HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
APRIL 25, 2001
PRESENT: Fred Dahl, Cheryl Hentz, Randy Husman, Joel Kluessendorf, and Don Krueger Chairman
EXCUSED: Carl Ameringer and John Schorse
STAFF: Darryn Burich, Principal Planner; Mary Lou Degner and Vickie Rand, Recording
Secretaries
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Krueger. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared
present.
The minutes of April 11, March 28, 2001 were approved as mailed. Hentz/Kluessendorf. Unanimous.
I: 546 PLEASANT STREET
Gerald Neisen, applicant and owner, requests variances to allow an accessory structure to be located in
the front yard with a 19’+ front yard setback, whereas Section 30-1(A)(2) requires structures to be
located in a side or rear yard; and to allow for a second parking space along side a detached garage,
whereas Section 30-36(C)(5)(a)(iii) of the Zoning Ordinance allows for only one parking space along
side a garage.
Mr. Burich introduced the item and explained the building code appeal that may be coming in front of
the board in a few weeks.
Gerald Neisen, introduced his wife Elizabeth and stated that they had purchased the property within the
last year and is requesting a variance because the property is a double frontage lot with two front yards
that makes it almost impossible to rebuild or construct a detached garage and provide the parking in
compliance with the zoning ordinance. The front of the dwelling is oriented toward Pleasant Street and
the “rear” yard where the existing detached garage is located in is oriented toward Grand Street. He
stated there is no parking allowed along Grand Street because it is too narrow and this creates the need
for additional parking on the property.
Mr. Neisen showed pictures of the area and pointed out the garage when it had asphalt siding. He also
showed pictures of the existing condition of the garage (without the siding, the new roof and double
rafters). He explained the orders from the City to raze the garage and his efforts to salvage it at this time.
He also showed pictures of the parking on the street, on gravel driveways or makeshift parking spaces,
and noted how many of the neighbors are parking closer to the road than what he is requesting.
Mr. Neisen continued to talk about the condition of the garage and the raze order received from the City
of Oshkosh. He explained he is only requesting a variance for what has been done over the past 50
years. He stated he would like to amend the variance request to allow him to have a gravel drive and
parking area. He stated he would landscape the area, but could not afford to pave the driveway at this
time with all the money he has spent on fixing up the house.
Chairman Krueger stated the issue in front of the Board at this time was the setback and not the garage.
Mr. Burich questioned if Mr. Neisen now was planning to take the garage down. Mr. Neisen stated it
looked as though he would have to take the garage down, however, he wanted to be allowed to leave the
Board of Appeals Minutes -2- April 25, 2001
gravel drive. He explained he wanted to leave the garage to break up the parking lot effect of the
neighborhood, and couldn’t afford to construct a new garage.
Discussion continued regarding the garage, the gravel drive and the proposed landscaping.
Ms. Hentz asked if it might be wise to lay over the item at this time. Mr. Burich stated he had discussed
the possibility of the Board laying over the item with the applicant until an appeal of the building code
was brought forward and the garage issue resolved, so the Board would be able consider all the
applicant’s appeals regarding the parking and the garage at one meeting.
Motion by Hentz to lay over the item until an appeal to the City’s Building Code came forward.
Mr. Neisen stated that he didn’t feel the Analysis and Recommendations section of the Staff Report did
a good job of analyzing the issue. He stated he would like to be allowed to have parking for 4 cars, 2 in
the garage and 2 next to the garage, since he can’t park in the street because of the one-way designation
and the restricted parking.
Discussion followed on what would possibly be coming before the board in the future, and the effects it
would have on the current variance request.
Ms. Hentz repeated her motion to lay over the item until an appeal to the City’s Building Code
came forward.
Mr. Husman questioned when the new roof of the garage was put on. Mr. Neisen stated the roof was put
on before he purchased the property.
Mr. Kluessendorf seconded the motion.
Mr. Husman questioned what chance there was for the City of Oshkosh to rescind the raze order on the
garage. Mr. Neisen stated it didn’t seem very likely at this time. He stated he has talked to the
neighborhood about his request, and questioned if a petition from the neighborhood would be of any
value to the Board. Chairman Krueger stated it would give the Board a feel for the how the neighbors
felt about this situation.
Motion carried 4-1. Nay: Husman
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
DARRYN BURICH
Principal Planner
DB/vlr