gL•Il1I — M �p �--■ .,.-.* � _F - n— ��
COOLIDG CG :'ll
■.`�91111eei� fly �! ,' -= == -_ __,., �• �.
•1m9 uutl •111 • _ MAW —� + �� ■+�
L1INWitL1 ib .51■■1 VIII ■r '811 o— ■� m■
r�rar_ 4: 1'1 .1 C.�r♦
;IANINO lsu■11iil IFII mm o • 1 1 i ..� .. r ., r.
Lr113is:L'el i�' L•IlNNIII liar: ��, InJJ c9N1 U►IL' �L.■ .II
� Ills 11 1111 III: �� S ii
III ■ �� ■ i �� '�� mm Oa n - miff
' it ■Illy ■il11■ k f4 \r -� 171 ■■
1!1 ■1 ._• �� tr �,, �11 ►BLit` NO �- r.i t1a til
�rV.111111f.1
' ' II/I/III�IV• f� IN11A�■I■ 1111111_ �_ -- -
y iii 11LLIL3G� f l`'L CC �M
Rio �l ♦ �AIAl11C �IIIIIIII Ii
DISCLAIMER
This map Is neither a legally recorded map nor 1308 W NEW YORK AV
a his d wi ng it hl nct m tended to be used as one. O✓ I�I(Or�
Thb drawi b • compilation of records, data N
and Infonnatlon located In various city, county
and state offlces and other sources affecting o■ THE w.Tm
the arse shown and it Is to be used for reference , City of Oshkosh
purposes only. The City of Oshkosh is not re- Scale. 1 „ = 1000
sponsible for any Inaccuracies herein contained Department of
If discrepancies are found, please contact the Community Development
City of Oshkosh.
Created by - dff 02/22/10
10