HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JANUARY 8, 2003 PRESENT: Thomas Feavel, Cheryl Hentz, Joel Kluessendorf, Don Krueger, Ed Wilusz EXCUSED: Carl Ameringer, John Schorse STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate
Planner; Allyn Dannhoff, Chief Building Inspector; Mary Lou Degner, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Krueger. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared
present. The minutes of December 11, 2002 were approved as mailed. (Hentz/Kluessendorf) I: 234 FOSTER STREET Roger Robinson, applicant and owner, is requesting a building code variance
to allow for the continued use of living space on the second floor with an existing ceiling height of 6’10 ½”, whereas City of Oshkosh Municipal Code, Minimum Housing Code Section 16-36(A)(2),
requires a minimum of 7 feet ceiling height for at least 50% of the rooms’ floor area. Allyn Dannhoff introduced the item. Ms. Hentz asked for clarification on an interconnected smoke
detection system. Mr. Dannhoff explained that in this particular case it is a two-story building with out a basement, and the present code requires a smoke detector on the first floor,
in the common space of the second floor, and a smoke detector in each bedroom. A total of 4 smoke detectors would be required for the subject home. He further explained that the detectors
would be connected to one another and in addition the current code requires that the system have battery back up. Mr. Dannhoff said that the installation of this system would comply
with present day requirements for new homes. Mr. Kluessendorf questioned the existing ceiling height and the required minimum of 7 feet ceiling height for at least 50% of the floor area.
Mr. Dannhoff explained that it was his assumption that the Housing Inspector had determined that there was a measurement of 6’10 ½” for at least 50% of the area. Roger Robinson, 3484
Charlie Anna Drive, introduced himself as the owner of the subject property, and commented that the story and a half construction has a dormer, which allows for full height of the ceiling
in the mid section and has angled ceiling for only the front and the back of the structure. He stated he is in agreement with the condition for the smoke detectors. Mr. Robinson said
that upon completion of the project he will have invested about $15,000.00 into the property, which would be an asset to the neighborhood and the city. During board discussion Ms. Hentz
said it is a reasonable request since there is only a difference of 1 ½” and she likes the idea of the interconnected smoke detectors.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -January 8, 2003 Motion by Hentz to approve a building code variance request to allow for the continued use of living space on the second floor with an existing
ceiling height of 6’10 ½”, with the following conditions: 1) Installation of an interconnected, battery back-up, hardwired smoke detection system. Detectors will be placed through out
the house in compliance with the present Uniform Dwelling Code. 2) The ceiling height shall not be reduced any lower than the existing ceiling. Seconded by Feavel. Motion approved 5-0.
Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that the request is for a minimal amount of 1 ½”, the smoke detectors will be interconnected, it is the least variance necessary, the
hardship was not self created, and there are no other options. II: 3700 JACKSON STREET Drew S. Ricks, applicant, and Oshkosh 41 Pantry LLC, owner, are requesting a variance to construct
a refuse disposal area that will have a 10’ setback from the north lot line and an 11’ setback from the east lot line, and a variance for an off-street parking area that will have an
8’ rear yard setback, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 19’3” setback from the north lot line and a 25’ setback from the east lot line
for parking and refuse area. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated a copy of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and photos of the subject site. Drew Ricks, CSC Designs of Appleton,
said they originally designed and constructed the facility 8 years ago and made the application to add the car wash and the small storage area. He said they would not be adding any hard
surface to the area and the trash enclosure would consist of a 6’ high open-air block structure. Ms. Hentz inquired if there was a time limitation from the granting of the original CUP
date 8 years ago and questioned if anything has significantly changed with the property in that time span. Mr. Tucker explained that there is no expiration date for the CUP. Mr. Ricks
stated that a variance, which was approved on June 22, 1994, was obtained at the request of the City of Oshkosh. So other than the necessary paving for the driveway placement as the
result of the concrete bump-out in Snell Road, there have been no changes. Mr. Tucker presented a letter of objection from adjacent property owners Joe E. and Linda K. McCreery. There
was discussion on the contents of the letter. There was further discussion on the direction of ingress and egress from the car wash. During board discussion Ms. Hentz said the applicant
has been keeping in line with things that have been approved progressively through the years and she would support the request. Mr. Feavel said he would also support the variance.
Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -January 8, 2003 Motion by Hentz to approve a variance to construct a refuse disposal area that will have a 10’ setback from the north lot line and an 11’
setback from the east lot line, and approval of a variance for an off-street parking area that will have an 8’ rear yard setback. Seconded by Feavel. Motion approved 4-1. Nay; Kluessendorf.
Finding of the fact: It was concluded that the subject property has been keeping in line with the proposed plans through the past 8 years, there will be appropriate screening, and it
is the least variance necessary. III: 640 LEEWARD COURT Russell F. Williams, applicant for Anchorage Realty Inc., is requesting a variance to add additional offstreet loading facilities
that will interfere with traffic movement on a street, whereas Section 30-36(C)(2)(b) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires off-street loading spaces and facilities shall
least interfere with traffic movements on a street. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. pictures. Russ Williams, 2519 Bowen Street, presented photos. He commented that there
is semi traffic in the area every day and the overhead door that is being proposed is not large enough to handle a semi. Mr. Williams stated it has been determined, since application
of the variance, that due to space restraint the proposed door would actually be 7’ high. He said a new curb cut would not be required. During board discussion it was stated that the
subject property is zoned M-2, Central Industrial District. Mr. Tucker stated that he spoke with Mark Huddleston, Transportation Director, and Jay Puestohl, Oshkosh Police Department,
and neither of them have an objection to the request. Motion by Wilusz to approve a variance to add additional off-street loading facilities. Seconded by Feavel. Motion approved 4-0.
Present; Hentz. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that the subject property is zoned M-2, it is a dead end street, which would result in no adverse impact to surrounding properties,
and there are currently semis on the street. IV: 516 W. 18TH AVENUE Michael Noone, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to construct a two-story detached garage, whereas Section
30-17(B)(h)(i) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires detached garages be restricted to one story. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos. He noted that previous to the
time of submittal there was correspondence with the architect in regard to whether a two-story garage could be constructed. He said at that time, it was his recollection that the request
was to have a secondary dwelling unit in the second story of the garage. Mr. Tucker presented plans that were submitted to the Inspection Department and approved on November 14, 2002.
Mr. Tucker made reference to the Code Interpretation/Clarification, which was included in the staff report, relative to the practices of addressing garage height. He explained
Board of Appeals Minutes -4 -January 8, 2003 that if the plane of the roof is below the ceiling height of the first floor, it is considered a single story garage. He said it was discovered
during the building of the garage that there is a side wall that extends above the first floor ceiling. Michael Noone, 1922 Arizona Street, said he and his wife have owned the property
for a couple of years and their plan is to convert the train station into their personal residence. He said there is a lack of storage space due to the fact that there is no attic or
basement. Mr. Noone said the submitted plan was approved, then during construction it was decided that the garage, that was approved, could not be built. He said their intent is to convert
the train station as historically accurate as possible. He said the total cost, including the garage will be in excess of $250,000.00 and the garage alone is about $40,000.00. He said
in his opinion, his request has satisfied all the requirements for a variance. Mr. Noone said the hardship, which was not self created, is that he has no storage space and at this point,
to resolve the situation he would have to take down the current trusses and reconstruct the top portion of the building. The applicant noted he has spent a lot of time, energy and money
to get to this point. Mr. Noone presented pictures of the area noting that the structure they have proposed would fit nicely into the area. He stated there are no objections from the
neighbors they have contacted. He added that the property has been vacant for a number of years and their desire is to improve the property and the neighborhood. Chairman Krueger questioned
how the maximum height of the garage compares to the maximum height of the train station. Ms. Hentz asked when the applicant was notified that there was a problem and how much of the
garage had already been constructed at that point. She questioned what the added expense to the project would be, if it were necessary to reconstruct the building, and asked if the applicant
would be considering a lawsuit against the City of Oshkosh if the appeal was denied. Mr. Noone responded that both the garage and the train depot are about 18’in height. He said he was
notified of the problem in mid December and was to the point of adding tarpaper, to enclose the area, and they have also added steps, to access the upper area. He said the added expense
to him would be between $10,000.00 and $12,000.00 and he would be considering a lawsuit if the building variance was denied. Brian Poeschl, 532 W. 18th Avenue, stated he had suspicions
regarding how fast the garage had been constructed and questioned the procedures for building permits and follow up inspections. He questioned how the garage could have been built if
it was not legal. Mr. Poeschl said he was not opposed to the construction of the garage, however he would like to request that the flooring between the trusses be removed and that the
stairway also be removed. He said, in his opinion, having the flooring and the stairway could lead to problems in regard to future illegal use of the building. Mr. Tucker explained the
definition of a garage is for storage of vehicles, and this structure is considered a garage. Mr. Dannhoff stated that the applicant was issued a permit because the inspector did not
recognize that it violated a code. Mr. Dannhoff stated that the recent trend for garages of this type includes stairs to be installed to ease access to the storage area. Paul Esslinger,
2350 High Oak Drive, said he was in support of the variance request. He said he had personally lived in the neighborhood for a number of years and stated that from a personal standpoint
and from a historical standpoint he would like to see the structure continue to be constructed as planned. Mr. Esslinger stated that being a member of the Council he is aware of developers
that often request financial assistance on projects and he finds it refreshing that an individual is willing to personally invest in this project.
Board of Appeals Minutes -5-January 8, 2003 Ralph Hoppe, 525 w. 18th Avenue, recommended approval of the variance. During board discussion Mr. Kluessendorf asked for clarification of
the vote and questioned if the structure would be legal nonconforming if approved. Mr. Tucker explained it would be a conforming structure because of the variance approval. It was noted
that the design of the subject garage in the application is different than the original plan, which was approved in November of 2002. Ms. Hentz said she would support the variance realizing
that people do make mistakes. She commented that the applicant has done everything right and she would recommend that he be refunded the application fee. Mr. Feavel said he would support
the request noting there have been no objections from the adjacent property owners of 1741 Michigan Street. Mr. Wilusz commented that it is a unique property, the hardship was not self-created,
the neighbors are not opposed, and approval of the variance appears to be the least possible necessary. Motion by Hentz to approve a variance to construct a two-story detached garage.
Seconded by Wilusz. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that the property is unique, the hardship was not self-created, it is the least possible needed,
and there will be no adverse impact on neighboring properties. V: 250/252 W. 10TH AVENUE Doug Buettner, applicant, is requesting an appeal to the City Zoning Administrator’s determination
that the subject property consists of one legal parcel, assembled out of two platted lots, rather than two separate parcels. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated a copy of
the Title Report. He explained that “lot” is in reference to how a piece of land was originally divided, and “parcel” is a legal boundary of the property as it is recorded at the Winnebago
County Register of Deeds Office. Ms. Hentz questioned the two addresses for the single building. Mr. Tucker explained that the two addresses are for the two units in the duplex, adding
that there is not a separate address for the vacant area on the property. He noted that no legal combining action of the lots has occurred, because historically it was not required,
but would be required according to current codes. Mr. Tucker stated that the building encroaches approximately 6’ over the lot line between platted lot #14 and #15. He also noted that
if the appeal to the Administrator’s determination was approved it would also result in the duplex being nonconforming due to the substandard lot size. Doug Buettner, 1531 W. New York
Avenue, said he spoke with Warren Kraft, City Attorney, and questioned where it was stated in the Ordinance that if there was an encroachment you can not have two separate lots. Chairman
Krueger said, in his opinion, if a structure is erected on two lots that are owned by the same party and encroachment occurs upon the second lot, the entire property is then considered
one legal parcel. He questioned if there are two tax bills for the subject property.
Board of Appeals Minutes -6 -January 8, 2003 Mr. Buettner said there are many encroachments throughout the City of Oshkosh and again reiterated the fact that there is no language reflected
in the code book regarding the two separate lots. Mr. Buettner said he is not the owner of the property, however the Assessor’s Office told him the tax bill issuance policy is not consistent,
sometimes they issue one tax bill and sometimes they issue two tax bills. Mr. Buettner said a title search was done and the properties were never combined. He stated, in his opinion,
they are two separate lots. Mr. Tucker stated that the Title Report states the legal description of lot 14 and lot in the verbiage on the front page of the report. Chairman Krueger said
his interpretation of the legal description is that lot 14 and lot 15 are considered one legal parcel. Mr. Buettner said that, in his opinion, if the current duplex was to burn down
it would then be considered two lots and two separate dwellings could be built. Mr. Tucker Tucker responded that the two properties comprise a single developable parcel, and therefore
only one principal structure could be built on the parcel. Mr. Dannhoff said that historically things were done differently than today. He commented that there are instances of accidental
encroachments and in this case a purposeful encroachment, adding perhaps it was the original builders intent to place the building so it encroached over the subdivision lot line. He
stated it was not until the 1990’s that these issues were addressed with Quit Claim Deeds. Mr. Dannhoff said the question is whether this was done purposely for the development of the
property. Mr. Tucker said that the Board is empowered to interpret the staff determination and added that if the applicant is not satisfied with the Board’s decision, the next step would
be circuit court. He compared the subject property to the property in the Marion/Pearl redevelopment area and to the school property across W. 10th Avenue from the subject property.
There was further discussion on the description of the properties for lots 14,15,16, and 17. Mr. Feavel questioned why there was no notification to adjacent properties in regard to this
item. Mr. Tucker explained it is not policy to notify adjacent property owners for an appeal to a Zoning Administrator’s determination. Chairman Krueger said the title search also lists
both lots together, in his opinion, it is made up of two lots but it is one parcel. Mr. Wilusz said he was uncomfortable speaking about the legalities of the issue and inquired as to
what actions would have to be taken, assuming that it is one legal parcel, to make the subject property two legal parcels and questioned what process would follow to make it developable.
Mr. Tucker explained that a tax parcel would need to be created by a Certified Survey Map (CSM). He said that parcel would be substandard because it does not have the 60’ of lot width
necessary, and depending upon the configuration of the parcel, there would also be an issue with substandard conditions being created for a two-family dwelling property. Mr. Tucker said
the legal description of the property is recorded at the Register of Deeds. He also noted that there may be a property comprising two legal parcels with previously separate tax bills,
which have been combined by the Assessor so a single tax bill is sent, however they are still two separate pieces of property since the Assessor can not legally combine pieces of property.
There was further discussion on legal descriptions of parcels. Mr. Feavel and Mr. Wilusz said they would support staff. Chairman Krueger said, in his opinion, the structure was created
with the intent of combining the two lots together to make it one parcel and the legal description states it is one parcel. Motion by Hentz to approve an appeal to the City Zoning Administrator’s
determination that the subject property consists of one legal parcel, assembled out of two platted lots. Seconded by Kluessendorf. Motion denied 0-5.
OTHER BUSINESS: Board of Appeals Minutes -7 -January 8, 2003 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner
MT/mld