Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES June 13, 2001 PRESENT: Carl Ameringer, Cheryl Hentz, Joel Kluessendorf, John Schorse EXCUSED: Fred Dahl, 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. The minutes of May 23, 2001 were approved as mailed. Hentz/Ameringer. 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 setback, whereas Section 30-19 (B)(4)(e)(iii) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance allows for utility sheds up to100 square feet in size. Matt Tucker introduced the item. Applicant was not represented. Mr. Tucker noted that the item was laid over from the Board of Appeals meeting of May 9, 2001. Motion by Ameringer for approval of the variance to allow a 12’ by 12’ or 144 square foot utility shed in the rear yard setback. Seconded by Hentz. Motion denied 0-4. II: 400,410,420,430 N. Koeller Street Andrew Dumke, applicant and owner, requests a variance to create a CSM containing three lots which would be approximately 1.35 acres in size, whereas Section 30-34 (D)(5)(a) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a one and one-half acre minimum for any lot which fronts onto the right-of- way of U.S. Highway 41, or any other frontage roads paralleling U.S. Highway 41. Matt Tucker introduced the item. Gary Eake, the representative for Dumke & Associates, stated that prior to Lombard Avenue being extended it was not an officially mapped right-of-way and he stated that they did have a plan to create four lots that were not substandard at that time. A 1997 unrecorded CSM was presented illustrating the area prior to the four- lane expansion of Koeller Street and extension of Lombard Avenue. It was noted that the developer brought forth concerns during prior discussions with the city, that the extension of Lombard Avenue and acquisition of right-of-way for a wider Koeller Street would make the planned future lots substandard. Mr. Eake further added that the developers have already built one building in the area, which would be comparable to the architecture planned for future developments. Discussion followed as to the hardship not being self-created and to the fact that there had been discussions with the city before this time regarding the issue of substandard lots. Board of Appeals Minutes -2- June 13, 2001 Motion by Hentz for approval to create a CSM containing three lots, which would be approximately 1.35 acres in size with the following condition: 1. That a cross-access parking agreement, subject to review and approval of the City Attorney, be submitted on file with the planning department, for the land division between lots 2 & 3 of the proposed CSM. Ameringer seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Unanimous. Findings: It was concluded that the hardship was not self created, it was due to the dedication of street right-of-way, and there had been previous discussions with the City of Oshkosh regarding the issue. III.2850 UNIVERSAL STREET Richard and Joan Smith, owners and Rein Roehlig, applicant request a variance to allow for the use and expansion of an existing nonconforming ground sign with a 5’ front yard setback, whereas Section 30- 30 (B)(1) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 30’ minimum front yard setback, and 30- 37 (B)(6)(a)(iii) requires that nonconforming signs shall not be expanded, moved, or relocated. Matt Tucker introduced the item and stated that in 1994 the City of Oshkosh acquired the right-of-way. He stated that the Department of Transportation widened State Highway 44 at this time, and acquired additional property to create a vision triangle at the site. The conforming sign became nonconforming at that time. Rein Roehlig said that the staff report was self –explanatory. He stated they are not proposing to change the sign’s foundation, they would like to expand the sign to include a time and temperature message center. Mr. Roehlig explained that the unit is 24” high, 36” wide and the lettering inside is 14” high. He further explained that the addition would sit on top of the existing sign, since incorporating this element elsewhere in the sign would be difficult. He stated that traveling westbound on Hwy 44, the northeast corner of Universal Street and Hwy 44 is lower in elevation than the pavement of Hwy 44 so the sign is also lower than the street grade. Mr. Roehlig added that the City of Oshkosh currently uses the vacant lot to the east for snow disposal in the winter months, which makes it difficult to see the sign. Mr. Schorse asked if the setback requirement was greater prior to the widening of the road. Mr. Tucker stated that the sign was originally conforming to all setback requirements in 1988. Mr. Ameringer asked if the expansion to the height of the sign is an increase of 2’. Mr. Roehlig said that was correct and added that there would be no problem with visibility clearance. Board of Appeals Minutes -3- June 13, 2001 Kelly Zabel, a representative from Girbau Continental, Inc. 2500 Hwy 44, stated that the company has no problem with the requested variance as long as the sign is only 2’ higher, the executive board feels anything higher would create a vision problem. Mr. Tucker presented a letter from Chamco Inc., Oshkosh Industrial Development Corporation, stating they are in support of the variance request. Board discussion followed concerning the fact that the hardship was not self-created and that the existing masonry foundation would be a hardship to move and in addition there is the snow issue. It was also noted that the sign was originally conforming. Motion by Hentz to allow for the use and 2’ height expansion of the existing sign with a 5’ front yard setback. Seconded by Ameringer. Motion carried 4-0. Unanimous. Findings: Ms. Hentz stated that the hardship was not self created and there were really no other options. Vice Chairman Schorse stated that the 2’ extension still