HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MAY 12, 2004 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Thomas Feavel, Cheryl Hentz, and John Schorse, Chairman EXCUSED: Larry Lang, and Ed Wilusz STAFF: Matt Tucker,
Associate Planner; and Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schorse. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Minutes of the April 14,
2004 meeting were approved as mailed. Hentz/Feavel. Unanimous. Mr. Cornell asked for clarification of the Board of Appeals by-laws as it related to the vote recorded on the first item
at the April 14, 2004 meeting when Mr. Lang voted to abstain as he arrived late and did not hear the entire discussion. Mr. Tucker explained that Mr. Cornell’s vote was counted even
though six members were present at the time the vote was taken. He explained Mr. Lang arrived late and his choice to abstain from the vote was correct. I. 1110 KNAPP STREET Lionel Brooks,
petitioner/owner, is requesting a variance to place an accessory utility storage structure in a front yard area whereas, Section 30-19 (B)(4)(e)(ii) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance
requires a utility storage structure be placed in a side yard or rear yard area. Lionel Brooks, 1110 Knapp Street, stated he was in front of the Board because of the way his yard is
situated. He stated there was an existing concrete slab on the side of the garage where a camper had been stored for a few years. He stated he would like to place a shed there for yard
maintenance equipment, yard ornaments and picnic tables. Mr. Cornell questioned what the hardship was that Mr. Brooks was facing. Mr. Brooks stated he wanted to purchase a riding lawn
mower that he wouldn’t have room to store. He stated he has a big yard and a lot of maintenance equipment to keep up the property. Mr. Feavel questioned if he had considered renting
a storage space on Osborn Avenue. Mr. Brooks stated he had not considered that alternative. Mr. Carpenter questioned if he owned property around the entire corner. Mr. Brooks stated
he did. Mr. Feavel questioned the picture of the proposed structure in the packet, noting it was not similar to the staff’s recommendation, and questioned what exactly would be put up
on the lot. Mr. Tucker stated staff had recommended a modification to petitioners’ request, after discussing the proposal with Susan Kepplinger, the staff Planner charged with dealing
with housing/neighborhood issues for the City of Oshkosh. Mr. Feavel stated he wouldn’t support the structure as proposed in the applicant’s submittal.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -May 12, 2004 Mr. Tucker explained that shed kits can be purchased with optional materials for siding and roofing, and staff has recommended his shed be similar
to that of the house and garage to blend in with the property. Ms. Hentz questioned if the Board would be voting on what was pictured in the Staff Report. Mr. Tucker stated the petitioner
desires the shed as presented in the staff report, and he hasn’t had the opportunity to discus the staff recommendation with the petitioner. Ms. Hentz questioned Mr. Brooks if he was
agreeable to the condition made in the Staff Report. Mr. Brooks stated he was agreeable with the condition in the Staff Report, as he would like to find siding to match the existing
structures as best as he could. Mr. Tucker stated he would work with the owner to approve the exterior finish of the shed. Mr. Cornell questioned if the shed had to be the same color,
use the same type of siding and asphalt shingles as the existing structures on the lot. Mr. Tucker again stated he would work with the owner to resolve the design issues. Mr. Tucker
stated the main concern was not to have a vinyl-type or T-111 sided shed in the front yard of Mr. Brook’s property, which would contrast with the home. Mr. Schorse stated the corner
lot is the issue presenting difficulty in the placement of the shed. Mr. Carpenter stated he has lived on the south side of town for over 30 years and the subject property has always
been very well kept, and is an attractive addition to the neighborhood. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to place an accessory utility storage structure in a front yard area
subject to the following condition: 1) The exterior finish of the shed, including siding, roofing, and roof pitch be consistent with the existing attached garage. Seconded by Cornell.
Motion carried 4-1. Nay: Feavel. Finding of Fact: Ms. Hentz stated there was no other alternative to have a functional size of shed, and it would appear to have a minimal adverse impact
on the neighboring properties if it were to be erected to blend in with the existing structures. II: 746 SCOTT AVENUE Larry Hildebrand, applicant/owner, is requesting a variance to construct
a five space off-street parking area with a 1 foot side yard setback to the east, a “0” foot setback to the west and a 6 foot rear yard setback whereas, Section 30-36 (B)(6) of the City
of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires six parking spaces for the dwelling and Section 30-35 (B)(1)(c)(i) requires 10 foot rear and side yard setbacks for off-street parking areas. Mr.
Tucker introduced the item noting that this structure had been converted to a three-unit apartment before 1963. He stated the building inspector has ordered the garage to be razed because
of its dilapidated condition and Mr. Hildebrand is required to provide compliant parking upon the removal of the garage. Mr. Tucker also noted that Mr. Hildebrand owned the adjacent
properties that are also comprised of similar off-street parking as Mr. Hildebrand is requesting for the subject property at this time.
Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -May 12, 2004 Mr. Hildebrand, 3343 Senn Road, Omro, stated he has owned the subject property since 1963 and lived there for a few years when first purchased,
but since then it has been rental property for university students. He stated the garage was built when the house was built and an addition was made to the garage at some point, to facilitate
parking of larger cars. He stated the garage is not reparable and since it is considered a commercial property according to the State of Wisconsin Building Code, a garage would have
to be constructed with a 14’ tall firewall with a sloped roof, which is not conducive with the neighborhood. Ms. Hentz questioned if a new parking configuration was being proposed, with
the garage being taken down, because of the setbacks. Mr. Tucker stated the setbacks would remain the same, however the new configuration would address the ability for vehicles to make
a “Y” turn and drive out of the property. Ms. Hentz stated the new proposal did appear to be the best alternative. Mr. Schorse questioned what the setback across the back would be and
if the parking lot and driveway would be paved. Mr. Tucker stated there would be six feet of green space in the rear yard and a one-foot side yard setback on the east. Mr. Tucker explained
that only the parking area needed to be paved and striped, and the driveway is not required to be paved in this scenario. Discussion followed regarding the small area to work with in
regard to the number of spaces required and the maneuverability of vehicles in the parking lot. Mr. Tucker stated there will be a fence on the rear lot line, and the paving of the area
should address the gravel problems from snow plowing and lawn care. Motion by Hentz for approval of a variance to construct a five space off-street parking area with a 1-foot side yard
setback to the east, a “0” foot setback to the west and a 6-foot rear yard setback subject to the following condition: 1. A screening plan be approved by the Department of Community
Development prior to permit issuance to screen the off-street parking area from the adjacent properties. Seconded by Cornell. Motion carried 4-1. Nay: Feavel OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Schorse
questioned if the Board wanted to have a discussion on the memo received from City Attorney Warren Kraft. Mr. Tucker stated he understood the Board had wanted to have a discussion of
the issue before Attorney Kraft addressed the group. Ms. Hentz stated it would be best to have the full board present for discussion with Attorney Kraft. Mr. Schorse questioned if this
reverted back to the old standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tucker stated yes, the recent decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court no longer will consider “reasonable use” of property
when deciding area variances, and the staff will be taking a look at amending the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance to reflect that decision. He also noted the board might wish to review their
“Procedures and Regulations” document, for consistency purposes.
Board of Appeals Minutes -4 -May 12, 2004 Discussion followed regarding clarification of the recent decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Mr. Tucker stated he would invite Attorney
Kraft to the May 26, 2004 meeting, as there was a small agenda for that date. Mr. Tucker also informed the Board that the staff has been looking into having only one meeting a month
for the Board of Appeals and possibly moving the meeting time later in the day. Discussion followed regarding keeping the meeting on a Wednesday, and moving the time of the meeting to
4:00 or 5:00. Mr. Cornell suggested that the Board schedule two meetings a month, and if no items are submitted, have meetings cancelled. Ms. Hentz recommended considering the number
of items on the agenda, so as to avoid having meetings that last well into the night. Mr. Tucker stated it is required by ordinance to hear a variance request within 60 days, and special
meetings can be called when necessary. Mr. Tucker stated staff would discuss this issue further and get back to the Board for their input. There being no further business, the meeting
adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Hentz/Cornell. Unanimous. Respectfully Submitted MATT TUCKER Associate Planner MWT/vlr