HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JUNE 23, 2004 PRESENT: Robert Cornell, Larry Lang, Donald Pressley, and Cheryl Hentz, EXCUSED: Dan Carpenter, John Schorse, and Edward Wilusz STAFF: Matt Tucker,
Associate Planner; Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary and Debra Berger, Recording Secretary. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared
present. I: 1215 WAUGOO AVENUE Joseph Grier, petitioner and owner, is requesting a variance to permit a detached garage to be located in a side yard setback area with a 2.5 foot side
yard setback, whereas Sections 30-19(B)(4)(c)(iv) and 30-35(B)(4)(a) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance require a 4.6 foot side yard setback for detached garages located in a side
yard area. Mr. Tucker introduced the item and circulated photos of the subject property. Joseph Grier, 1215 Waugoo Avenue, stated he did not have any other comments other than what he
shared in the application and Mr. Tucker’s introduction. Mr. Lang stated given the nature of the the parcel, and what the owner is proposing to do, this would be an appropriate variance
to grant. He stated there would be no difference in the impact to the surrounding properties if the garage were to be moved two feet in order to comply. Chairperson Hentz and Mr. Cornell
agreed with Mr. Lang. Motion by Lang for approval of the variance request to permit a detached garage to be located in a side yard setback area with a 2.5 foot side yard setback, at
1215 Waugoo Avenue. Seconded by Cornell. Motion carried 4-0. Finding of the Fact: Mr. Lang stated there would be no significant impact on the neighborhood. II: 2999 SHADOW LANE Jeane
Drover, applicant and owner, requests a variance to construct a detached garage in the front yard area, whereas section 30-17(B)(4) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires garages
to be located in the side or rear yard area. Mr. Tucker introduced the item and circulated photos of the subject property. Mr. Tucker stated the reason that this comes back to the Board
is that a building permit was not obtained within 6 months of a previous review and approval of a variance, the previous variance approval has expired, and therefore the owner needs
to reapply for a variance.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -June 23, 2004 Jeane Drover, 2999 Shadow Lane, states this is the only place she has to put a garage on the site. Chairperson Hentz asked the owner if anything,
with respect to the application, had changed since the Board reviewed this item 2 years ago. Ms. Drover replied there hadn’t been any changes to the request. Mr. Cornell questioned if
the new structure would be the same size as the one she was replacing. Ms. Drover said it would be the same dimensions as the existing structure. Mr. Lang inquired if the exterior of
the garage would be similar to the house. Ms. Drover replied it would have similar siding. Mr. Lang inquired if there would be a hard surface driveway. Ms. Drover stated it was gravel
and she would put in a gravel apron similar to that of the neighbors. Chairperson Hentz asked if there was any requirement as to the surfacing of the driveway. Mr. Tucker stated that
it is an existing driveway and can be maintained as gravel, with no requirements to pave with asphalt or concrete. Mr. Lang questioned the size and age of the shed on the property. Ms.
Drover stated the shed was no longer there. Mr. Cornell stated the variance had been approved in the past, and there didn’t appear to be any negative impact on the neighborhood. Motion
by Chairperson Hentz for approval of the variance request to construct a detached garage in the front yard area, at 2999 Shadow Lane. Seconded by Pressley. Motion carried 4-0. Finding
of the Fact: Mr. Lang stated it was an improvement to the existing structure that would enhance the neighborhood. Chairperson Hentz agreed and said there was no adverse impact on the
neighborhood. III: 644 W. 6TH AVENUE Thomas Fink, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to create two substandard parcels, which will have 7020 sq. ft. in area, whereas Section
30-19(B)(1)(a)(iii) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinances requires the 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. Mr. Tucker also pointed out, on the map, the tie bar marks indicating
the railroad property, calling attention to the varied dimensions of surrounding properties. Thaddeous Tomaschefski, 639 W. 5th Street, asked what the intended use of the new parcel
was going to be. Mr. Tucker stated the applicant intends to sell the parcel for future development. Mr. Tucker stated this neighborhood is comprised of standard and substandard parcels,
having varying widths and sizes. Mr. Lang asked about the setback requirements for a new home. Mr. Tucker explained the required setbacks for a new home and the process of calculating
front yard setback averaging, which could permit up to a 10 foot reduction of the 25 foot front yard setback requirement.
Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -June 23, 2004 Mr. Tomaschefski asked how close any new construction could be built to his west property line. Front, side and rear setback for homes, driveways
and detached garages was discussed. Mr. Tucker stated that it appears as though the typical front yard setback could be reduced via setback averaging. Mr. Lang questioned if the shed
structure was to be removed from the subject property before a Certified Survey Map would be signed. Mr. Tucker stated the variance request first needs to be approved by the Board of
Appeals and if approved, a request for approval of a land division by Certified Survey Map (CSM) would appear before the Plan Commission. Before the CSM could be recorded, the shed must
be removed. Mr. Cornell asked if variances would be necessary for a new home on the proposed new parcel fronting W. 5th Avenue. Mr. Tucker indicated no, unless the property owner desired
to ask for a setback reduction for some reason. Mr. Lang questioned if the alternative for making one of the two new parcels conforming with the 7200 square foot area requirement, therefore
only creating one substandard parcel. Mr. Tucker explained that option was considered, but this would introduce an irregular parcel line pattern into the block. Generally, the City tries
to promote uniformity in relationship to other property lines within the block. Mr. Cornell noted that in an equal split of the larger parcel, the subsequent smaller parcels would have
more square footage than a number of the properties to the east of the subject property. Mr. Tomaschefski stated he thought a home could be constructed right up to his west property
line. Discussion followed regarding alternatives for the location of a new home on the site. Mr. Tucker stated there are zoning ordinances in place for control of new development, and
that a home could not be constructed on the property line. Chairperson Hentz noted a detached garage could be built on the west side of the home, and all of the talk of how an new home
could be built was speculative. Mr. Lang questioned if the properties at 650 and 658 W. 6th Avenue had split off land to create a parcel and permit the construction of the duplex at
651 W. 5th Avenue. Mr. Tucker stated property owners abutting the vacated railroad right-of-way were given first opportunity to purchase when the land became available, to add to their
yard or property. In this case, the abutting property owners did not choose to purchase this area, so the property was sold to a developer that chose to construct a duplex. This pattern,
along with other multi-family and commercial development, may be seen on other portions of the vacated railroad right-of-way throughout the City. Mr. Lang stated he did not feel the
owner gave an adequate argument as to the hardship that would result if this variance were not granted, noting maintenance, street repair, double taxes, etc. He stated the property owner
bought the land with full knowledge of what was involved, and this request appears as though the property owner would like to capitalize on the abandoning of the railroad. Mr. Lang stated
he would not support this variance because he believes it would not be a positive for the neighborhood, and the petitioner has not made a valid argument as to why the Board should create
another substandard parcel in the area.
Board of Appeals Minutes -4 -June 23, 2004 Mr. Cornell stated there are very few properties to the east of the subject site that meet the 7200 square foot area requirement, and they
don’t have the opportunity that the applicant does, therefore he questioned if a strong enough argument was written into the application. Mr. Cornell asked Mr. Tucker if the information
and rationale provided in the petitioners’ application should be considered when deliberating this area reduction variance. Mr. Tucker stated the applicant brought up a number of valid
points in the variance application. Mr. Tucker stated if the railroad were never there, the property would have been subdivided into two parcels. The abandonment and acquisition of a
small portion of the railroad right-of-way introduces the opportunity to infill a home on the W. 5th Avenue frontage. Chairperson Hentz stated she would support the variance. She stated
to leave the property as is, would deny the owner reasonable use of the property. She stated a hardship exists where the applicant has no back yard since 5th Avenue is also a front yard
and granting the variance wouldn’t result in any harm to the public interest, and if developed, would add to the tax base. Mr. Lang said leaving the property as is does not create a
hardship. He reaffirmed that in his opinion there is nothing unique about this property and there is no justification to grant the variance, and approving a variance may set a precedent
for future requests. Chairperson Hentz stated she thinks it is unique in relationship with the current scale of the lot and when considering the neighboring properties. Motion by Chairperson
Hentz for approval of the variance request to create two substandard parcels, which will have 7020 sq. ft. in area, at 644 W. 6th Avenue. Seconded by Cornell. The vote was 3-1. Nay
Lang, which resulted in an automatic layover to the next meeting of July 14, 2004. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:13 p.m. Lang/Cornell. Unanimous. Respectfully
Submitted , MATT TUCKER Associate Planner MWT/djb