falls in the square foot maximum. Mr. Ameringer stated that the sign was conforming at one point and it became nonconforming as a result of circumstances beyond their control. Ms. Hentz further added that the sign follows the DOT guidelines. IV. 763 VINE AVEUNE Phil Page, applicant and owner, requests a variance to construct an off street parking area for three vehicles with a side yard setback of 2’ and a rear yard setback of 22’, whereas Section 30-36 (C)(5)(a) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires that uncovered parking spaces comply with the required setbacks of the principal structure, which are 7’6” side yard and 25’ rear yard setbacks. Matt Tucker introduced the item and presented pictures. Ms. Hentz had a question concerning the next item on the agenda, 769 Vine Avenue. Since 763 Vine Avenue and 769 Vine Avenue share a driveway and the issues are similar if one is approved what happens to the other variance request. Mr. Tucker explained that they are separate issues and they would be addressed individually. He further stated that the issues are different because 763 Vine Avenue has off street parking on the east side of the house. Mr. Tucker presented a picture of potential parking space and adequate green space. Ms. Hentz and Mr. Ameringer inquired if this proposal would require another variance. Mr. Tucker answered that it could, but the board could also make an adjustment to the current variance request. Phil Page said that the street is being redone and the two driveways of 763 Vine Avenue and 769 Vine Avenue will not be shared because they will have separate approaches. He stated that he found staff’s proposal agreeable, and he would like to put garages on both properties in the future. Mr. Page said he purchased the properties in 1999 and has improved and will continue to improve the properties since their purchase. Board of Appeals Minutes -4- June 13, 2001 Mr. Ameringer questioned why the applicant’s proposal was different than the one presented by Mr. Tucker. Mr. Page responded that his proposal was based on consultation with John Bluemke. Mr. Tucker stated that the intent is to create a buffer area and adequate green space and there is concern about available space for snow/storage removal. Mr. Page stated that he has legal nonconforming parking spaces and that he his trying to make improvements to the area. He reiterated that he would like to put a garage up, but that it would not be built this year or next year. Board discussion followed as to whether the proposal from staff was acceptable. It was stated that the neighborhood is in transition; the street is being reconstructed and homeownership is increasing, this being the type of improvement the city likes to see. Motion by Hentz to allow three 9x18 parking spaces to be constructed with a minimum 5’ side yard and a minimum 10’ rear yard setback, as to provide for a minimum 5’ landscaped buffer, snow storage, and screening area; a screening plan to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to obtaining a building permit; and the existing nonconforming parking space at the northeastern portion of the lot is to be removed, and the area returned to grass. Motion seconded by Ameringer. Motion carried 4-0. Unanimous. Findings: Ms. Hentz stated that it is an improvement in appearance to the property. Mr. Kluessendorf added that it is something both the city and the applicant are agreeable to. V.769 VINE AVENUE Phil Page, applicant and owner, requests a variance to construct an off street parking area for three vehicles with a side yard setback of 2’ and a rear yard setback of 22’, whereas Section 30-36 (C)(5)(a) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires that uncovered parking spaces comply with the required setbacks of the principal structure, which are 7’6” side yard and 25’ rear yard setbacks. Matt Tucker introduced the item. Phil Page noted that 763 Vine Avenue and 769 Vine Avenue are not actually a shared driveway. The previous owner had laid gravel in the entire area. Mr. Page stated that staff’s recommendation was acceptable to him. Board discussion followed. Ms. Hentz stated that the city has come up with an alternate plan that the applicant is content with, which is a similar issue to the variance for 763 Vine Avenue. Vice Chairman Schorse asked if the landscape plan would make a separation between the two parking areas. Mr. Tucker responded that the two parking areas would be screened and separated. Mr. Ameringer noted that this property was a single-family rental property and he questioned how many vehicles would be parked Board of Appeals Minutes -5- June 13, 2001 in the spaces. Mr. Page answered that it would be a maximum of four vehicles because he is presently renting to four college students. Motion by Hentz to allow three 9x18 parking spaces to be constructed with a minimum 5’ side yard and minimum 10’ rear yard setback, as to provide for a minimum 5’ landscaped buffer, snow storage, and screening area; and a screening plan to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to obtaining a building permit. Kluessendorf seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Unanimous. Findings: Vice Chairman Schorse stated that the property has a unique lot size that does not have a lot of extra space for off street parking and the proposal has the least adverse impact. VI: 665 FREDERICK STREET Ron Dorsch, applicant and owner, requests a variance to construct an off street parking area for two vehicles, with a side yard setback of 1’6” and a rear yard setback of 10’, whereas Section 30-36 (C)(5)(a) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires that uncovered parking spaces comply with the required setbacks of the principal structure, which are 7’6” side yard and 25’ rear yard setbacks. Matt Tucker introduced the item, with pictures, explaining that if the board were to approve the variance, staff would recommend a 5’ rear yard setback to provide more space between the home and the parking spaces for maneuverability of vehicles because of the shallowness of the lot.. Mr. Dorsch presented pictures stating that he tried to maximize as much green space as possible in the tight area. He noted that he is an architect who often works with small spaces. He said that the garage needs to be razed and now due to recent storm damage it also has structural damage. Mr. Ameringer questioned the applicant’s intent to get rid of the garage and replace it with parking space. Vice Chairman Schorse asked if Mr. Dorsch planned on replacing the garage. Mr. Dorsch responded that he did not intend to replace the garage currently and spoke of parking surface options. He mentioned his desire to use pavers as opposed to a concrete poured pad to improve the area and to serve as dual purpose for the tenants. Mr. Ameringer inquired as to the reason for not reconstructing the garage. He asked if it was strictly cost related or if there were other reasons the board should be made aware of. Mr. Dorsch responded that the adjacent property was for sale, and he is required to raze the garage, so he chose not to make a commitment to a new garage at this time. Mr. Ameringer asked what options there were for this to be conforming, other than the rebuilding of a garage. Board of Appeals Minutes -6- June 13, 2001 Mr. Tucker stated that granting a variance is the only option for this to be conforming. He explained that it is a unique situation because the garage is under a raze order and it will be removed if the owner chooses not to take down the garage himself.. He further added that removing the garage creates a non- conforming parking situation. Mr. Tucker commented that the suggestion of pavers would not be an option because they are not suitable for a driveway unless they are properly engineered. He pointed out that the installation of pavers would be more costly than pouring a slab. Mr. Dorsch said this proposal would cause him to lose too much grass area, which would make it undesirable for neighbors and tenants. Mr. Kluessendorf questioned the ownership of the property next door. Mr. Tucker explained that the county owns the property to the south. Further discussion followed on zoning, setbacks and screening. Discussion followed with Ms. Hentz inquiring as to what was the advantage of the city proposal versus what the applicant was requesting. Mr. Tucker responded that it is not known what will happen with the vacant property to the south and he would like to provide more substantial buffer area until such time that the property to the south is purchased. Mr. Ameringer stated a concern with not reconstructing the garage. Board discussion followed on the advantage to the city’s proposal of providing more buffer area. Concerns were expressed about the garage not being reconstructed and the fact that there is only 39’ to work with. There was also discussion on the fact that vehicles could not be parked on just a slab, they would have to be parked in the driveway. Motion by Hentz for approval of a variance to construct an off street parking area for two vehicles, with a side yard setback off 1’ 6” and a rear yard setback of 10’ with conditions: 1.The off street area be constructed with a 5’ side and rear yard setback, as to provide for a 5’ green space, snow storage, and screening. 2. A screening plan be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to obtaining a building permit. Kluessendorf seconded the motion. Motion laid over 3-1. Nay: Ameringer. ST VII: 145 W 21 Avenue Bruce Felker, applicant and owner, requests a variance to construct a 5’ addition to his existing driveway, which would make the driveway 29’ wide at the right-of-way line and wider than the garage, whereas Section 30-36 (C)(5)(b) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires driveways leading to garages shall be no wider than 24 feet at the lot line, but may increase to any width between the lot line and the garage, not to exceed the width of the garage. Matt Tucker introduced the item. Mr. Ameringer asked if off street parking along side the garage was not possible because of existing trees. Board of Appeals Minutes -7- June 13, 2001 Mr. Tucker replied that he walked off the area for measurement and it did appear there would be space for a 9’ x 18’ space. He added that the roots might be disturbed on one tree. Bruce Felker stated that the garage is 24’x 24’ and is only usable for one car because of the narrow width of the garage door. He said the area for the suggested parking would require the loss of a tree. Mr. Felker presented pictures illustrating where he would like to extend his driveway. He noted that his vehicles are all in good shape, he maintains the property with pride, and he plans on staying in this house for some time. He further stated that he only has two large trees on his lot and that he has a small landscaped yard. Mr. Felker said that the proposed option would have him paving too much back yard area. He said the current situation now forces him to park on Nebraska Street. Vice Chairman Schorse inquired as to the number of vehicles parked in the garage and asked if the applicant has considered a wider garage door. Mr. Felker responded only one vehicle fits and if he was to change the garage door he would need to redo his garage. He said that it would be more cost effective to add the 5’ addition to his existing driveway, and more neighbor friendly to get the truck off the street. Discussion followed as to the size of the driveway. st Sandy Joseph, 141 W 21 Avenue, stated Mr. Felker has been a good neighbor. She said he only wants to add a little extra space to get his work vehicle off the street. She stated that he has workspace in his garage and there is no reason to put an unnecessary burden on him when he is trying to comply with the parking regulations. Kathy Hagne, 2114 Nebraska Street, said that the Felkers are good neighbors. She mentioned that they sometimes park their vehicle in front of her house and she feels it would be a better alternative if they parked in their own driveway. Board discussion followed regarding the hardship. There were thoughts as to how they could comply with the requirements. Alternatives mentioned included; stack parking, parking along side the garage, expansion of the garage, variations to the interior use of the garage, and the option to replace the garage door. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct a 5’ addition to the existing driveway. Seconded by Kluessendorf. Motion denied 4-0. VIII. 1754 RIVER MILL ROAD Terry Kiser, applicant and owner, requests a variance to construct a patio and walkway, attached to the principle structure, with a 6’+ side yard setback, whereas Section 30-17 (B)(3)(b) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 7’6” side yard setback. Board of Appeals Minutes -8- June 13, 2001 Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. He stated that further analysis of the site discovered that there is a storm sewer easement on the property, which would require the applicant to hold the City of Oshkosh harmless for construction of the patio area within the easement. Vice Chairman Schorse asked if the house was built on the easement. Mr. Tucker responded that the home was not built within the easement. He also noted that it is the property owner’s responsibility to submit a site plan to the building inspector that shows the easements on a property, in addition to the proposed improvements. Mr. Kiser stated that when the landscaper designed the area they got the codes from the city. They were under the impression that it was classified as an unattached patio. He stated that it is not attached to the structure, there are no footings, and noted that the pictures show that there are plantings and a bedding between the house, walkway, and deck. He further stated that he thought that the side yard setback is 5’.. He said that the neighbor has no problem with the area. Mr. Kiser said that the city contends that the patio is attached which requires a side setback of 7’ 6”. He said that he could find nothing from the city in writing determining what kind of grade has to be set. He noted that in this subdivision there are various grades throughout. He stated there is no uniform explanation of what “grade” is. Mr. Ameringer commented that in Mr. Kiser’s application, he raised issues regarding engineering, flood tables, grades, and safety issues and he would like these explained. Mr. Kiser replied that under the safety issue the city’s proposal would like him to drop the walkway another step or two, then another step would come back up to the deck, so multiple steps would be a safety issue. He said the elevation of the house was brought up above the water table to prevent flooding. Mr. Tucker stated that the front of the landing is compliant, but that the rear of the landing needs to step down to within 12” of grade. Mr. Kluessendorf asked if there were issues when the building permit was acquired. Mr. Tucker replied that a building permit was not taken out for this project. Mr. Kiser said he assumed the building permit for the house was also valid for the patio. Mr. Kluessendorf asked for an explanation of attached versus detached. Mr. Tucker explained that attached structures are considered anything within 5’, they do not have to be affixed to a structure. He further stated the setback for this patio would be 2’ of the side lot line, if the patio were constructed at grade. Ms. Hentz asked if this was not considered attached, would it be an issue. Mr. Tucker answered that the walkway would still be an issue. Mr. Ameringer stated that in order to approve the variance a hardship must be determined. Board of Appeals Minutes -9- June 13, 2001 Mr. Kiser responded that safety is the hardship, a nice level area would be best. He also reiterated that there is no code for grade in the City of Oshkosh. Vice Chairman Schorse inquired as to the width of the walkway. Mr. Kiser answered that it is about 40”. Vice Chairman Schorse inquired if the top of the retaining wall was included in the width of the walkway. Mr. Kiser answered that it was included in the walkway measurement. Jim Kiser, 1740 River Mill Road, commented that the recent storm was a perfect illustration of the elevation issue. He stated the City of Oshkosh does not have any regulations on elevation. He said that neither him nor the neighbor on the other side is objecting to the variance. Discussion followed on the possibility of bringing up the elevation, which could possibly cause water problems for the neighbor. Mr. Tucker said that the city establishes grade off from the sidewalk, drainage plans are followed from the subdivision, and height restrictions are set from pre-construction grade. Motion by Hentz to allow a variance to construct a patio and walkway attached to the principle structure, with a 6’+ side yard setback. Motion seconded by Ameringer. Motion carried 4-0. Unanimous. . Ms. Hentz announced that she was on a time constraint and would need to be excused shortly IX.1126 FILLMORE AVENUE Roger M. Coats, applicant and owner, requests the following variances: a parking space located between the buildings and the rear lot line; a 28’ wide driveway that will be wider than the garage; a 168 square foot utility structure; and a reduction in the required number of parking spaces for a two family dwelling, from four to three. Motion by Hentz to lay over the item because of lack of quorum. Motion seconded by Ameringer. Motion carried 4-0. Unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 6:15. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner