Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JUNE 9, 2004 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Cheryl Hentz, Larry Lang, Donald Pressley, and John Schorse EXCUSED: Edward Wilusz STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary and Debra Berger, Clerical Assistant. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schorse. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Chairman Schorse welcomed Mr. Pressley to the Board of Appeals. Minutes of the May 26, 2004 meeting were approved as mailed. Hentz/Lang. Unanimous. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Motion by Mr. Lang to nominate Cheryl Hentz as Chairwoman. Nomination accepted by Ms. Hentz. Seconded by Cornell. Voice vote carried unanimously. Motion by Cornell to nominate Larry Lang as Vice Chairman. Nomination accepted by Mr. Lang. Seconded by Ms. Hentz. Voice vote carried unanimously. I: 218 W 11TH AVENUE Doug Seefeld /Seefeld Funeral Chapels, applicant; Robert & Jean Roe, owner, request a variance to construct an off-street parking area that will have a 7.5 foot setback to the west, a 15 foot front yard setback and a 17 foot rear yard setback, whereas, Section 30-35 (B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 19 foot 3 inch side yard setback to the west and a 25 foot rear yard setback and Section 30-35 (B)(1)(d) requires a 25 foot front yard setback. Mr. Tucker introduced the item and circulated photos of the subject property. Doug Seefeld, 1025 Oregon Street, introduced himself and Bob Roe, 121 Brockway Avenue. Mr. Seefeld thanked the Board for hearing their request. He explained the speratic use of the site and how the number of cars related to the number of people attending funerals vary from a few to many. He stated there is limited space and they want to purchase Mr. Roe’s property at 218 W. 11th Avenue to provide more off-street parking for customers. He stated he is sensitive to the school’s parking needs and wants to be a good neighbor. Mr. Seefeld stated the Roe’s own the home at 218 W. 11th Avenue and 222 W. 11th Avenue, and Seefeld Funeral Chapels would like to purchase both properties in time, however, Mr. Roe’s son Steven lives at 222 W. 11th Avenue at this time. He stated the Roe’s would like to maintain a buffer between the lots for snow removal. Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -June 9, 2004 Mr. Seefeld discussed the setbacks, landscaping, and parking lot, as it would relate to the convenience and comfort of people using and visiting the facility. He noted the entryway landscaping would be enhanced to provide an appealing setting in the neighborhood. He stated the facility is used 2-3 times a week and hoped the business would never be a detriment to the neighborhood. Mr. Roe, stated he doesn’t live at the subject site, however, he has noticed a trend of vehicular traffic for parents to pick up and drop off their children at the neighboring school. He stated parking is a problem when parking is needed for both the school and the funeral home. He stated the construction of an offstreet parking area would be a benefit to the neighborhood. Mr. Carpenter questioned how many houses were between the funeral home and the school. Mr. Roe replied there is one more house besides the subject property, in which his son is living at this time, between the funeral home and the school. Mr. Lang questioned the dimension of the subject site. Mr. Seefeld stated it was 50’ x 150’. Mr. Lang also questioned the landscaping requirements for a C-3 area as stated in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Tucker explained that no landscaping is required in a C-3 zoning district, however, because this site abuts a residential property a landscaped buffer is required. Mr. Lang questioned the landscaping proposed for the west side of the lot, and if an allowance was requested for stacking of snow. Mr. Seefeld stated an arborvitae hedge was proposed for the west lot line and snow would be plowed to the north lot line. Mr. Cornell questioned the number of parking spaces on the street and what impact the off-street parking area would have on alleviating congestion in the school zone. Mr. Seefeld stated he didn’t know exactly how many on-street parking spaces were available and he stated every event is different at the funeral home. Mr. Seefeld gave an example of a funeral being held that evening for a 65 year old, stating 11th Street and Oregon Street would probably be parked full between 4:00 and 7:00 p.m. Chairwoman Hentz questioned if Mr. Seefeld was in agreement with the conditions as listed in the Staff Report, and if he would be amenable to another condition to maintain a functional aisle width of 24 feet. Mr. Seefeld stated he was in agreement with the staff in that regard, as it would provide the needed safety in the parking lot. Mr. Lang stated he was not comfortable with condition number one, as the landscape plan wasn’t descriptive enough and didn’t offer the percentage of landscaping needed to offset the loss of setbacks. Mr. Schorse stated the landscaping is staff’s responsibility and the Board was not authorized to approve such plans. Mr. Tucker reviewed the zoning ordinance regarding parking lot development and required landscaping vs. the loss of setbacks, and suggested language for the amendment of condition number one. Motion by Lang for approval of the variance request to construct an an off-street parking area that will have a 6.5 foot setback to the west, a 15 foot front yard setback, and a 17 foot rear yard setback, subject to the following conditions: Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -June 9, 2004 1) A landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to issuance of a building permit. Landscape plan to provide 60% more landscaping than the plant materials required, as set forth in Section 30-35 (H) (3) (d) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. 2) The subject property be combined with the property at 1025 Oregon Street before building permits are issued for the construction of the off-street parking area. Chairwoman Hentz stated she would like to add an additional condition for the parking lot aisle widths to remain at 24 feet. 3) Functional aisle width of 24 feet be maintained which would permit a 6.5 foot side yard setback to the west lot line. Seconded by Cornell. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of the Fact: Mr. Schorse stated setbacks are consistent with other setbacks in the neighborhood, the off-street parking area will enhance the area, and the additional landscaping will also be a benefit for the neighborhood. II: II: 1732 DOTY STREET Mike and Laura Kroll, applicant /owner, request a variance to construct an 816 sq. ft. detached garage in the front yard area to South Main St., whereas, Section 30-21 (B)(6) requires a detached garage shall not exceed 800 sq. ft. in structure area. And Section 30-21 (B)(6) requires an accessory structure be located in a side yard or rear yard area. Mr. Tucker introduced the item and circulated photos of the subject property. Mike Kroll and Laura Kroll, 1732 Doty Street, introduced themselves and Mr. Kroll stated their hardship was not being permitted to build a garage in the front yard, as they were located on a corner lot with 2 front yards. He stated a 10 x 10 shed sits on the lot and he would get rid of the shed if the variance should be granted. He also stated the garage would be proportionate to the size of the lot. Chairwoman Hentz questioned how big the existing garage was, and if it would be removed. Mr. Kroll stated it was a one car garage. Mrs. Kroll stated there was a patio on the back of the garage making it longer than the average garage, approximately 14’ wide x 30’ long. Mr. Kroll stated the garage would be removed along with the cement slab if this variance were approved. He noted that they wanted to put an addition onto the house in the future and they would save the stone from the original garage to use on the bottom of the new garage and also on the bottom of the addition planned for the house that would tie the buildings on the property together quite nicely. Chairwoman Hentz questioned why they wanted to go beyond the size limitations for a garage, 800 square feet, when they only had a one car garage at this time. Mr. Kroll stated they were also allowed to have a 150 square foot shed, and he would like to remove the shed and store everything in one structure, which he felt would make the property more attractive. Board of Appeals Minutes -4 -June 9, 2004 Mr. Kroll stated that they didn’t want to build the garage wider than 24 feet because it would cut off the view of the lake. He also added that garage kits were sold in two feet increments and 24’ x 33’ would be under the 800 square feet allowed. Mr. Carpenter questioned if they were allowed to have a shed and garage on the property. Mr. Tucker stated two outbuildings are allowed on the property, as in this case it’s the shed and the detached garage. Mr. Lang stated in a case such as this, where property owners are forced to accept less than an 816 square foot garage, (less footage than a neighbor who has an attached garage is allowed) and they are proposing to take down the allowed shed, he would be voting in their favor as he felt it would be an improvement to the property. Mr. Schorse agreed with Mr. Lang, noting that when you factor the ability to have another structure on the lot, and they are proposing to eliminate the shed, he would be in favor of the variance. Mr. Tucker questioned if the Board wanted to add a condition for no second structure on the property. Chairwoman Hentz stated she was also in agreement with the applicant’s request but would feel more comfortable with an added condition for no additional structure to be put on the property. Motion by Cornell for approval of the variance to construct an 816 square foot detached garage in the front yard area to South Main Street, subject to the following condition: 1. No additional structure be constructed on the lot. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of the Fact: Mr. Lang stated it appeared to be an improvement to the existing property, and it meets the needs of the owners without imposing any hardship upon them. Mr. Schorse stated the extra footage on the garage should not be a detriment to the area. III: 1975 LENNOX STREET Troy & Natalie Engelman, applicant/owner, request a variance to construct an off-street parking space along side the attached garage that will be located between the attached garage and West 20th Ave., whereas, Section 30-36 (C)(5) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance states off-street parking located along side garages may not be located between the garage and a street. Mr. Tucker introduced the item and circulated photos of the site. Mr. Tucker stated this choice for an off-street parking space seems to be the most attractive choice vs. installing another driveway or having too many vehicles parked on site. Troy & Natalie Engelman, 1975 Lennox Street, introduced themselves and Mr. Engelman stated Mr. Tucker had summed up the scenario quite well, and the pictures going around show the new landscaping on the site. Mrs. Engleman stated they have done more landscaping since those pictures were taken and plan to heavily landscape towards the house as they can afford to do so. Board of Appeals Minutes -5 -June 9, 2004 Mrs. Engelman stated they wanted a 10 foot long parking space instead of a 9 foot space so they would be able to take the cover off or put it on their boat while standing on the cement which would keep the grass maintained easier. She also stated they owned a larger truck that would fit better on a 10-foot space. Mr. Lang questioned if a 25-foot setback was required off of 20th Avenue. Mr. Tucker stated a 25-foot setback was required off of 20th Avenue for an off-street parking space. Mr. Lang questioned if this was a setback issue. Mr. Tucker stated the issue was actually an off-street parking space in the front yard. Motion by Lang for approval of a variance to construct an off-street parking space along side the attached garage that will be located between the attached garage and West 20th Avenue, subject to the following condition: 1) No additional uncovered off-street parking facilities may be constructed on site. Seconded by Hentz. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of the Fact: Mr. Schorse stated the corner lot is restrictive and the variance appears to be the least intrusive to accomplish the goal. Chairwoman Hentz stated the other alternatives would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. IV: 1501 ARBORETUM DRIVE Tom Martin (Martin Ganther Group), applicant; John Supple/(Supple Restaurant Group), owner, request a variance to construct an accessory structure that will have a 10 foot side yard setback whereas, Section 30-35 (B)(1)(c) requires a 20 foot transitional side yard setback for all structures. Mr. Tucker circulated a map of the area showing the location of easements on the property, which make it difficult to find a location for the proposed structure. Tom Martin, Martin, Ganther Group, and John Supple, Supple Restaurant Group, introduced themselves. Mr. Martin used the map as displayed to show the acceptable area in which to place an accessory structure due to the changes made to the building code since 2002, and the easements located on the property. He stated they wouldn’t be able to meet the ADA requirements for handicapped workers or provide the functions needed for an outdoor bar if they would locate the structure in compliance with the code. He stated they have designed the bar to be 375 square feet with the overhang 625 square feet. He stated they are requesting to locate the structure within 10 feet of the property line and the canopy overhanging another 16”. He stated the pavement area would also encroach another 4’6”. Mr. Martin stated this is the fifth option they have looked at for a location for the structure and felt it was the best alternative. He stated they considered not having a shelter, but realized that would be quite uncomfortable for the workers. Mr. Martin stated the bar would be open between Memorial Day and Labor Day during daylight hours. Mr. Supply stated they owned the apartment building next door. Mr. Martin stated they understood the need for the buffer and the landscaping requirements. Board of Appeals Minutes -6 -June 9, 2004 Mr. Lang questioned if there was no other place to locate the open-air bar structure. Mr. Supply stated this was the best option due to the gas line that runs along the property line. Mr. Schorse stated it was a unique property, which has limited useable space. Chairwoman Hentz stated she was in agreement with the condition listed in the Staff Report and would support the variance. Motion by Schorse for approval of the variance to construct an accessory structure that will have a 10 foot side yard setback subject to the following condition: 1) Landscaping treatments be installed to buffer the accessory structure from the adjacent residential property. Seconded by Cornell. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of the Fact: Chairwoman Hentz stated it was a unique property, and no other alternatives were available for the location of the structure because of the gas line easements. She also stated the structure didn’t appear to have an adverse impact on the neighboring properties. V: 716 W. 8TH AVENUE David J. Schettle, applicant /owner, request a variance to construct an addition onto the existing detached garage which will result in the accessory structure having 1144 sq. ft. of structure area, whereas, Section 30-19 (B)(4)(b)(vi) requires a detached garage should not exceed 800 sq. ft. in structure area. David Schettle, 716 W. 8th Avenue, stated that without the requested variance they would not be able to put a 400 square foot addition on their garage. He passed around an addendum to the variance request (on file in the Department of Community Development) regarding Architect Richard Kempinger’s being in agreement with Mr. Schettle’s conclusion that a garage addition to the house would definitely not be possible. Mr. Schettle also noted that the State Supreme Court recently has given local boards more flexibility to grant variances for dimensions of construction projects. Mr. Schorse questioned the width of the lot and the width of the house. Mr. Schettle stated the lot width was 50 feet and the house width was 24 feet 6 inches. Chairwoman Hentz questioned why Mr. Schettle didn’t consider building an attached garage. Mr. Schettle stated he wouldn’t be able to construct an attached garage because of the lack of maneuvering space available to get in and out of the garage. Discussion followed regarding alternatives for building an attached garage. Mr. Tucker stated there were also some building code and design issues that weren’t discussed in the Staff Report. Mr. Lang questioned how old the house was. Mr. Schettle stated the house was 75 years old. Board of Appeals Minutes -7 -June 9, 2004 Mr. Schorse questioned if the addition would be built on the back of the existing garage. Mr. Schettle stated that was correct, as he would like the additional space for storage. Mr. Lang stated he would be in support of the variance because of the applicant being located in an older established neighborhood. He also added that he didn’t understand the justification of only 800 square feet allowed for a detached garage versus 1600 feet allowed for an attached garage, therefore he would support the variance request. Mr. Carpenter also stated he would support the request considering the age of the house. Mr. Schorse stated the uniqueness of the lot, being only 50 feet wide, makes it difficult to construct an attached garage, and he would be in support of this variance. Motion by Lang for approval of the variance to construct an addition onto the existing detached garage, which will result in the accessory structure having 1144 square feet of structure area. Seconded by Schorse. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of the fact: Chairwoman Hentz stated the age of the home creates a hardship. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Carpenter questioned if the Board could be contacted via e-mail to ensure a quorum. Discussion followed with Mr. Lang, Mr. Carpenter and Ms. Hentz calling the office when they would not be able to attend and Mr. Cornell and Mr. Schorse preferring to be called. Mr. Wilusz was not present. The Board extended best wishes to Mr. Tucker on his upcoming marriage. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:23 p.m. Lang/Carpenter. Unanimous. Respectfully Submitted MATT TUCKER Associate Planner MWT/vlr