Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MAY 9, 2001 PRESENT: Carl Ameringer, Fred Dahl, Cheryl Hentz, Randy Husman, Joel Kluessendorf EXCUSED: Don Krueger and John Schorse STAFF: Susan Kepplinger, Principal Planner; Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; Mary Lou Degner and Vickie Rand, Recording Secretaries Matt Tucker called for nominations for Chairman Pro Temp. Cheryl Hentz nominated Randy Husman, Seconded by Dahl. Unanimous. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Pro Temp Husman. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of April 25, 2001 were approved as mailed. Hentz/Dahl. Unanimous. th I: 448 W. 7 AVENUE Paul Schimelpfenig, applicant and owner, requests a variance to allow a 12’ by 12’ or 144 square foot utility shed in the rear yard whereas; Section 30-19 (B) (4) (e) (iii) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance allows for utility sheds up to 100 square feet in size. Motion by Hentz to lay over the item because the applicant was not represented. Seconded by Ameringer. Motion carried 5-0. II: 1615 WHITE SWAN DRIVE Michael L. Lohoff, applicant and owner, requests a variance to attach a swimming pool with a 19’ rear yard setback to the principle structure whereas; Section 30-17 (b) (3) (d) requires a 25’ rear yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item. Mr. Ameringer questioned the applicants intent. Mr. Lohoff stated that due to the deteriorated deck he wished to replace this area with concrete. He presented pictures showing the pool area. He raised concerns as to the maintenance issues of a wood deck , and the safety issues of barefooted swimmers getting slivers. He also mentioned he would like to add a screened porch in the future to abate the problem with bugs. He stated the area now consists of gravel, where he wanted to attach the apron. Susan Kepplinger stated that the deck was conforming at this time, however, replacing the deck with a concrete deck, patio and apron to connect the pool area will result in the pool being attached to the principle structure, therefore making it nonconforming because it will only be set back 19’ from the rear lot line, where 25’ is required. Mr. Lohoff assured the board that he had no intention of enclosing the pool itself. Board of Appeals Minutes -2- May 9, 2001 Discussion followed concerning a wooden deck vs. concrete. Mr. Lohoff questioned how the improvements he wanted to make would have a negative impact on the area. Discussion followed on the alternatives available for Mr. Lohoff which included having open space between the deck and the pool, and the reasoning for that stipulation in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Dahl stated he couldn’t find a hardship. Ms. Hentz stated there didn’t appear to be a hardship, however she felt concrete would be an improvement over gravel. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to attach a swimming pool to the principal structure which will have a 19’ rear yard setback. Seconded by Dahl. Motion carried 4-1. Nay: Kluessendorf. Findings: Cheryl Hentz stated she saw no determent to neighbors and did not see a difference between gravel and concrete. Chairman Husman stated replacing the deck and gravel with concrete would be an improvement to the property. th III.522 W 5 AVENUE William Steiner, applicant and owner, requests variances for a front yard setback of 20.5’ and side yard setbacks of 2’ and 6’, whereas Section 30-19 (b) (3) (b) requires a 25’ front yard setback and 7.5’ side yard setbacks. Matt Tucker introduced the item. He stated the proposed property improvement exceeded 50% value of the structure and therefore a variance was necessary . He stated that these improvements to an old home would result in a net improvement to the neighborhood. William Steinert the applicant had nothing to add. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance for a front yard setback of 20.5’ and side yard setbacks of 2’ and 6’. Ameringer seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Findings: Ms. Hentz stated there would be no adverse impact to the neighborhood and that it would improve the overall structure. Joel Kluessendorf agreed that it would be an improvement to the home, and Chairman Husman stated it would be in the same location and the same size. IV.1108 JACKSON STREET Russell Schultze and Andrew Habermann, applicants and owners, request a variance to construct a parking space in the front yard setback; whereas Section 30-36 (A) (4) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinances requires no parking in designated setback areas, except in the driveways of single family and two family dwelling units. Also, Section 30-36 (C) (5) (c) states that where no garage exists, the maximum driveway width shall not exceed 12 feet. Said driveway shall be situated as not to create only a front yard parking area. Board of Appeals Minutes -3- May 9, 2001 Matt Tucker introduced the item stating that the Department of Transportation intends to close the curb cut that is now existing as part of the Jackson Street reconstruction project. Andrew Habermann, 1108 Jackson Street, stated that the property was purchased by him and Russell Schultze in 1998. At the time of purchase they knew that the building was scheduled to be demolished and that Jackson Street was to be restructured. One reason they purchased this piece of property over other choices was because of the extra parking space that was available. Their intent is to have a two tire length of pavers for parking. They also said that there is no street parking available. They presented 25 pictures which they contended showed illegal front yard parking both on Jackson Street and other newer streets in the city. Susan Kepplinger pointed out that the existence of a double driveway is not the issue she asked if there was a hardship with this property. Mr. Habermann stated that out of 15 existing such driveways as theirs on Jackson Street only 2 have been targeted as non-conforming. He would like to see the same rules applied to all. He also stated that his curb cut has been marked by the city for the same driveway. Ms. Kepplinger stated that the photos presented do not necessarily represent the same scenarios, so they are not comparable to the issue brought before the board. Ms. Hentz stated that there was an alternative to parking, using the back area by the double garage. The owners pointed out that the entire length of the driveway is not usable for parking due to a fence on one side and the house on the other side, that makes it impossible to open car doors. Also with the available parking by the garage it is very difficult to maneuver vehicles in this area because it is so narrow. Mr. Dahl questioned how many tenants lived at the address. Mr. Habermann stated they had one tenant at this time, and again questioned why other property owners in the area were allowed double driveways. Ms. Kepplinger stated the issue wasn’t a double driveway, as other properties which had double driveways may lead to code compliant parking spaces, and not front yard only parking. She also stated other pictures were those of properties that weren’t located on a State Highway. Mr. Tucker stated if they would be allowed to keep the driveway, they would have to bring it up to code. Paul Smith, of 1100 Jackson Street, stated he is a neighbor and he has no objection to them keeping the driveway. Carl Ameringer asked Mr. Smith if he was the other owner cited for a non-conforming driveway. Mr. Smith said that was correct and he would be at the next meeting with his variance request. Mr. Tucker presented a letter from James Zitzelberger of 1112 Jackson Street stating his objection to the non-conforming driveway. Board of Appeals Minutes -4- May 9, 2001 Motion by Kluessendorf to lay over the item until the conflicting information received by the owners from the Department of Transportation and the City of Oshkosh can be clarified. Motion seconded by Hentz. Randy Husman raised a question about the time frame involved with the completion of the Jackson Street project. Discussion followed concerning whether the driveway in question would have been grandfathered if it was used on a regular basis. Ms. Kepplinger assured the board that the Department of Transportation has done their job with full research and with the help of detailed maps, however if the board would like staff to inquire further about the subject they would be willing to do this. Mr. Ameringer asked if the two variances with Mr. Smith and the present applicants could be reviewed at the same meetings since they deal with the same issue. Ms. Kepplinger stated that each case is unique and must remain separate. She further stated that the Department of Transportation is a professional group of individuals. The average lay person looking at a situation may not see what is really behind the issue. Mr. Kluessendorf withdrew his motion at this time. Motion by Dahl to approve the variance to construct a parking space in the front yard setback. Seconded by Hentz. Motion denied 5-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld