HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
Board of Appeals Minutes 1 October 25, 2006 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2006 PRESENT: Robert Cornell, Cheryl Hentz, Larry Lang, Dan Carpenter, Moss Ruedinger EXCUSED: Edward
Wilusz, Dennis Penney STAFF: David Buck, Principle Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Darlene Brandt, Recording Secretary;
Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order at 3:30 pm by Chairperson Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of August 23, 2006
were approved as distributed. I. 353 WEST 18TH AVENUE Harry Oestreich, applicant/owner, requests a variance to reconstruct the front porch with a fourteen foot three inch (14’3”) front
yard setback, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(e): Additional Standards and Exceptions of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of a fifteen (15) foot front yard setback.
Mr. Buck distributed copies of photos of the site before and after the reconstruction of the porch and copies of the site plan submitted to Inspection Services and the building permit.
Harry Oestreich, 353 W. 18th Avenue, stated that Inspections Services approved the site plan at the time he obtained the permit to reconstruct the porch, but at final inspection, the
completed project was not approved as it encroached into the front yard setback. He further stated that it was not his intention to increase the size of the porch and that it would be
difficult for him to have this completely reconstructed since he is living on a limited income and could not afford the additional expense. He further commented that other homes in his
neighborhood are just as close to the sidewalk as his and his neighbors do not have a problem with the improvements done to his home. Ken Mulvey, of Ken’s Siding, was also present in
support of Mr. Oestreich’s request for a variance. He stated that an associate, Tony Schmidt, prepared the drawing and completed the reconstruction of the porch and he completed the
siding work. He further commented that the footings were placed according to the base line of the old porch. A discussion by the board followed in regards to why there was some confusion
as to what was submitted and approved by Inspection Services and the final product. There was also discussion on how far the original porch extended into the front yard and whether the
neighboring properties were conforming or non-conforming to the codes.
Board of Appeals Minutes 2 October 25, 2006 Mr. Buck stated that the problem lies in the fact that the porch now extends beyond the original roofline and even if the inspectors approved
the site plan submitted at the time the permit was issued, it does not allow for approval of a condition that does not meet City codes. Mr. Carpenter inquired as to if the footings for
the porch were placed in the same location as the original footings and Ms. Hentz questioned if the footings should have been inspected? Mr. Buck stated that it is common practice to
have Inspection Services complete a footings inspection prior to moving forward with construction to ensure there are no problems, however, the owner or contractor has to make a request
for this inspection. Ms. Hentz asked if Mr. Mulvey requested a footings inspection and he replied that he did not. Mr. Lang stated that he felt that older homes might require an extra
level of care to ensure that they are in compliance, however, this is the responsibility of the owner and contractor. He further commented that he does not see where this property would
be considered unique and no hardship exists under the circumstances. Motion by Lang to approve the request for a 14’3” front yard setback. Seconded by Cornell. Motion denied 1-4. II.
625 FRANKLIN STREET Robert Gilbert, applicant, Matt & Molly Jerger, owner, request a variance to reconstruct a two-story detached garage, whereas Section 30-19(B)(4)(b): Two Family Residence
District of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of a one-story detached garage structure. Mr. Buck stated that this property lies within the Irving-Church Historic
District of the City and distributed photos of the subject site for review. He commented that Susan Kepplinger, Principal Planner for the City of Oshkosh, who works with the Landmarks
Commission that oversees the historic districts of the City, did not feel that this variance would harm the neighborhood. Her only recommendation was that a hip roof would be a better
fit to match the house than the straight gable roof proposed. Molly Jerger, 625 Franklin Street, stated that she would like a two-story garage as her family is growing and she needs
the additional storage space. She further stated that she grew up with a two-story garage and enjoyed playing in the second story storage area and would like her children to have the
same experience. She feels that the square look of the proposed structure would blend well with the home and her neighbors do not have any objection to it. Robert Gilbert, 180 Main Street,
Menasha, in support of the Jerger’s request, stated that he felt the structure is appropriate for the site but that the hip roof suggested would be more costly. He further commented
that there is another home within the same block that has the straight gable roof like what is being proposed for this site. Mr. Lang inquired if a mansard roof would meet the zoning
code? Mr. Cornell asked if an existing garage was torn down at the site? Mr. Buck responded that a mansard roof may may solve the need for a variance as it would drop the height of the
structure down and that the existing garage had been torn down in favor of building a new one.
Board of Appeals Minutes 3 October 25, 2006 A discussion by the board followed in regards to what is allowed for improvements should be considered in a historic district and that the
proposed improvements would not detract from the neighborhood character. Motion by Lang to approve the request for a variance to reconstruct a two-story detached garage with the following
condition: (a) Second floor of the garage is limited to those uses common to garages. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0 Findings of Facts: The reconstruction of the garage is
consistent with the historic nature of the neighborhood. Granting of the variance would not result in any harm to the public interest. OTHER BUSINESS-DISCUSSION OF PROCEDURES Mr. Buck
distributed copies of the Board of Appeals meeting schedule from 2005 and forward, compiling the meeting dates and number of items reviewed at each meeting. A discussion ensued regarding
if it would be feasible to reduce the number of times the board meets per month from two to one. It was noted that many boards within the City only meet once per month. A discussion
followed regarding placing a cap on the number of items per meeting and also if special meetings could be held if a backlog of items accumulated. It was determined that the time of the
meeting should remain at 3:30. Absent board members will be contacted regarding the pending change so the matter could be discussed at the next meeting. The City calendar, which contains
all regularly scheduled meeting dates, will be printed the beginning of December for the upcoming year, so it would be best if a decision could be reached on this matter prior to that
date. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 pm. Respectfully submitted, David L. Buck Principle Planner