Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MARCH 14, 2007 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Larry Lang, Dennis Penney, Cheryl Hentz EXCUSED: Moss Ruedinger, Edward Wilusz STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Susan Kepplinger, Principal Planner; David Buck, Principal Planner; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary; Karin Gehrke, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. by Chairperson Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of February 14, 2007 were approved as distributed. Cornell/Carpenter 5-0. I. 908 WISCONSIN STREET Gregory R. Kargus-applicant, Kargus Properties LLC-owner, requested numerous variances to permit the creation of a new single-family dwelling with a two space off street parking area. The following variance requests were related to the proposed new single-family dwelling: Required (Section 30-19 (B)(3)) Proposed I) 25’ front yard setback 9’ front yard setback II) 25’ rear yard setback 3’ rear yard setback III) 7½’side yard setback 3’ side yard setback The following variance requests were related to the proposed two space off street parking area: Required (Section 30-36 (C)(5)) Proposed I) 25’ front yard setback 21’ front yard setback II) 25’ rear yard setback 3’ rear yard setback III) 7½’ side yard setback 3’ side yard setback IV) 12’ maximum driveway width 15’ driveway width Required (Section 30-35 (I)(2)) Proposed IV) Solid fence, solid wall or dense Existing chain link fencing hedge/evergreen shrub border at least fence 5’ high along all lot lines abutting a residential district, except in the required front yard setback Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed colored photos of the site. Ms. Hentz asked if the board members wanted to consider the item as a whole or in parts, as there were numerous variances. All members indicated they would consider it as a whole. Greg Kargus, 2934 Shorewood Dr. indicated the new house would be smaller than the current footprint. He has owned the property since 1989 and has had four (4) students with four (4) cars at that site with no problems. Mr. Kargus did not have plans drawn up to present because he did not want the expense unless he would be able to proceed. Mr. Kargus presented pictures of other properties in the neighborhood (1003 Wright St. and 400 Scott St.) that had been built recently that did not meet the current code and indicated the new structure was not any worse than the examples he presented. He had talked with the neighbor to the east about purchasing the lot but the neighbor is not interested. Mr. Kargus indicated if he could not develop the lot he would just “let it go.” Mr. Lang asked if the property was insured. Mr. Kargus said yes. Mr. Penney questioned the value of the lot. Mr. Kargus indicated he did not know the assessed value but to him it was worthless if he could not develop it. Mr. Penney also questioned how deep the lot was on Wright St. that Mr. Kargus was using as an example. Mr. Kargus responded that he was not sure but it was deeper than his property on Wisconsin St. Mr. Lang questioned who owned the property to the south and if they had been approached regarding a potential purchase of the lot. Mr. Kargus said he owned that property (i.e. 522 Scott St.) but he did not want to combine the lots as he does not want the additional tax burden. Ms. Hentz questioned if he could build something smaller on the the lot. Mr. Kargus said it would not pay to build smaller as the rent for a single-family home would not meet the mortgage. Ms. Hentz asked Ms. Kepplinger to comment on the pictures Mr. Kargus brought. Ms. Kepplinger indicated that the property at 400 Scott St. was built with variances but that the lot was large enough to provide ample parking and fencing. She also stated that this home was constructed prior to the downzoning of this area in 2001. Ms. Hentz explained that each item brought before the board is required to be considered on its own merits and cannot be compared to other situations. Mr. Lang voiced his experience with the chronic parking problems in the University area. He noted that he visited the site and thought it could have potential with creative use. Mr. Lang further stated that comparative properties do not sway him to vote in favor. This is an opportunity to take a nonconforming property and correct a bad situation. Mr. Penney said ordinances are in place for a purpose and that years ago people could build “helter skelter”. The situation with the property is so far off base that he could not support it. Ms. Ms. Hentz echoed her colleagues’ comments and suggested to Mr. Kargus that a single family home that fits would have value. It may not be appropriate for student housing. Motion by Lang to approve the request for numerous variances to permit the creation of a new single-family dwelling with a two space off street parking area. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion denied 0-5. Ayes-None. Nays-Carpenter/Cornell/Lang/Penney/Hentz. II. 516 W. 6TH AVENUE Pat O’Neill, Andy & Art Dumke-applicants, 522 W. 6th Avenue LLC-owner, request variances to permit a parking lot with a 19’ front yard setback, an 8’ rear yard setback, and side yard setbacks of 0’ (west) and 8’ (east). Section 30-19 (B)(2) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: R-2 Two Family Residence District requires a 25’ front yard setback and a 10’ side yard (west) setback. Additionally, section 30-35 (B)(1) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Additional Standards and Exceptions requires a 19’2” transitional buffer side yard (east) setback and a 25’transitional buffer rear yard setback. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and photos were distributed to the board members. Mr. Muehrer indicated that Mr. Russell O’Neill, the property owner to the north requested that the plantings be located on the inside of the proposed fencing as he may want to put his own fencing up and it would not make sense to have the plantings in between two fences. Discussion ensued regarding the use of plantings outside or inside the fencing. Mr. Muehrer said it is usually a matter of either fencing or plantings acting as a buffer, not both. In this case since the applicant was proposing both, staff felt it was more advantageous for the property owner to have the fence at the property line because it would allow the property owner more room for snow removal/storage. Mr. Carpenter asked if plantings were on the outside of the fence, who is responsible for maintaining the landscaping. Mr. Muehrer indicated it is the property owner’s responsibility to maintain landscaping on their lot. Ms. Hentz and Mr. Lang both questioned if the applicant was aware of conditions a through d. Mr. Muehrer assured them that the applicant was aware of the conditions and that he had not heard from the applicant. Mr. Buck added that he had been working with the applicant on the conditional use permit for this site. In their discussions, Mr. Buck indicated the applicant did not object to the the conditions and the applicant would place the landscaping wherever the board felt it was most appropriate. Mr. Carpenter stated that he felt that granting this variance would be beneficial as it would eliminate parking on the street. Mr. Lang voiced concerns that the neighbor to the east was not present and would be subject to seeing a fence rather than plantings. He felt the neighbor should be notified. Motion by Cornell to approve the request to permit a parking lot with the aforementioned front, rear and side yard setbacks with the following conditions: (a) Conditional Use Permit be granted by the Common Council. (b) Fence style to be approved by the Department of Community Development. (c) Fence to be located on the outside of the landscape buffer along the north and east lot lines. (d) Landscaping to include plantings between the parking lot and the right-ofway. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion by Lang to amend condition c. as follows: (c.) Fence to be located on the outside of the landscaping buffer along the north and east lot lines with the approval of the neighbor to the east at 510 W 6th Ave. Seconded by Penney. Motion carried 3-2 Ayes-Lang/Penney/Carpenter. Nays-Cornell/Hentz. During the discussion of which neighbor was to be contacted, Ms. Foland explained that each neighbor receives a Meeting Notice so that they are aware of what is happening. The meeting notice informs them that they can request a copy of the staff report. A vote was taken on the item to include the amended condition. Motion carried 5-0. Ayes-Lang/Penney/Carpenter/Cornell/Hentz. Nays-None. Finding of Facts: Reduces parking on W. 6th Avenue. Corrects current parking issues on an unimproved lot. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Lang questioned if staff findings were provided to property owners surrounding an applicant’s property. Mr. Buck explained that the staff report is typically written a week after the meeting notice is sent and it would require a 2nd mailing. This would greatly increase the costs to the city and the meeting notice explains that staff reports are available upon request. Mr. Lang requested that staff look into how many times there was a neighbor affected by a variance decision similar to this example and that perhaps it is appropriate for neighbors to receive the staff report if an action is going to affect them. Mr. Buck said he would look into it. Mr. Muehrer reported an update on the Paine Art Center variance Ms. Hentz inquired about at the previous meeting. The variance was approved in April 2006. Mr. Muehrer placed a call to the applicant but had not received a reply. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Cornell/Lang 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator