HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JULY 14, 2004 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Larry Lang, John Schorse, Edward Wilusz, and Cheryl Hentz EXCUSED: Donald Pressley STAFF: Matt Tucker,
Associate Planner; and Debra Berger, Recording Secretary. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Minutes of the June
9, 2004 meeting were approved as mailed. Schorse/Cornell. Unanimous. Minutes of the June 23, 2004 meeting were approved as mailed. Cornell/Lang. Unanimous. I: 644 W. 6th AVENUE Thomas
Fink, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to create two substandard lots, which will have 7020 sq. ft. in lot area, whereas Section 30-19(B)(1)(a)(iii) of the City of Oshkosh
Zoning Ordinances requires a lot area to be 7,200 sq. ft. minimum. Mr. Tucker introduced the item and circulated photos of the subject property, including a copy of the Assessors’ plat
of the block containing the subject property, as it was originally platted. Michelle Brown, 4884 Ripon Place, Oshkosh, fiancée of the owner, stated the owner was requesting the variance
basically because of the hardship of the taxation of the current lot. Mr. Lang asked if the property was a rental or if the owner was living there. Ms. Brown replied no, that they were
in the process of moving things out of the house and fixing it up to sell the property. The owner also plans to sell the empty lot, should this variance be granted. Thaddeous Tomaschefski,
639 W. 5th Avenue, stated his concern about having no privacy should this variance be granted and a new home be constructed. He circulated photos of his home and the subject property
from W. 5th Avenue, stating the current owner does not maintain the property. Chairperson Hentz advised Mr. Tomaschefski that maintenance issues should be addressed to the City’s Oshkosh
Inspections Services Division, and issues relative to maintenance were not issues the Board is empowered to address. Mr. Lang stated he did not think that Mr. Tomaschefski’s comments
were out of of order. Chairperson Hentz replied she stated there was nothing the board could do about Mr. Tomaschefski’s complaints, these types of complaints should be reported to City
staff for enforcement. Board discussion ensued, with Mr. Lang asked Mr. Tucker how long the 7,200 sq. ft. minimum lot size requirement has been in effect. Mr. Tucker replied he thought
it might have been since 1987 or 1996. Mr. Lang asked if a two family residence could be built on the proposed lot. Mr. Tucker replied no, single dwelling family only. Mr. Cornell said
he would stand by what he said at the previous meeting, that the properties to the east are smaller in square footage than what is being proposed by dividing the parcel into two lots.
He sees no hardship created by the division. Mr. Lang stated he will not support this because he feels there is no justification. Mr. Lang stated the owner should have known that they
were going to be assessed on both chunks of property when he purchased this parcel. Just because there are other substandard lots in the neighborhood he is not a reason to create another
one. Mr. Wilusz asked Mr. Tucker if the land division would have been possible without the acquisition of the corner right of way. Mr. Tucker said without acquiring the triangle piece
a land division would not have been possible, since the property would not have 30 feet of frontage on W. 5th Avenue. Chairperson Hentz believes making the owner adhere to the strict
letter of the law is unnecessarily burdensome and will not harm public interest. She supports approving this variance. Mr. Schorse said the only reason it isn’t already two lots is because
of the corner triangle piece of land was in the railroad right-of-way. He further offered that Mr. Tomaschefski could possibly purchase the lot and add it to his own, for yard purposes.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -July 14, 2004 Motion by Schorse for approval of the variance request to create two substandard lots, which will have 7020 sq. ft. in lot area, at 644 W.
6th Avenue. Seconded by Cornell. Motion carried 4-1. Nay Lang. Finding of the Fact: The consensus of the majority was that this division would add to the tax roll and not harm public
interest, and would eliminate the double frontage condition. There are other substandard lots in the area and making the owner adhere to the strict letter of the law is unnecessarily
burdensome. II: 1605 S. MAIN STREET Edward Lemke, petitioner and owner, is requesting a variance to construct an off-street parking lot that will have a 0 foot front yard setback on
W. 16th Avenue and a 15 foot front yard setback to S. Main Street, whereas section 30-35(B)(1)(C) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25 foot front yard setback to W.
16th Avenue and Section 30-35(B)(1)(d) requires a 25 foot front yard setback to S. Main Street for an off-street parking lot. Mr. Tucker introduced the item and circulated larger photo
of the subject property. Mr. Tucker stated the reason that, Edward Lemke, owner, Tews Two Sporting Goods /bait shop, brings this back to the Board (a similar variance was presented to
the Board in April) is that they have reconsidered some of the needs of the property and looked at some of the considerations in the neighborhood. They have a certain customer base that
is different than typical retail properties in the City, as parking for vehicles towing a boat/trailer commonly visit the property. They have designed what they feel is necessary to
create a functional off-street parking area for the new building to meet their unique needs. Mr. Tucker explained the functional maneuvering width of a parking aisle, as interpreted
by the Board of Appeals in 1997. Mr. Lang asked what the difference was between what Mr. Lemke asked for back in his variance in April and what is proposed now. Jim Groff, project architect,
stated originally asked for 4 stalls for vehicles towing a boat/trailer and now is asking for two stalls. It was also pointed out that at the April 14th meeting, variances were requested
a 10-foot front yard setback to S. Main St. and now is requesting a 15-foot front yard setback to S. Main Street. Mr. Groff, pointed out the requested 27’11” aisle width behind the 90
parking spaces is needed due to the fact there is no 2 foot front overhang ability, due to the proposed installation of steel pipes to protect the building along the edge of the parking
lot. Mr. Groff also commented on safety, since larger vehicles like SUV’s and full size trucks will be parking in the 90 spaces and expensive boats will be parked behind these spaces,
which necessitates a larger aisle width. Mr. Tucker stated that when the plan was submitted, staff was not aware of the situation that did not allow any front overhang. He said it should
be further noted that the City of Oshkosh Ordinance lacks provisions specifically for large vehicles. Mr. Lang questioned Mr. Groff about the landscaping plan, verifying that the requested
setback will be reduced by a 40%, from 25’ to 15’. Board discussion followed, with Mr. Schorse stated proposal accomplishes best of both worlds: the owner gets parking he needs and the
City gets the maximum green space possible and appropriate landscaped area, while providing the needed parking. Chairperson Hentz agreed. Chairperson Hentz stated she’d rather approve
an aisle with an extra 3 ft. and ensure safety, considering the vehicles that frequent the site. Mr. Lang agreed, and commented that due to the special nature of the business and customer
base of the business, and the way the offstreet parking area is configured, granting this variance would not be an open the door for others in the future to expect the same allowances.
Discussion of the landscape plan followed, Mr. Lang offered a suggestion to increased the level of landscaping by 40%, to match the 40% reduction in setback. Mr. Schorse said he felt
approval of the landscape plan should be left up to staff. Mr. Wilusz concurred stating he feels the board should leave the landscape plan for staff approval and does not think it should
be more specific in a motion. Mr. Lang explained that his recommendation was for an increase in the amount of landscaping above the standard, rather than a specific statement as to numbers
of trees and shrubs.
Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -July 14, 2004 Motion by Lang for approval of the variance request to construct an off-street parking lot that will have a 0-foot front yard setback on W.
16th Avenue and a 15-foot front yard setback to S. Main Street subject to the following condition: 1) A landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Department of Community Development
prior to issuance of a building permit. The setback on S. Main Street is 40 percent less than the standard, therefore additional landscaping has to reflect that reduction. Seconded by
Wilusz. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of the Fact: It was determined by board discussion that due to the special circumstances, nature of the business, and safety issues it would be appropriate
to grant this variance. There would no adverse impact on the neighborhood and in fact with the addition of landscaping, would be an improvement. Also, providing the vehicle towing a
boat/trailer spaces would alleviate the potential for an on-street parking problem in the general area. III: 2250 S. WASHBURN STREET /2300 S. WASHBURN STREET Gerald Gehrt and James Condor,
applicants and owners, are requesting a variance to pave the existing gravel offstreet parking area, which has a 0 foot side yard setback, whereas section 30-30(R)(2) of the City of
Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 20 foot side yard setback to a property line for an off-street parking area. Mr. Tucker introduced the item and circulated photos of the subject property.
Jim Condor, owner of 2300 S. Washburn Street, stated he is here to speak for Gerald Gehrt, owner of 2250 S. Washburn Street and the renter of that property, Cici Gabavics. Mr. Condor
stated they would all like to pave the parking area. There are potholes and dusty conditions, and the parking lot is an eyesore. Mr. Condor further stated he is in the midst of trying
to rent his property and finds it difficult to attract a higher quality tenant with the poor condition of the parking lot. He plans to upgrade his building by adding new windows, new
roof roof and siding. Mr. Condor handed out drawings showing a 20-foot side yard setback on each property. With these setbacks there would be a limited number of parking spaces and an
oversized access aisle. Mr. Condor also indicated the Day Care facility has many children, and a fairly large staff, which results in spill over parking since the parking lot is not
striped with designated parking spaces. Mr. Tucker said he originally recommended in the staff report there would be no parking spaces striped in the required 20 foot side yard setback
area. He stated when building permits were issued for these buildings in the early 1980’s, a parking plan was approved that showed spaces in the current setback area. From a functional
standpoint, these properties need as much parking as requested in the original submittal, so staff is recommending the board striking off the condition in the staff report and approve
the plan as originally submitted. Board discussion followed regarding the improvement of the existing parking area. Chairperson Hentz asked for clarification as to which map was the
one we would be approving. Mr. Tucker indicated the map included in the staff report is the one being put forth for action and recommended by staff. Motion by Lang for approval of the
variance request to pave the existing gravel off-street parking area, which has a 0 foot side yard setback. Seconded by Mr. Cornell. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of the Fact: Mr. Lang
stated this is a special situation as the property was originally developed the requirements were quite different than what the current ones are and that justifies special treatment
of the property. Chairperson Hentz stated there would be no adverse impact on the neighboring properties, that in fact it would be an improvement over the existing condition.
Board of Appeals Minutes -4 -July 14, 2004 OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Lang requested that when the board has a repeat request for an item, could it be clarified what is different from an earlier
request. He said when he received the second variance request for 1605 S, Main Street, he did not know what had changed from the first request. Mr. Wilusz asked if they could have a
copy of the original staff report in these cases. Mr. Tucker said he would provide a copy of the original staff report when we have a repeat or similar request. In addition, Mr. Tucker
said if the board has any questions regarding an item, they should feel free to contact him, and he will clarify either via e-mail, phone or in person. John Schorse announced this is
his last meeting as a board member. Chairperson Hentz thanked him for his many years of service. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:52 p.m. Lang/Hentz. Unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted, MATT TUCKER Associate Planner MWT/djb