Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JULY 10, 2002 PRESENT: Carl Ameringer, Fred Dahl, Cheryl Hentz, Don Krueger, John Schorse EXCUSED: Joel Kluessendorf, Ed Wilusz STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; Mary Lou Degner, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Krueger. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Mr. Ameringer asked for the minutes of June 26, 2002 to reflect corrections on page 6, line 2. He asked for the word “and” to be replaced with the word “in”, and for the words “been assumed” to be deleted and replaced with the word “evolved”. The sentence would now read, “Mr. Ameringer stated there was a strong case for unique and unusual characteristics for the subject property in the way it has evolved over time …”. (Hentz/Dahl) Unanimous. Warren Kraft, City Attorney, presented a workshop presentation on the functions of the Board of Zoning Appeals. He circulated handouts to the Board and to Staff. Chairman Krueger opened the floor for nominations for Vice-Chair Person. Mr. Schorse nominated Ms. Hentz. Ms. Hentz was elected Vice-Chair Person. I: 624-654 OTTER AVENUE Duke Schneider, applicant for Trident Properties, is requesting a variance to construct three detached garages that will have a 4’ setback to an alley, whereas Section 30- 21(B)(6)(h)(iii) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 10’ setback from an alley line, and the provision of 28 off-street parking spaces for a multi-family dwelling, whereas Section 30-36(B)(6) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires 32 parking spaces. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos. Duke Schneider, PO Box 2851, owner of the property, said he is preparing a letter to be sent to the owners of 629, 633, 637, and 641 Waugoo Avenue and possibly 217 Mill Street, stating a wish to negotiate some land purchase or use for the purpose of constructing a garbage corral. He stated he has signed a contract with Superior Garbage Service and he will be utilizing one 8-yard garbage container. Ms. Hentz asked if the proposed garages would have similar setbacks to others in the area and inquired if a speed limit sign could be installed in the alleyway, due to the fact that children play in the alley. Mr. Tucker responded the proposed garages would have similar setbacks to other garages in the area and stated that the alley is an improved street and David Patek, Director Department of Public Works, could be contacted regarding the speed limit sign or other traffic calming measures. Mr. Schorse asked if there was other placement for the garbage dumpster. Board of Appeals Minutes - 2 - July 10, 2002 Mr. Schneider said he originally had the dumpster area placed by 620 Otter Avenue and when the owner objected to the placement the dumpsters were moved into the center, which was the most convenient place, not realizing that dumpsters obstructing the alley was a violation. Mr. Tucker commented that the lots, which the applicant is considering for the refuse area, are non-conforming and to make them smaller would be a violation of the ordinance for minimum lot sizes. He further explained that to grant a cross easement would be a possibility, which would have to be reviewed by the City Attorney’s office, however it would be undesirable for the neighbors to live next to a garbage area. Mr. Tucker said it would be preferable to have the dumpster located on site, which may result in the reduction of one parking space. Mr. Dahl asked if that would be agreeable to the applicant. Mr. Schneider answered yes. He said he was just trying to find a solution to the problem. Mr. Tucker presented a letter of objection from Lynn Anderson, 633 Waugoo Avenue (said letter on file in the Planning Services office). During board discussion Mr. Ameringer asked if the construction of the garages would not alleviate the concern of Ms. Anderson regarding the multitude of vehicles. Mr. Tucker explained the applicant would be going from 32 functional parking spaces to possibly 27 parking spaces, depending upon the refuse disposal area location. Discussion continued on the parking availability. Chairman Krueger said he did not see where there would be a net gain for the neighborhood in regard to parking issues and questioned if there was enough on-street parking available to meet the needs. Mr. Tucker said the 4’ setback to the alley would be easier to enforce than placing the garages farther away from the alley, where people would be more prone to park in front of the garages. He also stated there is on street parking available on Mill Street, Bay Street and Otter Avenue, but he could not attest to how much is actually available. He further explained that it is up to the applicant to demonstrate that the parking requirements for this development are overly burdensome and that the reduction in parking spaces would improve the current situation. Discussion continued on the presence of the double stacked parking. Mr. Schorse questioned the 7’ setback, which was denoted on the map and the 32 parking spaces. Mr. Tucker said the 7’ setback was incorrect because the architect did not understand where the alley was, the correct measurement is 4’. He further explained that in counting 32 spaces, the applicant was including 4 spaces of on-street parking. It was discussed that the location of the refuse disposal area would be reviewed by staff. Ms. Hentz said it was a difficult decision to make because although she appreciates what the applicant is trying to do, in her opinion, the parking space would be greatly reduced. After further discussion Ms. Hentz noted that the parking is now unassigned and with the proposed garages the parking would be assigned and monthly parking permits could be obtained for on-street parking. Mr. Tucker reiterated that they may end up with 27 parking spaces if a viable alternative is not found for the location of the refuse disposal area. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct three detached garages that will have a 4’ setback to an alley with the following condition: 1) A dumpster enclosure be constructed on site, with said location reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Dahl. Motion approved 4-1. Nay; Ameringer. Board of Appeals Minutes - 3 - July 10, 2002 Finding of the fact: Ms. Hentz stated the property is unique in shape, there are not many other options, and it would soften the impact of the multi- family dwelling on the surrounding properties. Chairman Krueger added it would make enforcement of parking in the alley easier and it would eliminate the ability to double stack vehicles. II: 923 CHERRY STREET David L. Bush & Lynn A. Clough, applicants and owners, are requesting a variance to retain the existing slab for uncovered parking purposes, which has a 2.5’ rear yard setback for uncovered parking spaces, whereas Section 30-36(C)(5)(a) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning ordinance requires a 25’ rear yard setback for uncovered parking spaces. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated pictures. David Bush, 3006 Shorewood Drive, introduced himself. Ms. Hentz asked for clarification on the parking issues and Mr. Schorse asked why the applicant opted not to rebuild the garage. Mr. Tucker explained the proposed parking situation. Mr. Bush responded that the garage was 18’ x 18’, which was very small, and because of the college housing in the area he had a concern with vandalism and safety issues. Chairman Krueger asked for an explanation of how the variance request would provide the parking spaces, which the applicant desires. Mr. Bush responded besides the garage slab there is an existing 9’ x 22’ concrete pad, which would provide the third spot off Woodland Avenue, and the fourth spot would be the driveway off Cherry Street. Mr. Tucker said the applicant has expressed a desire to retain as much green space, as possible, along Woodland Avenue, but that area could be an alternative option for the parking required. He suggested the Board could condition the removal of the nonconforming driveway along the south lot line. Discussion continued on the existing parking and the alternative options. Mr. Tucker stated the most desirable option would be to reconstruct the detached garage with a space along side, which would not require a variance. Mr. Bush said he would like to retain the green space and noted he has a 4’ privacy fence he would like to keep. He said his intent is to obtain the four legal parking spaces required. During board discussion Mr. Ameringer said he would prefer the original application request, but he would vote in support of either solution to the problem. He said, in his opinion, having the extra parking space would actually defer the construction of the garage in the future. Discussion continued on the possibility of a garage to be built in the future. Mr. Schorse said, in his opinion, it would be a gain to eliminate the driveway off Cherry Street. Ms. Hentz said ideally, she would prefer to have the garage Board of Appeals Minutes - 4 - July 10, 2002 rebuilt, which she realizes is expensive, however she does like staff’s alternative suggestion and would also like to see the driveway off Cherry Street eliminated. Chairman Krueger said he would like a third condition stating the removal of the driveway on Cherry Street. Mr. Tucker informed the Board that it is in their power to grant a 25% reduction in parking requirements. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to retain the existing slab for uncovered parking purposes and a 25% reduction in parking spaces with the following conditions: 1)A screening plan be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to obtaining a building permit. 2)The driveway and curb cut on Woodland Avenue be narrowed to a width of 12’ at the right-of-way line. 3)The driveway and approach on Cherry Street be removed in coordination with the Department of Public Works and the area returned to green space. Seconded by Ameringer. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded the property is a substandard lot in terms of size, the parking situation will be a gain to the area in terms of cleaning it up, it will be beneficial to the neighbor by removing the driveway on Cherry Street, and the hardship was not self created because the garage was destroyed in a storm. TH III: 123 W. 9 AVENUE Garry H. Decker, applicant for Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church, owner, is requesting a variance to expand a playground area that will result in the playground having a 0’ setback to the side lot line, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 19’3” transitional yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos. TH John Nieman, 1078 W. 4 Avenue, said he is a member of Grace congregation and would be the representative in place of Garry Decker, who was called away on business, he mentioned he is also on the playground committee. Mr. Nieman said that at the time the Church purchased the property they had no specific plans for a playground, but have since been given an opportunity to be a test pilot for a new type of playground. He presented a plan denoting the placement of the new equipment. He said the lot is 147’ and they wish to incorporate 30’ x 20’ for the preschool students at the south end of the lot, and for the remainder to remain green space. Mr. Tucker inquired about the placement of fences, noting that even if the area is left green it could still be used for functional playground area. Mr. Nieman explained the position of the fences and said the original chain link fence on the west side of the lot would remain. Discussion continued on the placement of fences. Board of Appeals Minutes - 5 - July 10, 2002 Th Ms. Hentz stated a concern for the adjacent property at 119 W. 9 Street regarding the side yard setback. Mr. Nieman explained that their concern relative to “adverse possession”, which he believes means after 20 years the fence line becomes the lot line and the Church would then lose the property. He said th the residents at 119 W. 9 Street presently have 2’ of green space between the driveway and the lot line. He added, in his opinion, because there is not a fence, the vacant lot is regularly littered with garbage. Mr. Tucker said the law of “adverse possession” is to be interpreted on a case by case basis, through the courts, but it is not used in regard to where the fence is located, it concerns the space that is occupied or functionally used. Mr. Ameringer questioned the size of the area proposed for the preschool playground and the effect that a 5’ setback would have on the playground equipment that has been ordered. Mr. Nieman said he did not know what the effect would be on the playground equipment. Discussion ensued on the number of students and their separate recess times, nursery students; 10, kindergartners; 20, and students 1-8; 60. th Bruce and Mindy Gosdeck, 119 W. 9 Avenue, said they were opposed to the fence being so close to their driveway, which would enclose three sides of their property. They also expressed a concern on the height of the fence. Mr. Gosdeck suggested that the Church could incorporate the new playground with the Church’s current lot. He said they would like to be able to retain the current 19’3” setback. Mr. Tucker said staff would ideally like to see a 5’ high arborvitae wall screening the fence on the side of the Gosdeck property. Discussion continued on the proposed rezoning of the Church property. Mr. Ameringer questioned the possibility of maintaining the 19’3” setback to the grassy area and to have the variance refer only to the area for the purpose of the playground equipment. Discussion continued on other alternatives. Mr. Nieman said they would like to do what is best for their school and for the neighborhood, and to retain the 19’3” setback would not be beneficial for the use of the property. Discussion continued on the maintenance of the green space. Mr. Tucker said when the variance request was initially discussed with the applicant, it was understood the entire area was to be used for the playground. He said considering the size of the lot and the reasonable use of the property, staff recommends a 5’setback with appropriate screening. Mr. Tucker said the area would be lightly used and it would appear as an open green space rather than a typical structure type area, meaning improved with structures such as parking lots or buildings. Mr. Ameringer said that is not his understanding of what has been presented at the meeting today. He said he was concerned with the number of different versions presented. It was suggested to lay the item over to obtain a better site plan. Mr. Nieman said that Mr. Decker is willing to consent to a 2’ setback and he would prefer for the Board to vote on the item. Chairman Krueger said that more information was needed and it would be best to lay over the item so Mr. Decker could answer the questions of the Board. Motion by Hentz for lay over of the variance request to the next available meeting when a completed site plan is presented to the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Dahl. Motion carried 5-0. Unanimous. Board of Appeals Minutes - 6 - July 10, 2002 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld