HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES APRIL 12, 2006 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Edward Wilusz, and Chairperson Cheryl Hentz EXCUSED: Larry Lang, 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 March 22, 2006 meeting minutes with some changes, seconded by Mr. Carpenter. Motion carried 4-0-1 Mr. Lang abstaining. I: 44 & 50 WEST 11TH AVENUE
AND 1016 NEBRASKA STREET Victor Page, applicant and owner, requests a variance to divide an existing lot creating three lots with substandard frontage/lot width ranging from approximately
49.13 feet to 51 feet as well as a variance for substandard lot area ranging from 4,925 to 5,112 sq. ft. Section 30-19 of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: R-2 Two Family Residence District
requires all lots within said district to have a minimum frontage/lot width of 60 feet and a minimum minimum area of 7,200 sq. ft. for single family use. Mr. Buck introduced the item
and passed around color pictures. Mr. Buck mentioned the owner has stated he has a buyer for the two family residence and that buyer plans on converting it into a single family home.
Victor Page, Owner/applicant, 115 Birch St. Omro, Wisconsin. Mr. Page stated he feels the lots are large enough for what is being presented. Mr. Page continued to state all the land
will be used around the houses and it would be in the best interest of the city to allow the split. All the neighbors think it is a good idea to have property owners instead of renters.
Mr. Cornell asked if the property has always been rental property. Mr. Buck stated that to his knowledge they always have been rentals; the city doesn’t track ownership. Mr. Lang questioned
if the property is split, would the new driveway be situated right on both lot lines. Mr. Buck stated that was a typo, it should have stated the current driveway would be on both lot
lines if not removed. Mr. Lang stated he has another concern; what reassurance would he have that the two family residence is going to be converted into a single family home. They could
say they are going to do it and find out the cost and decide not to do it. Mr. Buck stated they are going to have to get the land division approved and until permits are pulled for the
change in use, to convert it to a single family dwelling, there would not be approval of the CSM. Mr. Lang then stated he has concerns without changing anything on the inside of the
house, how easy it is to change the outside of the house to make it look as if it is a single family home; and how easily it could be converted back into a two family home.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2-April 12, 2006 Mr. Buck stated that he is not a building inspector but thinks that one would have to remove a kitchen and possibly other utilities to go to
a single-family and would then need to split them to convert back into a duplex. To do any of this, one would have to pull permits and the inspectors would then be notified. If they
convert it without pulling permits the city would issue citations. Andrea Disterhaft, 297 N. Westhaven Dr., Granddaughter of Mr. Page. Ms. Disterhaft stated she is the individual who
is interested in the two-family property in question. She gives her assurance that she has every intention to convert it back to a single family dwelling and live there herself. Motion
by Lang for approval of a variance to divide an existing lot creating three lots with substandard frontage/lot width ranging from approximately 49.13 feet to 51 feet as well as a variance
for substandard lot area ranging from 4,925 to 5,112 sq. ft. with staff’s recommendations: 1) Two-family residence located at 44 W 11th Avenue is converted to a single-family residence.
2) Driveway located between 44 & 50 W 11th Avenue is removed. Seconded by Cornell. Motion carried 5-0 Finding of Facts: Mr. Lang stated this would reduce the density of the current situation.
Mr. Cornell stated there is no harm to the public interest, no adverse impact to the neighboring property owners. II: NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAST PARKWAY AVENUE AND JEFFERSON STREET Zee
Ajdini-applicant, Winnebago County-owners, request a variance to permit an off-street parking area that will have a 6 foot front yard setback. Section 30-26 (B)(3) of the Oshkosh Municipal
Code: C-3 Central Commercial District requires lots sharing frontage with a residential district to provide a 25 foot front yard setback. Mr. Buck introduced the item and passed around
color pictures. Mr. Buck also stated the applicant is proposing to purchase the corner lot and develop it as an expansion to his parking lot. He is proposing to maintain a 6 ft setback,
which match the existing setback on Jefferson Street and appropriately landscape it to match the rest of his property. Mr. Buck stated the applicant contends that there is an unnecessary
hardship and a practical difficulty in redeveloping the site as it is unusually small and that his site surrounds the location. Mr. Buck also stated he received a call from Pastor Stevens
from Victory Church across the street, who supports the variance and would like to see something done with the site. If the variance is granted, it would not present any additional harm
to the public interest. Zee Ajdini, applicant, 1265 Judy Lee Dr.
Board of Appeals Minutes -3-April 12, 2006 Mr. Ajdini stated he doesn’t need the property, he is simply tired of garbage collecting on the property, which is so close to his parking
lot. Mr. Carpenter asked how many parking spaces is this going to create. Mr. Ajdini stated about 10 spaces. Mr. Cornell asked staff if Winnebago County owns this property. Mr. Buck
stated they do own this property and though he did not know the history of it; apparently there was a home on the property at one time that the city removed. He believes the county took
ownership at that time. He received an e-mail from Mary Krueger from the county who wants to make sure Mr. Ajdini can do what he wants with the property and stated that the county has
no objection to the variance request. Mr. Buck stated he did talk to her personally and she stated that the county would prefer to get the land back on the tax rolls and stop having
to maintain the location. Mr. Cornell asked if Mr. Ajdini would purchase the property from the county before he can do what he wants to do. Mr. Buck stated that is correct. Mr. Buck
stated the value of the property, as assessed, is approximately $1,000.00. Mr. Cornell asked if the setbacks were the same for the parking lot on E. Parkway as the building. Mr. Buck
stated the setback on E. Parkway Ave. is zero ft., which is what it would be. on Jefferson St. if the residential zoning was not there. Mr. Cornell asked if there is any height regulation
on the landscaping. Mr. Buck stated there is a 4 ft height restriction for vegetation and 50% open as well as a vision clearance regulation at the corner. Mr. Lang asked if staff could
expand a little on 50% open, is that of all landscaping or corner landscaping only. Mr. Buck stated it is on all landscaping in the setback. Mr. Lang asked staff if screening of a parking
lot at 50% open could really be called screening. Mr. Buck stated fencing or landscaping within the required front yard setback is limited to 4 ft in height and 50% open, not so much
with vegetation that that fills in but definitely with fencing. With vegetation, we try to keep the same openness that’s not only for corner visibility but also for visibility onto the
site for EMS, Fire, Police, etc. Mr. Lang stated he has a reservation against the openness of screening at parking lots. He stated that he walks past one everyday where the landscaping
is anywhere from 12-15 ft. apart, and you can see everything in that parking lot. Mr. Buck stated buffer landscaping or transition yard landscaping, which is a visual barrier, is usually
on side and rear lot lines. Front setbacks are not solid and the purpose of the landscaping is to buffer the vastness of the parking lot and is not there to hide the parking lot. Some
of the items the front buffer is for are to separate the parking from the sidewalk, block headlights, stop garbage from blowing around, help buffer emissions, etc. Motion by Carpenter
for approval of a variance to permit an off-street parking area that will have a 6 foot front yard setback with staff’s recommendations: 1 Lot is combined with the parcel adjacent to
the west. 2 Landscaping is installed within the 6 foot greenspace. Seconded by Wilusz. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: Mr. Carpenter stated given the lot size it would be a hardship
to see the 25 ft. setback also it would be an improvement for that area.
Board of Appeals Minutes -4-April 12, 2006 OTHER BUSINESS No discussion was held at this time. DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS PROCEDURES Discussion was held about the procedure of
notifying staff if members are going to be absent. It was determined that the individual members would call into the office by Tuesday if they could not make it with the exception of
Mr. Wilusz and Mr. Cornell, who would still be contacted by Community Development staff. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:15 p.m. (Cornell/Lang)
Unanimous. Respectfully Submitted, David Buck Associate Planner DB/pal