HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
Board of Appeals Minutes 1 August 8, 2007 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES AUGUST 8, 2007 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Moss Ruedinger, Edward Wilusz, Cheryl Hentz EXCUSED:
Mark Nielsen STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Susan Kepplinger, Principal Planner Karin Gehrke, Recording Secretary Chairperson Hentz called the meeting to
order at 3:35 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of July 11, 2007 were approved as submitted. Cornell/Penney 5-0 I. 143 CHURCH AVE Scott and Nicole Brayton,
applicants and owners, are requesting a variance to construct a 19’2”, two story detached garage in their rear yard, whereas section 30-22(B)(6)(b)(i) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance,
R-5 Multiple Dwelling District requires detached garages be restricted to one story and 18’ in height. Mr. Muehrer presented the item. Mr. Scott Brayton, 143 Church Avenue, applicant,
explained he is asking for a variance for a 1-1/2 story garage for storage purposes. The architecture on the outside of the structure was not of specific concern to him. He was more
concerned with getting the additional 1-1/2 feet for storage use. Because of the additional height the building would be easier to construct if a floor was installed. Mr. Cornell mentioned
there is partial construction on the site and questioned if that was the structure in question. Mr. Brayton affirmed it was. Mr. Cornell asked why they were using vinyl siding when the
idea was to construct a “carriage house.” Mr. Brayton said that the vinyl siding currently available looks the same as cedar siding and after final touches were added, e.g. finials that
the building would look appropriate. Mr. Penney asked if the garage was a two-story. Mr. Brayton said, no, it would be 1-1/2 story. Mr. Penney asked how the upper level would be accessed.
Board of Appeals Minutes 2 August 8, 2007 Mr. Brayton said there would be a pull-down ladder. He went on to explain that the basement of the house is too low to use as a workspace and
the garage would provide space for that as well. Mr. Brayton then referred to the letter sent by his neighbor, Nick Jensen that indicated Mr. Jensen’s support of the project and his
appreciation for the improvements the Braytons had already made to the property. Mr. Penney asked staff why the standard height is 18 ft. Ms. Kepplinger indicated that it reflected the
current code. Mr. Wilusz mentioned it is a State code. Mr. Brayton said if necessary he would be willing to lower the garage by ½ foot. Ms. Hentz asked where they are currently parking.
Mr. Brayton said they are parking on the side of the house and that there is space there for four vehicles. Mr. Carpenter asked staff if the issue was the 14” additional height or the
siding. Ms. Kepplinger explained that part of the issue is that there was not a structure there previously. There had been three (3) previous variance requests presented to the Board
of Appeals for carriage house structures, one on Algoma Blvd and two on Franklin Street. She explained that the Board always wants to be respectful of the scale of the house in relation
to the lot and to afford the owner the opportunity to have a carriage house if there had been one on the site before rather than a small garage that would not fit the size of the lot
or the character of the house. She went on to explain that because of her longevity with the planning department and her experience with historic buildings in the city that she wrote
the staff report. Mr. Penney asked if the carriage house at 125 Church Ave was illegal. Ms. Kepplinger said it was legal non-conforming. It was built before the current zoning law came
into effect. She said all the other carriage houses in the city existed before the zoning law other than those that received a variance approval. The three that received variances were
all in historic districts. She mentioned that the applicant had come in for assistance and in the process of driving through the city for examples to give Mr. Brayton she noticed the
one at 125 Church Street. Ms. Hentz then asked if her concern was more aesthetic than anything else. Ms. Kepplinger said yes. Ms. Hentz asked if her concerns would be alleviated if Mr.
Brayton lowered the building. Ms. Kepplinger said even if he lowered the garage to 18 feet (which is code compliant) he would still need a variance to have the floor inside creating
two levels. Mr. Wilusz said his concern is whether or not there is a hardship and does it qualify for a variance. He referred to the first question of the guidelines, “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, setbacks, frontage, height,
bulk or density would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the
Board of Appeals Minutes 3 August 8, 2007 property for a permitted purpose or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome.” He did not feel there was anything
that qualified as a hardship and could not support the request. Ms. Hentz indicated she wanted as much input from the board members as possible and was inclined to agree with Mr. Wilusz
but thought the property was unique in that the lot is small. Mr. Cornell concurred with Mr. Wilusz and said the different between an 18 ft garage and a 19’ 2’ (14”) was not worth the
time to discuss it. Mr. Carpenter asked if there could not be a floor if the garage was 18 ft. high. Mr. Muehrer said that was correct, no upper floor is allowed. The guideline is 18’
and one story. Mr. Carpenter referred to the applicant’s reference to his low basement and the lack of workspace and storage in the house. He asked what the dimensions of the garage
would be. Mr. Muehrer said 24 ft. X 17 ft. Mr. Carpenter asked if the garage could be any bigger. Mr. Muehrer said no, it would infringe on setback guidelines if it were larger. Mr.
Carpenter said 24 ft. x 17 ft. gives just barely enough room for 2 cars. He thought the small size of the lot and the fact that there is no useable basement in the house constituted
a hardship. He asked if the other carriage house had a floor in it. Mr. Muehrer presumed it did. Mr. Carpenter asked if the other garages in the area were two-car garages. Mr. Muehrer
said yes. Mr. Penney asked why two stories were not allowed. Mr. Muehrer thought it was to prevent the owner from turning it into an apartment. Mr. Wilusz asked if he had a two-story
garage without a floor could he create access to the second area. Mr. Muehrer said he would need to consult with the inspection department to answer that question. Ms. Hentz mentioned
if there were rafters in the garage he would potentially be able to store things without even having to construct an access. He could just use a ladder. She asked Mr. Brayton what types
of things he wanted to store. Mr. Brayton said, bicycles, seasonal items such as lawnmowers furniture, carpets, etc. He indicated that with the bed and breakfast oftentimes they would
be switching out furniture in the rooms. He went on to say that the basement is damp and miserable to be in.
Board of Appeals Minutes 4 August 8, 2007 Mr. Brayton showed a picture of a garage with windows that is on Franklin St. and was approved 3-4 years ago. He indicated he is not asking
for anything nearly as large as that one. He went on to say that he is really asking for a two-story garage, not a carriage house. He does intend to have the garage blend with the house
and would be adding wood to the façade. The trim will be wood and painted the same color as the house trim. Mr. Penney asked if the Board had the authority to override a State code.
Ms. Hentz said yes if it met the hardship criteria. Mr. Carpenter said the limited space for parking (four cars), the 2-car garage combined with the limited space in the basement seemed
like a hardship to him. He also said having the additional storage space in the garage will eliminate the need to store items outside. Mr. Penney said he drove by the property and Mr.
Brayton should be commended for the improvements made to the property. He said he did not see how the larger size of the garage would detract from the appearance of the property. He
felt it would add to the value of the property. Ms. Hentz said she is leaning in the direction of approval due to the uniqueness of the property and the hardship discussed as they relate
to the variance review questions. She indicated she would want the owner to reduce the height of the garage by 6” as he said he would be willing to do. Further, she would like to see
this as an amendment to the approval. This would make the height of the building 18’ 8” instead of 19’ 2”. Mr. Cornell asked if the building exceeds 18 ft. is it automatically considered
a two-story building. Mr. Muehrer indicated the building would be 1-1/2 stories and said the amendment should read “not to exceed 1-1/2 stories and 18’8” in height. Motion by Ms. Hentz
to approve the application with the following condition a. The building “is not to exceed 1-1/2 stories and 18’8” in height. Seconded by Wilusz. Motion carried 3-2. Ayes-Carpenter/Penney/Hentz.
Nays-Cornell/Wilusz Finding of Facts: There are unique limitations to the property. The building will be aesthetically appealing. There is no harmful effect to the neighborhood. II.
601 W 6TH AVE Mark Showers-applicant/owner, requests the following variances to permit the creation of a new single-story office building with off-street parking: Required (Section 30-35
(B)(1)(c)) Approved (06/13/07) Requested 25’ transitional yard setback (north-bldg) 14’ transitional yard setback No change 25’ transitional yard setback (north-park) 14’ transitional
yard setback 9’ transitional yard 19’3” transitional yard setback (west-park) 4’10” transitional yard setback 2’10” transitional yard 19’3” transitional yard setback (west-bldg) Not
requested 17’4” transitional yard 19’3” transitional yard setback (south) 10’ transitional yard setback No change
Board of Appeals Minutes 5 August 8, 2007 Required (Section 30-36 C(3)(e)) Approved (06/13/07) 18’ parking space depth 16’ parking space depth No change Ms. Hentz asked that because
the last variance request was approved, this current request would be considered the first request not the third as indicated on the staff report. Mr. Muehrer confirmed that he had consulted
with other staff and determined that was correct. Mr. Muehrer presented the item. Mr. Mark Showers, 3011 Mockingbird Way, Oshkosh, petitioner and owner, and Mr.Charles Showers, 619 W.
19th Ave, Oshkosh were present and passed out new drawings for the building. Mr. Charles Showers indicated that the Public Works Department had concerns regarding parking lot drainage.
The new code requires the driveway to be 120 feet from the corner and it is only 68 feet away. That is why the entrance to the parking area has been reduced from 24 feet to 12 feet.
The size of the handicapped parking stall was standard width of 9 feet and needed to be 14 feet wide so the grassy area on 6th Avenue to the west was reduced in depth from 14 feet to
9 feet. Also the building can be right up to the sidewalk but that includes the overhands so the building needed to be moved 2’ in from the sidewalk. Mr. Mark Showers indicated he had
already signed paperwork with the Public Works Dept. allowing the city access for the handicapped sidewalk. Mr. Charles Showers said the building is improved because of being 2 feet
in from the sidewalk and they are now able to have a basement under the building. Mr. Carpenter said that he was bothered by the fact that the building was going to be right up against
the sidewalk. He is pleased that it is moved in by 2 feet. Mr. Cornell commented that there had been much discussion about the project at the previous presentations and would move to
accept the item. Motion by Cornell to approve the request with the condition that property owner shall cooperate with the Department of Public Works in providing additional area for
the construction of sidewalk and handicap ramps at the corner of W. 6th Avenue and Ohio St. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion approved 5-0. Ayes-Wilusz/Carpenter/Cornell/Penney/Hentz. Nays-None.
Finding of Facts: There is no harm to the neighborhood. The property has limitations due to size and corner location. Project will be aesthetically appealing and will enhance the area.
There will be improved safety with the handicapped sidewalk access. III. 2005 PARKSIDE DR Erwin Warnke-applicant/owner, requests a variance to reduce the number of required off-street
parking spaces. Section 30-36 (B)(8) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Off-Street Parking requires two family dwellings to provide two parking spaces for each unit up to three bedrooms
plus an additional one-half parking space per bedroom for a unit with more than three bedrooms.
Board of Appeals Minutes 6 August 8, 2007 Mr. Muehrer presented the item. Ms. Hentz asked staff what the reasoning was for the added condition requiring the owner to remove the ramp
when the tenant moves. Mr. Muehrer said it would provide an additional covered parking space. Mr. Todd Paschke, 432 W. 5th St., builder and Mr. Erwin Warnke, 5120 Striech Ln., petitioner/owner
came forward to provide additional information and answer any question. Ms. Hentz asked Mr. Paschke what company he was with. Mr. Paschke said he is with Lay-Rite Masonry & Concrete.
Mr. Paschke told the board that if the ramp was installed outside it would need to be 18’ long . Also, by being installed in the garage it will eliminate snow removal in winter since
it will be inside. There is room as well, along side the garage for two vehicles to park so the space in the garage is not needed. They will also be installing an electric garage door
opener for easy access. Mr. Penney asked how long the tenant has lived there. Mr. Warnke said six six months. Mr. Penny asked how the tenant has been getting around now. Mr. Paschke
said she uses a walker and there was a ramp previously outside but that it was not adequate. He also mentioned that the tenant’s sister and brother-in-law live across the parking lot.
Ms. Hentz asked staff if there was a way to ensure that the ramp comes down when the current tenant leaves. Mr. Muehrer said the owner is basically on their honor to remove it. Ms. Hentz
said with items like this in the past there was a way to add something to the title so that the situation would be reversed when the property was sold. Mr. Cornell said the assessor’s
office would be the ideal place to make such a note. Mr. Penney questioned why the condition would need to be part of it. If someone else rents the unit and doesn’t want the ramp it
would be removed at that point. Mr. Cornell commended the owners for installing the ramp and thought having it inside was ideal. The fact that it was being built to be easily removed
will make it easier to remove it to accommodate a different tenant or when the current owner would sell the building. Mr. Penney said the fact that it is removable is important but he
still had a problem with forcing them to remove it afterwards. Mr. Carpenter said he saw no way of doing other than to put it on the title.
Board of Appeals Minutes 7 August 8, 2007 Mr. Muehrer said there is a way to flag the property file in the inspection office so he will check with the assessor’s office to find out if
there is a way to flag it through them also. Ms. Hentz agreed that would be the appropriate place to flag the file if it is going to be a condition of the approval. Mr. Muehrer said
it is required because the ramp eliminates a parking space. Mr. Penney again questioned if the condition needed to be part of the approval. He felt the situation would be self-correcting.
Mr. Wilusz asked if the owner would have to go through the approval process again if the ramp is removed and then the next tenant needed it. Mr. Muehrer explained that when a ramp is
built outside the code reads that the zoning administrator “may periodically require verification of the continual need of the handicap ramp and if it is not he can order it’s immediate
removal.” So the owner would technically have to go through the process to have it re-installed. Mr. Muehrer went on to say that if the board members wanted an amendment on the condition
that allows them to keep the ramp if the next tenant needs it they could do that. Mr. Wilusz suggested they “parrot” the same wording as Mr. Muehrer quoted and not add an amendment for
future tenants. Mr. Penney asked if the condition to remove the ramp is because it is taking up a parking space. Mr. Muehrer said yes. Mr. Penney again said he questioned if the condition
was needed feeling that the situation would be selfcorrecting if the next tenant did not need it. Mr. Wilusz agreed that the cleanest way to handle it would be to eliminate the condition
and allow it to resolve itself. Mr. Ruedinger thought they needed to insure that the financial responsibility to remove the ramp stays with the owner. If another tenant moves in and
doesn’t have the foresight to ask for the ramp to be removed as a contingency to renting the unit, the current owner could place the burden on them to pay for it’s removal. Mr. Cornell
said if the property stayed with the current owner there wouldn’t be an issue. He felt it was important that the next owner be protected from having to deal with the issue and the only
way to insure that the ramp was removed at time of sale would be to flag the file. Mr. Carpenter said he did not have a problem with the condition but had concerns with staff having
to follow up to be sure it was adhered to. Ms. Hentz said they have dealt with similar situations many times before and did not feel it was an issue. The way the condition is worded
only requires the file to be flagged if it is possible to do so.
Board of Appeals Minutes 8 August 8, 2007 Motion by Carpenter to approve the request with the condition that “the handicap ramp shall be removed immediately by the property owner once
the current tenant no longer resides at the property This condition shall be noted on the property file in the city assessor’s office if and wherever possible. Seconded by Cornell Motion
approved 5-0. Ayes-Wilusz/Carpenter/Cornell/Penney/Hentz. Nays-None. Finding of Facts: Provides access for a handicapped individual. It will not create a hardship on the neighbors with
interior installation. It is a unique situation. IV. 3450 VINLAND STREET Wisconsin Independent Christian Schools-applicant, Oshkosh Christian School-owner, requests a variance to permit
the creation of a sign with a front yard setback of 15’. Section 30-17 (B)(2)(c) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: R-1 Single Family Residence District requires a front yard setback of
25’. Mr. Muehrer presented the item. Mr. Michael Stratz, 2750 Killarney Ct., Building and Grounds Chairman for the Oshkosh Christian School was present to answer questions. Mr. Stratz
explained that the landscaped mound was designed specifically for the current sign. Unfortunately it is difficult to see the sign when driving by because the driver has to turn one way
or the other to see it. Most schools now have reader boards that are more helpful to parents. If the new sign is moved back 10 feet there will still be a visibility problem even with
the sign turned and the mound would need to be moved as well. If it is moved further south there is a problem with underground utility lines coming in from the street. Mr. Cornell asked
if the new sign is the same size or larger. Mr. Stratz said the current sign is 4 ft. x 8 ft. The new one will be configured differently. It will be longer and have a header with a roof
on the top. The top part will be larger but the bottom part will be smaller. The maximum size the reader board can be is 24 square feet so they decided it would be 4 ft. x 6 ft. Mr.
Cornell asked if the current sign has a 15 ft. setback. Mr. Stratz said yes. They are proposing that the new sign would not be closer than that. It will fit on the current landscaped
mound. Mr. Cornell asked if the current vegetation would be a problem because of turning the sign. Mr. Stratz said only 1 bush will need to be removed. Mr. Penney mentioned that setting
the sign further back would cause safety issues. Ms. Hentz agreed.
Board of Appeals Minutes 9 August 8, 2007 Mr. Penney moved to approve the request. Seconded by Mr. Wilusz. Motion approved 5-0 Ayes-Wilusz/Carpenter/Cornell/Penney/Hentz. Nays-None.
Findings of Fact: Having the sign set further back presents a safety issue. There is no adverse affect to the neighborhood by leaving it at its current setback. The least possible variance
is being granted. V. 802 EASTMAN STREET Lowell L. & Jay L. Bruggink-applicant/owner, request a variance to permit the creation of an off-street parking area within required setbacks.
Section 30-36(C)(5) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Off-Street Parking requires uncovered parking spaces to comply with the front, rear, and side yard setbacks of the principal structure
and be screened in accordance with Section 30-35 (I). Mr. Muehrer presented the item Mr. Muehrer then read a letter from Steven and Gudrun Hemminghaus, owners of 224 E. Lincoln Ave.
that questioned the location and size of the driveway approach. He went on to explain that the code only allows for a 24’ wide approach. Ms. Hentz asked what their actual concern was.
Mr. Muehrer said the Hemminghaus’ concern is that the driveway approach would be expanded from the existing location. Ms. Hentz then asked if the driveway needed to be asphalt or concrete.
Mr. Muehrer said it could be either, as long as it is a dust free surface. Mssrs. Lowell and Jay Bruggink, 802 Eastman St., owners were present to answer questions. Mr. Lowell Bruggink
confirmed that there would be a new curb cut 24’ wide. Mr. Jay Bruggink said the new driveway would be made of concrete, as he does not like the appearance of asphalt. Mr. Lowell Bruggink
commented that the property will look much better and it will make parking for four vehicles much easier. Mr. Cornell asked if the new access would be in the same location. Mr. Lowell
Bruggink said it would be moved 10 ft. south of the current location but would be no larger than 24 feet wide. Mr. Wilusz moved to approve the request. Seconded by Mr. Cornell. Motion
approved 5-0 Ayes-Wilusz/Carpenter/Cornell/Penney/Hentz. Nays-None.
Board of Appeals Minutes 10 August 8, 2007 Findings of Fact: There is a hardship with the substandard lot. The new parking area will enhance the value of the property. There is no adverse
impact on the neighborhood. The request asks for the least required variance. DISCUSSION OF BOA PROCEDURES Mr. Muehrer began by discussing the memo from Warren Kraft, City Attorney that
discussed the 30-day rule for board of appeals decisions as mentioned in Article VIII. The memo clarifies that the 30-day rule is not a statutory requirement. The 30-day clock for an
appeal does begin from the time the decision is transmitted. Ms. Hentz asked that a copy of the email from Attorney Kraft be kept attached to the Procedures and Regulations for easy
reference if the question comes up again. Ms. Hentz then commented that she would like to have the Order of Business (as presented in Article V. #2 on page 3 of the Procedures and Regulations)
as well as the Order of Business for Appeals (as listed in Article III #3 on page 2) separated out so as to have easy access to the format to follow when running the meeting. She suggested
that these guidelines be available on separate sheets for easy reference. Mr. Carpenter asked for clarification of the title for the board – Board of Appeals or Board of Zoning Appeals.
Ms. Hentz mentioned that the title was corrected to be Board of Appeals as that is the way it is listed in the statutes and to change the title would require approval by the City Council.
Ms. Gehrke distributed corrected copies of the Procedures and Regulations explaining that Article VIII #2 (Voting) as presented in the mailed version was incorrect. There being no further
business, the meeting adjourned at 5:02 p.m. Carpenter/Cornell 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator