HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
Board of Appeals Minutes 1 July 11, 2007 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JULY 11, 2007 PRESENT: Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Cheryl Hentz EXCUSED: Dan Carpenter, Mark Nielsen, Moss Ruedinger,
Edward Wilusz, STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; 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. Minutes were amended as follows: 1) Ms. Hentz requested that pg. 4, paragraph 4, end of first sentence be changed to read “…when she needed to replace
a driveway”; 2) Mr. Penney noted that pg 1, paragraph 4 needed to reflect that he nominated Mr. Cornell for Vice Chairperson and it was seconded by Mr. Carpenter. 3) Mr. Cornell noted
on pg. 16, last paragraph the meeting did not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. as he was excused from the meeting at 5:45 p.m. (pg 15, paragraph 15). Time of adjournment was corrected to be 5:55
p.m. The minutes of June 13, 2007 were then approved as amended. Cornell/Penney 3-0 I. 3121 ELK RIDGE DR Tom Halverson-applicant, Briarwood of Hunters Ridge LLC-owner, request a variance
to permit the creation of a new refuse disposal area located in the front yard with a 28.4’ setback. Section 30-20 (B)(6)(g)(ii)(bb) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: R-3 Multiple Dwelling
District requires accessory structures to have a front yard setback of 60’ minimum. The subject property is zoned R-3 Multiple Dwelling District and is part of a multiple building condominium
development. The general land use pattern in the area is medium-density residential. Mr. Muehrer presented the item. Mr. Tom Halverson, Carow Land Surveying Co. Appleton, applicant and
Mr. Bill Mark, 1990 Universal St, Oshkosh, presented a layout of the property showing the location of the refuse area, and said the reason for the location was so that it would be centrally
located for the convenience of the tenants. The layout included location of all utilities (sewer, water, telephone). Mr. Halverson explained there is a berm to screen the view of the
single-family area to the west. Mr. Halverson passed photos around showing various views of the refuse area in general so that board members could get a sense of the character of the
development. He also said they would install a screening of evergreen trees. Mr. Mark mentioned that the area is currently unlandscaped as it is a project still under construction. He
also explained that the development area in question consists of rental units for 55 years and older, reiterating that the location of the refuse area was thought to provide easier access
to the tenants. He said the
Board of Appeals Minutes 2 July 11, 2007 area is really ideally located for the tenants and also easiest for garbage trucks to get to it without having to enter the development. Ms.
Hentz asked where the City would want the refuse area to be located. Mr. Halverson said he had not received any information from the city in regard to a proper location. Ms. Hentz asked
staff where the refuse area could go to be in compliance. Mr. Penney asked where it would need to be located in order to meet the zoning ordinance. Mr. Muehrer explained how the front
yard area was determined, which is why the refuse area was not within the zoning guideline. He indicated the refuse area would need to be located northwest of its current location. Mr.
Mark said he did not consider the current location as part of the front yard and thought he was within the guidelines of the 25 ft. setback requirement. Mr. Muehrer commented that it
was a unique situation because of the number of principal structures and he was sure it was an honest mistake on the developer’s part. Mr. Penney asked Mr. Halverson if he was aware
he was in violation of the code when he built the refuse area. Mr. Halverson said no. In fact initially when they were determining where the area should be the construction company had
roughed out an area, which was just short of the 25 ft. and Mr. Halverson had them move it back to meet the 25 ft. setback. Mr. Cornell asked if the refuse area could be moved back between
the second and third building from its current location as Mr. Muehrer had indicated. Mr. Halverson said it would bring it closer to the utility lines and also closer to the tenant windows
making it undesirable to do so. Ms. Hentz asked if there was a particular reason the dumpster area wasn’t included in the original plan submitted to the city. Mr. Halverson explained
that the tenants were going to have individual garbage pickup and then the city changed the change for garbage pickup for apartment buildings was changed so they had to go with a centralized
area. Mr. Cornell said he had visited the site and asked Mr. Mark if he didn’t find the area obnoxious to the whole community. Mr. Mark said no, he didn’t. It is enclosed with a fence
and has a sidewalk on the side leading into it and he thought the appearance of it was fine. Mr. Cornell thought it was objectionable to have a dumpster area located in the front yard.
Mr. Mark again indicated he did not realize it was the front yard. He considered it the side yard.
Board of Appeals Minutes 3 July 11, 2007 Mr. Penney said it was not clear to him initially that the builders did not just install the area without thought of where they were putting
it. His opinion of the situation is somewhat affected since the location seems to have been a misinterpretation of the ordinance. Mr. Cornell said it is the contractor’s responsibility
to know what the ordinances are before building and he considered the situation to be self-inflicted. He also thought the current location had a negative impact on the area. He didn’t
feel it was in the best interest of the city or the apartment complex to have a dumpster area in the front yard. Ms. Hentz stated that Midwest General Contractors have many properties
in the city and have been working with city codes right along. Even though they thought they knew what the guidelines were, they should have known to double check with the City since
the area was an “addition” to the original plan. Motion by Mr. Cornell to approve the application. Seconded by Penney. Motion denied 1-2. Ayes-Penney. Nays-Cornell/Hentz II. 143 CHURCH
AVENUE -Withdrawn III. 1059 BISMARCK AVENUE Ms. Julie Pettit-Koch-applicant/owner, requests a variance to permit the creation of an attached patio with a rear yard setback of 14’. Section
30-19 (B)(3)(d) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: R-2 Two Family Residence District requires a 25’ rear yard setback. The subject property is zoned R-2 Two Family Residence District and
is an interior lot located on a cul-desac. The general land use pattern in the area is low-density residential. Single-family homes abut the subject property to the west and south, while
street right-of-way abuts it to the north and a two-family property is to the east. Mr. Muehrer presented the item. Mr. Muehrer then added that a condition has been added to the staff
recommendation for approval. The proposed plan must be formally reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works to eliminate potential conflict with a subdivision drainage plan.
Mr. Muehrer passed out the Subdivision master plan indicating there is a drainage swale in the rear of the property. All storm water is being guided through the swale to the retention
basin located east of the subject property. Public Works does not want any structure built that would alter the drainage pattern. Julie Pettit-Koch, 1059 Bismarck Avenue, petitioner
was present and shared that she would be okay with a 14 ft x 14 ft patio if necessary. Mr. Cornell asked if the fence belonged to the neighbor or to the petitioner. Ms. Pettit-Koch indicated
it belonged to her.
Board of Appeals Minutes 4 July 11, 2007 Mr. Cornell asked if Ms. Pettit-Koch had any neighbors that voiced objections to the reduced setback request. Ms. Pettit-Koch said no. Mr. Penney
referred to pg. 15 and asked for clarification of where the patio would be located. Ms. Pettit-Koch pointed out the area behind the garage. Motion by Cornell to approve the request with
the condition that the proposed plan be reviewed and approved by the Dept. of Public Works prior to installation of the patio. Seconded by Hentz. Motion approved 3-0. Ayes-Cornell/Penney/Hentz.
Nays-None. Ms. Pettit-Koch asked afterward if she would need to have Public Works come to see the proposed location of the patio area. Mr. Muehrer said she just needed to submit the
same information and maps to the Public Works Department that she provided the Board of Appeals. If she wanted to submit it to Mr. Muehrer, he would coordinate with Public Works going
forward. Finding of Facts: No hardship to the neighborhood. The property shape is unique and therefore presents an exceptional situation. IV. 1854 CLIFFVIEW CT Richard & Susan Anderson-applicants/own
ers, request a variance to permit the creation of a utility storage structure with a side yard setback of 3.5’. Section 30-17 (B)(4)(c)(iv) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: R-1 Single
Family Residence District requires a side yard setback of 7.5’. The subject property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District and is an interior lot located on a cul-desac. The
general land use pattern in the area is low-density residential. Single-family homes abut the subject property to the north and south, while street right-of-way abuts it to the west
and a navigable waterway/channel is to the east. Mr. Muehrer presented the item. Ms. Sue Anderson, 1854 Cliffview Ct, petitioner indicated that all details were covered in Mr. Muehrer’s
presentation. Her main concern was the issue of the slope as it begins immediately at the end of the home and it would need a great deal of excavating to create a flat area for the shed.
The neighbors have been supportive of their choice. Ms. Hentz asked if the neighbors were the same ones that wrote the letter of support (the Messers). Ms. Anderson said yes. Mr. Cornell
asked if all items they want to store in the shed are now in the garage.
Board of Appeals Minutes 5 July 11, 2007 Ms. Anderson explained that they are in the process of moving into the Cliffview Ct. location. All items are not at the new home, e.g. snow blower,
wheelbarrow. She also mentioned her husband has physical issues that make it difficult for him to deal with removing larger items that would need to be hung if there were no additional
space. Motion by Penney to approve the request as submitted. Seconded by Cornell. Motion approved 3-0. Ayes-Cornell/Penney/Hentz. . Nays-None. Finding of Facts: The property is unique.
It will not create a hardship on the neighbors. It will improve the property. It is the least variance needed. V. 501-519 E PARKWAY AVE & 526-578 BROAD ST Kurt Koeppler-applicant, Boys
and Girls Club of Oshkosh Inc.-owner, request variances to permit the placement of a baseball backstop within a required transitional yard setback, to construct a 6’ high fence in the
front yard setback, and to construct 10’ high fences in the side yard and rear yard setbacks. Section 30-35(B)(1) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Additional Standards and Exceptions requires
less restrictive uses abutting more restrictive uses to provide a transitional buffer yard area between them and requires the deepest yard setback on mixed zoning blocks. Also, Section
30-35 (E) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Additional Standards and Exceptions limits fence height to 4’in required front yards and 6’ high in other required setbacks. The subject 2.7-acre
site is made up of 3 different zoning districts including C-1 Neighborhood Business District, R-2 Two Family Residence District and M-2 Central Industrial District. It is currently developed
with buildings used for the Boys and Girls Club and for Headstart. Broad Street borders the parcel on the west, East Parkway Avenue on the north, single-family homes to the east, and
a two family home to the south. The general area can be characterized as a low-density residential. Mr. Muehrer presented the item. Included in the staff recommendation are the following
conditions: a. All individual parcels encompassed on the site plan are combined, and b. Property is rezoned to make the zoning designation consistent with the use. Ms. Hentz asked staff
how the property gets rezoned. Mr. Muehrer said it goes in front of the Plan Commission and then in front of the Common Council. Ms. Hentz commented that no work could be done then until
the rezoning was completed. Mr. Cornell asked what the zoning designation would be. Mr. Muehrer said they could go to R-2 or C-2. It would be a matter of staff meeting with the applicant
to determine what would be appropriate. Mr. Kurt Koeppler, 1726 River Mill Rd, Oshkosh, petitioner and Mr. Marc Dosogne, CEO Boys & Girls Club of Oshkosh, 501 E Parkway Ave, were present
to answer questions.
Board of Appeals Minutes 6 July 11, 2007 Mr. Koeppler explained that acquiring the property to the south took longer than expected and therefore the time expired on the previously approved
variance. He went on to explain the primary reason for the change in the variance request from the previous request is for the 10’ high chain link fence. The Trails End Bar will be the
neighbor to the south. It is a bar that serves liquor and the higher fence would provide safety for the children. The bar has a horseshoe pit behind it as well and they didn’t want a
problem with balls potentially going over a shorter fence causing problems. The change on Broad St from a 4’ high fence to a 6’ high fence in the front yard setback is for several reasons.
A 4’ high fence would be too easy for children to climb over to chase after a ball. Although staff is always present, it’s possible they would not be able to get to a child before they
got over a shorter fence. The 6’ high fence also would prevent anyone from being able to reach over and snatch a child. Mr. Koeppler asked that the staff reconsider their requirement
that the lots be combined before they begin the project. This was not required in the past. He said they would be more than willing to sign an affidavit that the rezoning will be done
or whatever the city would need in order for them to proceed prior to the approval. He voiced concern that the rezoning application requires two readings for the Plan Commission and
then is subject to two readings by the Common Council. He requested that they be granted an exception in regard to the rezoning process so that they could begin the project, specifically
as time is a factor in getting grass established. If grass cannot be started until spring of ’08 it will render the ball diamond useless for the year as it takes that long for grass
to be established. This would necessitate going off site to a public ball diamond requiring additional expenses for transportation. He said for every dollar spent on gas it is one less
dollar spent to clothe or feed a child. Mr. Koeppler questioned if it was possible to remove the recommendation or give them leeway so they could move forward with the project. He further
stated that there is legal work that needs to be done in advance of presenting it to the Plan Commission. The Boys and Girls Club has done the same thing in the past per request by planning
because they’ve had so many different parcels combined due to expansion. Ms. Hentz asked Mr. Koeppler if the only condition he has concerns with was the first one, requiring combination
of the parcels. Mr. Koeppler said he did not completely understand which condition would be the main concern. He would like to be able to proceed with the project as quickly as possible,
whatever that might require. Ms. Hentz asked if he wanted to proceed before the parcels are combined. Mr. Koeppler said yes. Ms. Hentz asked staff what the reasoning was behind the first
condition. Mr. Muehrer said it was to make the properties as consistent and clean as possible. Mr. Muehrer offered to confer with Mr. Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services to
see if he could get an answer to Mr. Koeppler’s request. Ms. Hentz asked staff what would happen if the condition was not required prior to proceeding and an affidavit was signed by
the Boys & Girls Club indicating they would have the parcels combined and then something happened where it did not occur. Is it possible it would not be approved to combine the parcels?
Mr. Muehrer said it was not a concern.
Board of Appeals Minutes 7 July 11, 2007 Mr. Muehrer then left the meeting to relay the request to Mr. Burich. Mr. Cornell commented that the request is no different than what was submitted
a year ago except for the height of the fence. Mr. Koeppler confirmed that was correct. He presented a layout showing the properties and where the fences would be. The previous request
was for a 6’ high fence and was approved. Ms. Hentz asked if the 10 ft. fence would have a sloped top. Mr. Koeppler said no. The 6’ high fence would have a protective top, depending
upon recommendations from the people providing the equipment. It will also take care of safety issues. Mr. Cornell voiced his understanding that the new fences would be on the south
and west side of the property. Mr. Koeppler said yes. There already is a fence on the east side. Mr. Muehrer returned to the meeting and conveyed Mr. Burich’s recommendation that the
applicant submit the application to combine the properties and secure the rezoning and then could proceed with the work. Mr. Burich was not comfortable with removing the condition completely
as it could tie the City’s hands from doing anything if the application wasn’t filed. Ms. Hentz then asked if they pull an application to do the work could they drop the first condition?
Mr. Muehrer said no. The first two conditions would need to stay in place. They would essentially need to come in and submit the application for rezoning. Mr. Koeppler asked if they
apply for the rezoning does that also accomplish the first condition? Mr. Muehrer said yes. Essentially it is an all-in-one process. Ms. Hentz stated that this still did not solve the
issue of them beginning work prior to the approval of their application. There would still be the delay for approval and they would lose one season of baseball. Mr. Muehrer clarified
that as long as they are pursuing the rezoning it is okay for them to go ahead. Ms. Hentz voiced confusion because Mr. Muerher’s original statement indicated they would need to complete
the process of approval before they could proceed with the project. Mr. Muehrer said Mr. Burich indicated that would not have to be the case. It would be a conditional approval and they
could proceed with the project as soon as the application was filed. Mr. Cornell asked if it was necessary to amend the first condition or would it be a third condition. Mr. Muehrer
said they could add a third condition.
Board of Appeals Minutes 8 July 11, 2007 Mr. Cornell said he thought it important that the 3rd condition make it clear that the applicant can proceed with the project. After brief discussion
it was determined that the 3rd condition would be as follows: c. Applicant/owner must submit a rezoning application prior to construction of work. Work may commence immediately upon
submission of the application. However, application and variance becomes null and void if conditions a and b are not met. Mr. Koeppler asked if an Occupancy Permit would be required.
If it were then that would take care checking that all was done. Mr. Muehrer said Mr. Allyn Danhoff, Director of Inspections would be the one to answer that question for sure. The general
consensus of the board was that one would not be needed. Mr. Penney said he will be abstaining from the vote because his wife is the Administrative Assistant at the Boys and Girls Club
and he did not want there to be any perception of impropriety. Ms. Hentz moved to approve the the request with the three conditions. Seconded by Mr. Cornell. Mr. Penney abstained due
to conflict of interest. He explained that his wife works for the Boys & Girls Club. Motion approved 2-0 Ayes-Cornell/Hentz. Nays-None. Findings of Fact: The higher fences will provide
safety for the children. The neighboring bar is being taken into consideration. The project will remove property that is in deplorable condition. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Hentz began other
business with the discussion regarding the name of the board. She mentioned the name was changed from Board of Zoning Appeals to Board of Appeals 3 to 4 years ago because of hearings
not related to zoning variance requests. Ms. Hentz voiced concern that the title was not consistent throughout city documents and requested that staff be responsible for changing the
title in the Municipal Codes where it is still listed as Board of Zoning Appeals. She suggested that this would need to be done through the City Council. Ms. Hentz asked that all other
changes made to the Procedures and Regulations during the organizational meeting in June be completed and revised copies be made available at the August Board of Appeals meeting for
final approval. She did not feel it was necessary for the city attorney to review the changes as recommended by Mr. Muehrer. Ms. Hentz mentioned that they have not received clarification
regarding Article 8.”rendering decision within 30 days from a hearing.” She indicated that she thought this referred to when there was a hearing and did not apply to zoning requests.
She indicated she still wanted clarification on this article.
Board of Appeals Minutes 9 July 11, 2007 Mr. Penney referred to page 1 where it was clear that decisions regarding zoning requests were required to be rendered during the meeting. Ms.
Hentz requested that the reminder to call staff for meeting attendance be included every month in the packet. Mr. Penney asked why alternates were not contacted for the July meeting.
Ms. Gehrke explained that Mr.Wilusz had responded that he would be attending and since there was a majority she did not contact an alternate. Mr. Penney thought alternates should be
contacted as long as a full board was not expected to be present since up to five members can vote. Mr. Cornell asked if it would be extra work for Ms. Gehrke to contact the alternates
to find out why they did not show up or call. Ms. Gehrke said her understanding was that they were not required to call because they were alternates and therefore only contacted if they
were needed. Mr. Penney then said he thought there should be five people at the meeting if possible and if there are only four then an alternate should be called. Mr. Cornell voiced
his opinion that the alternates should be present at every meeting to provide their input during discussion. If they cannot vote then at that point they could leave. Ms. Hentz agreed
with Mr. Cornell. She used the analogy of being like a judge and jury where the alternates sit through the entire trial and if they are not needed they are dismissed before the vote.
Mr. Cornell said he never missed a meeting as an alternate because by attending the meetings he became more familiar with the ordinances and comfortable with the procedures. He feels
he is a more effective member because of it. Ms. Gehrke said she could change the cover notice because it does imply that the alternates do not have to call in and that they are not
expected to attend unless they are contacted. Ms. Hentz said that even if someone can’t come to every meeting, everyone’s input is important. To have everyone in attendance to discuss
the Policy and Procedures, for instance, would have been helpful. Mr. Cornell suggested that the notice be altered so that all members, including alternates need to call if they cannot
attend the meeting. Mr. Penney thought it should read “all members including alternates…” Ms. Hentz said she would like to see everyone at the annual reorganization meeting in June.
Mr. Cornell suggested the notice sent for that meeting could state that all members are requested to be in attendance.
Board of Appeals Minutes 10 July 11, 2007 Discussion continued regarding attendance of alternates. Ms. Gehrke mentioned that her understanding when she began was that Mr. Ruedinger did
not want to attend if he could not vote. Ms. Hentz asked if he was the first or second alternate. Ms. Gehrke clarified he was the first alternate. She went on to say that when he was
contacted in the past he would request that the second alternate be contacted to see if they could make it and if they couldn’t then Ms. Gehrke was to call him back. Mr. Cornell commented
that he thought this was extra work that was not necessary. Ms. Hentz said she wished she had known this prior to the Mayor making committee appointments and suggested he be contacted
for further discussion. Mr. Muehrer said it was appropriate for Ms. Hentz as Chairperson to contact Mr. Ruedinger. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Cornell/Penney 3-0. Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator