HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JULY 13, 2005 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Moss Ruedinger, and Larry Lang, Vice Chairman EXCUSED: Edward Wilusz and Cheryl Hentz STAFF:
Susan Kepplinger, Principal Planner, and Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Lang. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Motion
by Cornell for approval of the June 8, 2005 minutes. Seconded by Penney. Unanimous. I: 600 SOUTH KOELLER STREET Timothy Gotzion, petitioner, and David Todd, owner, request a variance
to construct an off street parking area with a 5’ setback, whereas Section 30-35 (B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 16’3” transitional yard setback. Timothy
Gotzion, 6594 S. Oakwood, Windsor, Wisconsin, stated he was present to answer any questions the Board of Appeals may have. Ms. Kepplinger stated the request was the same as was approved
previously by the Board of Appeals, however, it is requested again because the work was not started in the time frame allowed by the variance. Mr. Penney asked if this is currently the
Razz Ma Tazz Restaurant. Mr. Gotzion stated it was the Razz Ma Tazz Restaurant that they would take over and proceed with some remodeling to the interior of the structure to change it
to a Red Robin Restaurant. Mr. Cornell asked if additional parking space was the requirement of the Red Robin Restaurant. Mr. Gotzion stated they had requested the variance in the past
because of the anticipated sales volume. He stated the parking lot, with improvement, would still be slightly below Red Robin’s standards, but it should be sufficient. Vice Chairman
Lang questioned if they acquired the property after the last time a variance was approved. Mr. Gotzion stated they still haven’t acquired the property, and that the current owner had
obtained the variance, but never acted on it. Mr. Penny questioned if they planned on installing appropriate landscaping around the parking lot, and questioned what street ran along
the southeast side side of the property. Mr. Gotzion stated the street had been vacated on the southeast side of the parking lot and was currently considered back yard. He also stated
that additional landscaping was proposed. Mr. Ruedinger questioned how much additional landscaping they would be doing, as there already is a tree line on the east side of the property,
and they appear to be proposing an extensive landscape plan for the entire site. Mr. Gotzion stated that they intended to improve the landscaping on the entire site, not just in the
area specified in the staff report as a condition for variance approval. Vice Chairman Lang questioned if they have submitted a landscape plan.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2-July 13, 2005 Ms. Kepplinger stated a landscape plan was required in order to obtain a permit. Motion by Cornell for approval of the variance request to construct
an off street parking area with a 5-foot setback subject to the following condition: 1) Landscape treatments be installed along the east side of the property consistent with landscape
requirements for off-street parking areas as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of the Fact: Mr. Cornell stated that granting of the
variance was necessary to accommodate the expanding business, and to meet the proposed restaurant’s regulations. He didn’t feel this would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood,
and noted the landscaping would enhance the property. Mr. Lang also felt the detailed landscaping plan would be a wonderful enhancement to the property, especially along the frontage
road. II: 715 JEFFERSON STREET Paul Davis Restoration, petitioners, Kylyle Henderson, owner, request a variance to reconstruct an existing porch with a 4’3” front yard setback, whereas
Section 30-17 (B) (3) (c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ front yard setback for principal residential structures. Kylyle Henderson, owner, stated the porch was
hit by a drunk driver and needed to be replaced. He explained that leaving the house without replacing the porch would have a depreciating effect on the property value since the basement
would be exposed. He stated he didn’t see any other way to repair the porch other than what was proposed, and noted that all the houses in the neighborhood have the same setback. Vice
Chairman Lang questioned if the porch would run the full width of the house, and be the same size as the damaged porch. Mr. Henderson stated it would run almost the entire width of the
house, and would be constructed as shown on the site plan. Mr. Penney stated a similar situation had happened to him and he could understand the position the owner was in. Vice Chairman
Lang asked asked Mr. Henderson to point out the area of the porch. Mr. Henderson referred to the site plan in the Staff Report to point out the area where the porch would need to be
replaced. Motion by Carpenter for approval of the variance to reconstruct an existing porch with a 4’3” front yard setback. Seconded by Penney.
Board of Appeals Minutes -3-July 13, 2005 Mr. Cornell stated he had visited the site and it was a unique situation. He stated in all fairness to the neighborhood, the porch needed to
be rebuilt as it had previously existed. He stated all the houses in the neighborhood appear to have been built by the same contractor, and felt the Board should approve this request.
Mr. Carpenter agreed. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of the Fact: Mr. Carpenter stated it was common sense to replace the porch in the same manner as it had previously existed, which would
be in line with other houses on the block. Vice Chairman Lang stated the owner is not responsible for the condition of the porch and was requesting a variance to regain the value of
his property. Mr. Cornell added that he didn’t see how this variance would have any adverse impact on the neighborhood. III: 1520 E. NEVADA Kevin and Barbara Rau, petitioners/owners,
request a variance to construct an at-grade patio with a 10’ front yard setback, whereas Section 30-30-17 (B) (3) (c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ front yard
setback. Kevin Rau, 1520 E. Nevada Avenue, owner, stated this was a unique property, with the house placed unusually on the lot. He stated he has three front yards with Cliffview Drive
wrapping around to the back of the house. He stated the area for the proposed patio is the most appropriate placement for it, as he felt it would be useless in any other location. Mr.
Cornell questioned if Mr. Rau was the original owner. Mr. Rau stated he wasn’t the original owner, but has lived there for almost 8 years. Mr. Cornell questioned why the house was placed
on the lot in that manner. Mr. Rau stated he has quite often times wondered the same thing. Vice Chairman Lang stated there appeared to be an arborvitae hedge around the proposed patio
area. Mr. Rau stated he had planted the arborvitaes approximately 2 years ago and the hedge was now approximately 5’ tall. Motion by Penney for approval of the variance request to construct
an at-grade patio with a 10’ front yard setback. Seconded by Cornell. Mr. Cornell stated this was a unique situation and questioned how many properties have three front yards. He stated
there didn’t appear to be any other reasonable place for a patio. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of the Fact: Vice Chairman Lang stated the property was uniquely shaped and the current
owner has inherited this unique design that allows no access to the back yard. He stated it appeared the applicant has requested the minimum that could be done to remove the hardship
and be able to construct a patio. Mr. Cornell stated the placement of the house was unique in that it faced the back yard of the adjacent property.
Board of Appeals Minutes -4-July 13, 2005 Mr. Penney stated the neighbors have all signed an agreement to Mr. Rau’s patio plans. Vice Chairman Lang stated it was a commitment on the
owner’s part to get his neighbors to give their approval of the patio plans. DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS PROCEDURES No discussion was held at this meeting. There being no further
business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 3:52 pm Cornell/Carpenter. Unanimous. Respectfully Submitted, SUSAN KEPPLINGER Principal Planner SK/vlr