Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MAY 8, 2002 PRESENT: Carl Ameringer, Fred Dahl, Cheryl Hentz, Don Krueger, Edward Wilusz, EXCUSED: Joel Kluessendorf, John Schorse 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. The minutes of April 24, 2002 were approved as mailed. (Hentz/Ameringer) Unanimous. I: 1840 EVANS STREET John Beck, applicant, for Dr. Mitchell Tulip, owner, is requesting a variance to construct a ground sign with a 15’ front yard setback, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(d) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ front yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. John Beck, 2269 Allerton Drive, said the owner is also requesting to put spotlights on the sign to illuminate it for the winter months, when it is dark by 4:00 P.M. He said they could be on a timer to turn off at 10:00 P.M. He noted that the dental office across the street has spotlights on their existing sign. Mr. Tucker explained the reasoning for the lighting recommendation. He said the City has received complaints for lighting that is left on all night long and this proposed sign is further into the setback area and noted there is residential property directly across the street. Mr. Tucker said considering this is an office type use with daytime hours, he did not feel a lit sign was necessary for advertising. He stated the variance request with the condition is the least possible needed to remove any hardship. Ms. Hentz said she had requested the item be laid over from the last meeting because the applicant and owner were not aware of the lighting condition presented by staff. She said she could support the request if the condition was changed to reflect that the proposed sign be externally lit by spotlights until 9:00 or 10:00 P.M. She said noise ordinances go until 10:00 P.M. so to be consistent 10:00 P.M., in her opinion, would be appropriate. Chairman Krueger said he would not support the variance request with spotlights because they create too much glare and the sign is already infringing upon the setback area. He added it is another distraction for traffic. Chairman Krueger said he could possibly support internal lighting, but even that would be questionable. He noted the applicant is asking for more than what they now have, because the existing sign is not lit. Board discussion continued with Ms. Hentz saying she could support the sign either internally or externally lit until 10:00 P.M. She said the spotlight, in her opinion, would be no different than the glare of headlights. Mr. Tucker explained that there are light ordinances, which require the light be directed at the sign and not cast off onto residential properties. Discussion continued on the possibility of a lighted sign. Board of Appeals Minutes - 2 - May 8, 2002 Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct a ground sign with a 15’ front yard setback with the following condition: 1.) The sign be internally lit, set on a timer to be off at 10:00 P.M. Seconded by Dahl. Motion approved 4-1. Nay: Ameringer. Finding of the fact: It was concluded there does not appear to be any adverse impact on surrounding properties and the hardship was not self-created. II: 2999 SHADOW LANE Jeanne 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. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos. Jeanne Drover, 2999 Shadow Lane, said she would like to have the 12’ x 24’ building located so there would be 5’ between the house and the proposed garage, which would bring it 2’ closer to the road. She said she would like to retain the 5’ separation from the house to the garage, which is required so the garage is not considered attached. During board discussion Mr. Dahl stated this situation is typical of lake property and in his opinion the request is not out of line. Ms. Hentz agreed, saying it would be a definite improvement. Mr. Tucker commented when this property was annexed, the lakeshore overlay, which allows garages in the front yard, was not applied to this property. He added that the City is in the process of reviewing the zoning code, text amendments and other possible changes, which could address this situation. Motion by Ameringer for approval of the variance to construct a detached garage in the front yard area. Seconded by Hentz. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that properties in the area, including this one, are unique in layout, it will be a positive impact on the neighborhood, and it will be more aesthetically pleasing. III: 710 E. NEVADA AVENUE Noffke Lumber, Inc., applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to construct a 6’ tall chain link fence with a 0’ front yard setback for the purpose of creating an open storage area, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ front yard setback for fences and Section 30-29(A) requires open storage of materials must be screened by a solid 6’ tall fence. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated photos. Board of Appeals Minutes - 3 - May 8, 2002 It was noted there was no applicant representation for the variance request. The Board asked if there was any indication that the applicant would not be attending the meeting. Mr. Tucker responded the applicant was sent notices and a staff report, but perhaps because of the unfavorable recommendation from staff, they chose not to attend. Mr. Dahl stated he could see no reason for the variance. Ms. Hentz said she was not inclined to lay the item over since there was no communication from the applicant to the fact that they would not be available for the meeting. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct a 6’ tall chain link fence with a 0’ front yard setback for the purpose of creating an open storage area. Seconded by Dahl. Motion denied 0-5. IV: 928 BISMARCK AVENUE Kris Parrish, applicant and owner, requests a variance to reconstruct the front porch, which will result in the dwelling having a 58” front yard setback, whereas Section 30- 19(B)(3)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ front yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated pictures. Kris Parrish, 928 Bismarck Avenue, said the porch is the only item remaining on the property to be redone. He said his intent is to improve the looks of the porch area for the neighborhood. Mr. Dahl asked if the footprint of the porch would remain the same. Mr. Parrish said the only thing he would change would be the roofline. Chairman Krueger asked if the porch would be screened. Mr. Parrish answered he intended to enclose the area with glass. Ms. Hentz said, in her opinion, it was a reasonable request, it would be a definite improvement, and she would support the variance. Mr. Dahl stated the property in the neighborhood is all of similar type and he too would support the request. Chairman Krueger commented that he normally votes against variances when the applicant is requesting more than what they already have. He stated the applicant presently has an open air type porch, which is already in the setback area, and is now requesting an enclosed porch. He said he applauds the applicant in upgrading the building, but he could not support the variance request. Mr. Ameringer asked Chairman Krueger what his concerns were, because the measurements are exactly the same as the existing porch. Board of Appeals Minutes - 4 - May 8, 2002 Chairman Krueger responded the dimensions are the same, but the applicant is now turning an open porch into potential living space. He said if a variance was granted, then the room could be turned into additional living space, rather than just a porch area, which would result in an added permanent fixture to the house, that would be located in the setback area. He added the applicant might not intend to turn the porch into living space, however future owners would then have the opportunity to do so. Mr. Ameringer said he was initially inclined to support the variance, however he now understood Chairman Krueger’s point of view. Mr. Tucker suggested the variance request could have a condition or verbiage attached to it regarding the enclosed porch issue. Chairman Krueger said he would support a variance to reconstruct the porch as an open porch. Ms. Hentz asked why staff did not share similar concerns, which Chairman Krueger expressed. Mr. Tucker responded he could appreciate the concern. He added there are ingress and egress issues and the quality of life issues for the property that have to be taken into consideration. He said it is still being viewed as a 3 season’s room and if the applicant or future property owner were to want to add a foundation wall, it would be the Zoning Administrator’s determination that a variance was not granted for that use. Ms. Hentz asked the applicant if he would have a problem leaving it as a screened porch. Mr. Parrish responded, in his opinion, it would look better to have it enclosed and if it was to be left open it would deteriorate faster due to weather elements. He added he might consider leaving the porch as is, if it could not be enclosed. Board discussion continued on the possibilities of adding a condition to the variance and adding a deed restriction to the property. It was discussed whether clarification in the minutes would suffice versus the need for adding a deed restriction to the property. Mr. Tucker stated that he knows of no case law where deed restrictions protected a city from a law suit as the result of a variance that was granted, which resulted in persons being injured because they chose to habit an area restricted as inhabitable. Discussion continued on the option for an open-air porch. Mr. Tucker explained staff’s interpretation of an open-air porch: a structure without a foundation wall, with a solid or open air type wall up to the 36” railing height required by the building code, with the rest of the area, excluding the columns for support, being either open or screened with screens or with single pane storm/screen window combination units.It was also suggested that the applicant has the option to withdraw his application and submit another plan for the Board to review. Discussion continued on the definition of an open-air porch and the differences between the usage of single pane storm/screen type windows and double hung combination windows. Mr. Tucker noted that if the applicant were to disagree as to staff’s interpretation of what the applicant proposes for an open-air porch, he could request clarification in the form of an appeal to the Board of Appeals. Motion by Dahl for approval of the variance to reconstruct an open- air front porch, which will result in the dwelling having a 58” front yard setback, with the following condition: 1.) The porch to be an open-air porch, with siding up to 36” and single pane storm windows, as is determined an open-air porch by city staff. Board of Appeals Minutes - 5 - May 8, 2002 Seconded by Hentz. Motion approved 4-1. Nay: Krueger. Finding of the fact: It was concluded it would be replacing an existing porch, the dimensions are exactly the same, it would have a positive impact on the neighboring properties, it would be an improvement aesthetically, and other structures on the street appear to be in the same situation. V: 2875 N. MAIN STREET International Group Inc., owner, and Steven Keeney, applicant are requesting a variance to construct a canopy addition to the existing building with a 0’ side yard setback, whereas Section 30-30(B)(2) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 20’ side yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. Steven Keeney, 14 Tri-Park Way, Appleton, WI, said the canopy will look the same as those that are existing. He stated it is a safety issue because two cars now sit outside the canopy area and it can be very slippery with the wet wax. Chairman Krueger asked if railroad permits have been obtained. Mr. Keeney replied that those issues have been addressed. Motion by Ameringer for approval of the variance to construct a canopy addition on the existing building with a 0’ side yard setback. Seconded by Hentz. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded it was a unique property, safety issues were involved, and there would be little adverse impact on the adjacent property to the north. VI: 500 SCOTT AVENUE Howard Christianson, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to provide the required parking spaces for a two family dwelling in the 17.5’ front yard setback, whereas Section 30-36(C)(5)(a) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires the code compliant parking spaces shall be created out of the setback area and Section 30- 36(C)(3)(e) requires 18’ of depth for a parking space. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. Mr. Ameringer asked for clarification on where the new parking spaces would be located. Mr. Tucker responded the new parking spaces would be located in front of the garage and the new garage would be 10’ closer toward the house. Howard Christianson, 550 W. Fisk Avenue, said the requested variance would improve the property and the neighborhood. He also noted that the current tenants have been renting for over 10 years. Chairman Krueger noted the new driveway would have to be paved. Board of Appeals Minutes - 6 - May 8, 2002 Ms. Hentz said, in her opinion, it would be a tremendous improvement. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to provide the required parking spaces for a two family dwelling in the 17.5” front yard setback. Seconded by Dahl. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: Ms. Hentz stated since the dilapidated garage had to be removed, due to a raze order from the City of Oshkosh, it was not a self- created hardship, the structure itself was unique, and it would be a great improvement in appearance. Mr. Ameringer stated it needs to meet parking requirements, and it is the least needed to remove any hardship. VII: 2090 S. KOELLER STREET James McDewitt, owner, and Thomas Design, Inc., applicant are requesting a variance to construct a three bay addition on the existing nonconforming structure, which will exceed 50% of the assessed value of the structure, whereas Section 30-4(B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires alterations, additions and expansions of nonconforming structures may not exceed 50% of the current total assessed value of the structure, and a variance to allow for a parking lot with a 10' rear yard setback, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 19’3” setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated pictures. RD Chet Wesenberg, of Thomas Design, 27 3 Street, Fond du Lac, WI, presented a site plan for reference. He questioned why the current buffer would not be sufficient. Mr. Tucker responded since this is not a 50% expansion, the code does not require the landscaping be brought up to current standards, so staff would like an opportunity to review the landscape plan to bring it up to current requirements. Discussion continued on the existing landscaping and the fact that the screening for the off-street parking area abutting the residence to the east is not a four-season hedge. It was noted that solid screening protects the adjacent area from the glare of headlights. Mr. Ameringer questioned where the expanded parking area would be. Mr. Wesenberg explained it would be perpendicular to the side yard and rear yard area. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct a 3 bay addition on the existing nonconforming structure, which will exceed 50% of the assessed value of the structure, with the following condition: 1.) A landscaping plan be reviewed and approved, prior to obtaining a building permit. Seconded by Ameringer. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Board of Appeals Minutes - 7 - May 8, 2002 Finding of the fact: It was concluded the landscaping will help mitigate the negative impact on the adjacent properties, and the addition on the building will be consistent in setback with the existing structure. VIII: 321 PROSPECT AVENUE David and Gail McNeil, applicants and owners, are requesting a variance to construct a detached garage in the rear yard area with a 1’ side yard setback, whereas Section 30- 19(B)(4)(b)(v) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 2.5” side yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures stating the side yard setback should be 1’ not 0’, as stated in the staff report. He noted the City does not require certified surveys because it is their position that this process would be overly burdensome for applicants. Mr. Tucker circulated a post construction survey. He stated that the width of the land quit claimed was recorded in error, due to an error in the legal description dating back to1901. Gail McNeil, 321 Prospect Avenue, said they constructed the garage believing they had done everything right and the variance request is a result of an unfortunate error. She said their intent is to be able to keep the garage. Ms. Hentz questioned whether the error was made in 1901 or whether the error was a result of the applicants drafting their own quit- claim deed. Mr. Tucker said the piece of land that the applicant acquired was thought to be 2’ larger than what it actually is. He said this error was created in 1901 by an error in the transfer of property, and at the time the applicants acquired the land, City records described this area as 30’ wide. Mr. Ameringer asked the applicant if anyone indicated to her, during construction or at any time, that the garage was being placed incorrectly, or if anyone expressed any concerns. Mrs. McNeil answered no and added they had initially contacted City staff as to the size of the piece of property, prior to construction, and City records indicated that the size of the property was 30’ x 30’. She said they erected the 24’ x 24’ garage in good faith. Peter Kaufman, 317 Prospect Avenue, said he was informed that the garage was going up and after the garage was erected he was told he would have to remove his fence. He said he would like to be allowed to erect the rest of his fence. Mr. Tucker clarified that the applicants bought the land believing that the fence was on their property, but the fence is actually on the adjacent property lot line, so Mr. Kaufman could continue erecting his fence. Discussion continued on the concern of water from the drip line. Mr. Kaufman said he was not overly concerned, since the water run off could be directed to the rear of the garage, and there does not appear to be a lot of standing water on site. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct a detached garage in the rear yard area with a 1’ side yard setback. Seconded by Wilusz. Motion approved 5- 0. Unanimous. Board of Appeals Minutes - 8 - May 8, 2002 Finding of the fact: It was concluded the hardship was not self-created, there are no existing provisions in any codes that would have prevented this error, and the garage has already been erected. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld