HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MAY 24, 2006 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Edward Wilusz and Chairperson Cheryl Hentz EXCUSED: Vice Chairman Larry Lang, Dennis Penney and Moss Ruedinger
STAFF: David Buck, Associate Planner, and Patty LaCombe, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present.
Motion by Mr. Cornell for approval of the April 26, 2006 meeting minutes, seconded by Mr. Carpenter. Motion carried 4-0. I: 216 W. SOUTH PARK AVENUE Bob Freid-applicant, St. Vincent’s
Parish-owners, request a variance to construct a 6 foot tall fence within the 12th Street front yard setback. Section 30-35 (E) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Additional Standards and
Exceptions limits fence height to 4 foot high in required front yards. Mr. Buck introduced the item and passed around color pictures. Mr. Buck mentioned the fence is for security purposes
and the applicant will also include a row of trees between the fence and the property line. Bob Bob Freid, 617 W 17th Ave., Applicant Mr. Freid stated the fence is pretty much for safety,
keeping the kids and recreational equipment inside the fence. Mr. Wilusz asked if there are any concerns about people potentially grabbing a child and pulling them over a 4 ft. fence.
Mr. Freid stated there is always supervision on the playground, he supposes it could happen and the taller fence would help. Mr. Cornell asked if the convent is in the process of being
torn down. Mr. Freid stated the bids are out there, Wisconsin Public Service has turned off the power, things have been capped and they are going to take it down the week after the picnic
of June 12th. Mr. Cornell stated he remembers something being said at the Council meeting about the historic register, but the convent was part of a structure that fit into some sort
of historical building/architectural design. Mr. Cornell was wondering if there was any concern about that or what the relationship was to the comment. Mr. Freid stated he did not go
to the meeting. , Ms. Kepplinger, who staffs the Landmarks Commission, was part of the convent committee that explored all options on what could be done with the building for about 2
years. They had inspectors in there from fire to building. With four walls and a roof that is leaking the cost to bring the building up to code was estimated to be $300,000.00-$400,000.00
minimum, it’s a beautiful building, but has no alternate use. Mr. Buck stated some of the history on that church site and that the city doesn’t have any historical regulation except
for demo permit “hold back”. He believes the site is listed on the 10 endangered sites in the state.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2-May 24, 2006 Mr. Carpenter stated this was quite similar to the situation they had with the Boys and Girls Club, as a safety factor issue. Mr. Wilusz stated
this is the second time in three months they had a variance request for a higher fence related to school/club. Is there any thought in the part of the city to change the zoning requirement
as it relates in that type of situation. Mr. Buck stated it is possible, the Plan Commission have had some very preliminary discussions that they are updating sections of the code. Right
now they are looking at murals and parking. Signage is coming up following that; so they are taking it piece by piece. The city has a large code. Motion by Mr. Carpenter for approval
of a variance to construct a 6 foot tall fence within the 12th Street front yard setback. Seconded by Cornell. Motion carried 4-0. Finding of Facts: Mr. Carpenter stated it truly is
a safety issue and it doesn’t present any hardship to the neighboring properties. Ms. Hentz stated it would also improve the aesthetics II: 121 GUENTHER STREET John Shroeder, applicant
& owner, requests a variance to create a utility structure totaling approximately 240 square feet. Section 30-19 (B)(4)(e) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: R-2 Two Family Residence District
allows a maximum area for utility structures of 150 square feet. Mr. Buck introduced the item and passed around color pictures. Mr. Buck stated that the applicants are requesting a variance
from the Zoning Code to allow the construction of a utility structure/garden shed. Mr. Buck commented that the petitioner has stated that there would be no adverse affect on neighbors
as the structure is proposed to have an increase setback from lot lines, will match the home in design and is affectivity screened by trees on neighboring properties. Mr. Buck stated
that the use of one slightly larger utility structure is preferable to a large detached garage with drive or the possibility of outdoor storage. Ms. Hentz asked why staff would rather
see this than a larger garage with a drive. Mr. Buck stated the home is pretty close to lot lines and removing the existing landscaping may not be much of an issue at this time but may
be for future owners. Ms. Hentz stated that even though there are other means that don’t require a variance this is the least variance necessary as far as staff is concerned. Mr. Buck
replied he believes so. John Schroeder, Owner, 121 Guenther Street. Mr. Schroeder stated they want to eliminate the pool and deck, and place the shed in its location. Mr. Schroeder stated
he is tired of switching equipment back and forth from a rental space. Mr. Schroeder stated he doesn’t want to put up a larger garage and definitely doesn’t want additional paving, this
is all they really need. Mr. Wilusz asked what makes Mr. Schroeder’s situation any different from anyone else. Mr. Schroeder stated his house was built in the early 1960’s and with both
cars parked in the garage, there isn’t much room for anything else. Currently he has a rental space space located out in the City of Omro and he needs to haul his trailer out to switch
equipment around and he would like to
Board of Appeals Minutes -3-May 24, 2006 reclaim their yard and put in more flowerbeds. Mr. Wilusz asked why isn’t a 150’ sq. ft. shed sufficient. Mr. Schroeder stated because of the
equipment he has and he wants extra room for his wife to work so they can continue to develop wild flowerbeds. They have no work area in the house or the existing garage to do this kind
of thing. Mr. Cornell asked staff if there is a different ordinance from the pool that was there and the shed that Mr. Schroeder wants to install. Mr. Buck stated pools/recreational
equipment has a 5 ft. setback and sheds have a 2.5 ft. setback. They do not regulate the size of the pools and he believes sheds are regulated to size is to stop warehousing type uses
on residential lots. Mr. Carpenter asked what the required distance is from a driveway and a lot line. Mr. Buck stated it is 6 inches. Mr. Carpenter then asked how far is the house currently.
Mr. Buck stated he would have to measure it out but an estimate is probably 8-10 ft. maximum. Mr. Carpenter stated any future tenant would have to remove that shed if they wanted to
put a garage up there and put a drive way in. Mr. Buck stated if the Board approved it with the condition that no other utility structures. Mr. Wilusz asked if the square footage for
utility sheds was just increased. Mr. Buck stated it was increased from 100 sq. ft. to 150sq. ft. just a couple of years ago. Ms. Hentz asked the petitioner if the conditions per staff’s
recommendations are acceptable with them. Mr. Schroeder stated that was fine, they wanted the shed to match the house. Ms. Hentz asked staff how it is tracked when a shed comes down
and the variance disappears. Mr. Buck stated they should be taking out a permit to remove the shed. If they don’t pull a permit to remove the shed, at that point it is field verification.
Motion by Mr. Cornell for approval of a variance to create a utility structure totaling approximately 240 square feet with the follow conditions: 1. There shall be no further accessory
buildings permitted on the site. 2. The proposed structure is architecturally compatible in design and material with the existing home on the site. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried
3-1, Nay Mr. Wilusz. Finding of Facts: Mr. Cornell stated this is the least obnoxious situation with the way the property is laid out and the way the house is located on the property.
They are eliminating impervious surface and are accomplishing the same thing they would if by putting up a garage but it is keeping it more enhanced. Ms. Henz stated there is probably
less harm to the neighboring property this way than if there would be a full blown garage put up III: 103 NORTH SAWYER STREET Richard Fisher-applicant, Daun Bock, LLC-owners, request
variances to permit a paved drive lane setback of 14’ on Witzel Ave. and 9’ on N Sawyer St. as well as a variance for a sign setback of 8’ on Witzel Ave. and 13’ on N Sawyer St. Section
30-24 (B)(3) of the Oshkosh
Board of Appeals Minutes -4-May 24, 2006 Municipal Code: C-1 Neighborhood Business District requires a 20’ front yard setback and Section 30-35 (B)(1)(d): Additional Standards and Exceptions
requires lots sharing frontage with a residential district to provide a 25’ front yard setback. Mr. Buck introduced the item and passed around color pictures. Mr. Buck stated on May
16, 2006 the Plan Commission approved the conditional use permit request for the development of the 1,500 sq. ft. Taco John’s Restaurant with drive-through. The applicant makes the case
that the project, even with the variances, will actually benefit and enhance the area as it will reduce the number of driveways/curb-cuts from what’s there now by three. Mr. Buck stated
staff had concerns of headlights shining in the view of on-coming traffic from the drive-through lane. Mr. Buck continued that the Director of Public Works, in his review of the variance,
expressed concern over the encroachment of the drive into the Witzel Avenue setback, as the terrace along the frontage is very shallow and he suggested that any Witzel Avenue variance
approval include a condition that a 7’ easement be granted to the City for sidewalk relocation and snow storage. Ms. Hentz asked if there is a max height for vegetation. Mr. Buck stated
not if it’s outside the vision triangle. There was some discussion on where the sign was to be located. Rick Fisher, 642 Thelosen Drive, Kimberly WI, Applicant Mr. Fisher stated that
he already adjusted the plans to remove the sign and add a 90% solid hedge along the drive. He also looked at blocking as much light as possible and placed additional landscaping to
block the headlights. Mr. Fisher stated that one thing that came out of the Plan Commission meeting was the two parcels may not need to be combined. Currently, the property line goes
through the center of the shared driveway and the dumpster and driveway will be shared between two parcels. There was some discussion on exiting onto a busy street and the difficulties
there would be going north onto Saywer St. Mr. Fisher stated they have thought about entering/exiting onto Witzel St. and it was not a good idea, that is why they are entering/exiting
onto Sawyer St. The minimum footage away from the intersection is 100 feet and they are at 160 feet or more so they don’t have that kind of problem. Mr. Fisher then stated Faust Ave.
is another option but he doesn’t know if they would want to route the traffic through the residential neighborhood. Ms. Hentz stated they would have to go through the lot to the north.
Mr. Buck stated after a couple of times picking up your food and not being able to exit Sawyer St. to the north one would take an alternate route. Mr. Carpenter questioned where the
backed up traffic would be for picking up their food and had some concern about pedestrians crossing the street. Mr. Fisher stated they looked very closely at the crosswalk and they
chose the backed up traffic to be located on the west side. That way the traffic leaving would not be distracted by cars and they could focus their attention on the crosswalk instead.
Mr. Buck stated one thing the board might want to consider is a look for pedestrian sign coming out of the driveway. Mr. Fisher stated they did not have a problem with that. Mr. Wilusz
stated he commended the design, the ingress/egress is as far away from the corner as possible. More discussion was held on the ingress/egress onto Witzel Ave. Ms. Hentz stated she feels
an egress onto Faust St. is horrible for the neighboring residents.
Board of Appeals Minutes -5-May 24, 2006 Motion by Ms. Hentz for approval of a variance to permit a front yard setback of 14’ on Witzel Ave. and 9’ on N Sawyer St. with the following
conditions: 1. Vegetation at least 75% solid and minimum 4’ high be located along the drive-through lane with the specific purpose of blocking headlights from the right-of-way. 2. A
7’ easement for sidewalk relocation and snow storage is granted along the Witzel Avenue frontage. 3. A pedestrian crosswalk sign be added. Seconded by Carpenter . Motion carried 4-0.
Finding of facts: Mr. Wilusz stated there is clearly practical difficulty putting any kind of business in this location. Ms. Hentz stated that is certainly an improvement to the property.
Mr. Carpenter stated the applicant has addressed some of the safety concerns. Mr. Wilusz added their design constitutes the least variance to make this work. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Buck
passed around a copy of an e-mail from Kristi Bales, one of the City of Oshkosh’s Principal Planners, which came from Mr. Kraft, the City of Oshkosh’s Attorney in regard to the Downtown
BID (Business Improvement District) Board receiving an invitation to a Waterfest sponsored VIP party. It is a VIP party where you would get a free pass to Waterfest, which is considered
by the city as a conflict of interest. You basically have a choice that you could either pay the Waterfest admission per person cost to the host of the party or attend in a capacity
other than a local government official without any financial gain. It is always an ethics issue on what you can and can not accept it is best to never accept anything. Also, if you ever
get together in a group of three or greater, please let Mr. Buck know so a notice can be posted at the appropriate places. DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS PROCEDURES No discussion
was held at this time. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:37 p.m. (Cornell/Carpenter) Unanimous. Organization of the Zoning Code Respectfully Submitted,
David Buck Associate Planner DB/pal