Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2002 PRESENT: Fred Dahl, Cheryl Hentz, Joel Kluessendorf, John Schorse EXCUSED: Carl Ameringer, Don Krueger STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; Mary Lou Degner, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Schorse. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Ms. Hentz asked for clarification in the minutes of December 12, 2001, in regard to item II, 101 Knapp Street. She stated she would like the minutes to reflect that, per Mr. Tucker’s representation and explanation of the Supreme Court case, this particular item will not be brought up in the future through any departments through out the City of Oshkosh, in regard to the proposed repairs and improvements. The minutes were approved as amended. (Hentz/Dahl). I: 331 E. IRVING AVENUE Paul Smith, applicant and owner, requests a variance to create an off-street parking area with a 4’6” rear yard setback and a 9’2” front yard setback, whereas Section 30-36(C)(5)(a) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ rear yard setback and a 22’5” front yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. Paul Smith, PO Box 213, Winnebago, Wisconsin, said the dilapidated garage was removed and the city code now requires 4 parking stalls for the duplex, which may only be located in the depicted area, which is within the setback area for code compliant parking. He explained the current parking situation. Discussion followed on the required paving of the area, alternative parking arrangements, and the screening to be provided. Ms. Hentz inquired as to the time frame that the screening has to be approved by the Department of Community Development and when the screening has to be installed. Mr. Tucker responded due to the winter season, screening could be installed in early spring. He noted the screening is required when the parking area is constructed. He added that building permits typically require a 6-month time period in which the work is to be completed. Mr. Kluessendorf questioned if there is an alternative to the stacked parking proposed and if the stalls would be designated to each apartment. Mr. Smith responded the other option for parking would be 3 stalls in a row and there would be parking designation for the stalls. Richard Sontag, Sr., 675 Zarling Avenue, said he owns the property south of the subject property and presented pictures of the area. He noted it is a very tight area for screening to be installed and if a fence is erected, it may limit access to his driveway. Mr. Sontag added that about 2’of his driveway area is on Mr. Smith’s property. Discussion continued on the issues concerning possible screening. Mr. Tucker explained that the functional width of a driveway is 8’ and a 9’x18’ parking space is a code compliant parking space. He said the fence does not have to be placed on the lot line, it could be moved in closer to the parking area if desired. He noted that the screening does not have to be a fence, however other screening options typically are wider than a fence. Mr. Tucker suggested that the screening plan be approved administratively. He noted the applicant has shown an interest to work with the neighbor in this regard. Mr. Tucker said the alternative was to not allow for stacked parking and to have 3 spaces side by side 27’ wide, however there would be no room to access the back steps of the house and there would be 0’ setback to Mr. Sontag’s property. Discussion continued on whether the applicant or Mr. Sontag had an objection to the encroachment in the 4’6” area. Mr. Smith replied he would put the screening in a position where Mr. Sontag could access his driveway. Motion by Dahl to create an off- street parking area with a 4’6” rear yard setback and a 9’2” front yard setback with the following condition: 1.) A screening plan be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to obtaining a building permit. Seconded by Hentz. Motion approved 4-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded this was the most practical of the two options, because the applicant is willing to work with his neighbor it is a good solution to the problem, and it will not have any adverse impact on the neighborhood. II: 2804 STONEY BEACH STREET Jim Ruddy, applicant and owner, requests a variance to construct a garage with an 11’ street yard setback, whereas Section 30-23(C)(3)(a) requires a street yard setback of 20’. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. He noted that the general area was initially developed in the Town of Algoma, where different setbacks apply. Jim Ruddy, 2804 Stoney Beach Street, said they moved into the 1200 sq. ft. house in August of 2001, from a 2500 sq. ft. house, so they now have minimal storage area. He said the garage would allow them to create more storage space, as well as parking space. Discussion continued on where the proposed garage would be located. It was noted that the garage would actually have a 12’ street yard setback, rather than 11’ as stated in the staff report. Mr. Kluessendorf asked if the existing garage is now a legal nonconforming structure. Mr. Tucker responded that it is now a legal nonconforming structure and explained that the requested variance is to allow construction of a new garage, which will be a legal conforming structure by the variance. Board discussion followed with it being noted it is a simple solution to a problem, which plagues that area. Vice Chairman Schorse said because of the uniqueness of the lots in the area you would find garages in the front yard. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct a garage with a 12’ street yard setback. Seconded by Dahl. Motion approved 4-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded the properties in the area are unique and rather than create an adverse impact in the neighborhood it will actually create a positive impact because it will both match the existing setbacks as well as provide storage for the applicant’s vehicles and other possessions. III: 919 CHERRY STREET Tri-Star Investments, Inc., applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to construct an off-street parking area with a 13’ rear yard setback, whereas Section 30-36(C)(5)(a) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ rear yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos. He noted the property shares a driveway with the property to the south and they share an easement. Randy Schmeidel, 319 Pearl Street, said the neighbor’s attached garage to the south is parallel with the house, and when they back out of this garage they are actually backing into the easement area. This has also created a problem because this is the area that the tenants for this property park in. He added it is his opinion that this new plan would also help alleviate that problem. Mr. Kluessendorf asked if the current garage is to be razed. Vice Chairman Schorse asked what the surface would be. Mr. Schmeidel responded that the garage will be razed and the surface will be blacktop. He added he would like to put a fence on the north side of the property. Board discussion followed with it being noted anything here would be an improvement including the designated parking and proper screening. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct an off-street parking area with a 13’ rear yard setback with the following condition: 1). A screening plan be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to obtaining a building permit. Seconded by Kluessendorf. Motion approved 4-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded it would be an improvement rather than an adverse problem, there would be no adverse impact on the neighboring properties, and the property is unique because of the substandard size. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld