Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES August 8, 2001 PRESENT: Carl Ameringer, Fred Dahl, Cheryl Hentz, Jon Schorse, Chairman Don Krueger EXCUSED: Joel Kluessendorf 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 July 25, 2001 were approved as mailed. Hentz/Dahl. Unanimous. I: 2807 Newport Avenue Scott & Anne Boyce, applicants and owners, are requesting a variance to construct a driveway with 32 feet of width at the front lot line, whereas Section 30-36(C)(5)(b) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance states driveways leading to garages shall be no wider than 24 feet at the lot line. Matt Tucker introduced the item noting that this request was previously denied, but new evidence brings this forth for reconsideration. Anne Boyce, applicant and owner, stated that since the last request to the Board of Appeals, the Traffic Review Advisory Board granted the request for the 40.5 foot curb cut. She said that the Traffic Review Advisory Board was unable to determine who was at fault for the large curb cut. Mrs. Boyce presented pictures of the area and stated that she plans to keep the apron at its current width.. She noted a concern about the area that would have to be cut out, stating people would still be driving over this area, which would make it difficult to grow grass. Chairman Krueger inquired as to how much of a slope exists from the garage to the sidewalk. Mrs. Boyce responded that it was a fairly level area with enough pitch for water run off. Discussion continued as to the sequence of the paving of the driveway, the street being put in, the curb cut, and the apron being poured to match the curb cuts. Mr. Tucker explained that through the developer of the subdivision, a private contractor poured the street. This did require a review from the city inspectors, however apparently they do not measure the curb opening after it is poured. He stated that staff feels that the paving contractor is responsible for this problem, and it is not the fault of the applicant, who purchased the home with this problem. Mr. Tucker added that the Traffic Review Advisory Board does not use the same guidelines as the Board of Appeals when reviewing variance requests. Mr. Ameringer inquired if the applicant had any communication with the adjacent property owner. Mrs. Boyce responded the neighbors do not have any objections to the requested variance. Chairman Krueger stated his support for the variance, commenting on the hardship issue and safety issues involved. He noted a concern about cars backing into children in the driveway. Ms. Hentz also expressed support for the variance. She mentioned a financial hardship that could also be involved. She further stated that the issue is not self created. Motion by Dahl for approval of the variance to construct a driveway with 32 feet of width at the front lot line. Hentz seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Unanimous. Findings: Mr. Dahl stated that it is a safety hazard with cars possibly backing out into pedestrians. Mr. Ameringer stated that the hardship is not self created. II: 525 Zarling Avenue Thomas and Patricia Cihowiak, applicants and owners, request a variance to allow a 12’ by 18’ or 216 square foot utility shed in the rear yard setback, whereas Section 30-17(B)(4)(e)(iii) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance allows for utility sheds up to 100 square feet in size. Matt Tucker introduced the item. Thomas Cihowiak, owner and applicant, stated that the proposed structure would be comparable to his house. It would be a custom built wooden structure with the same windows, siding, and shingles currently on the house. He added that instead of a garage door the structure would have a double hinged, two piece swing door and the area would be landscaped. Mr. Cihowiak explained that the hardship is that the house does not have a basement and he is in need of storage space. He noted staff’s suggestion of alternatives and said he did not find them viable for the neighborhood. He further stated there are no objections from the neighbors to his variance request. Chairman Krueger inquired as to the size of the garage. Mr. Cihowiak said it is 20’ x 24’. He stated he has been upgrading the house since the purchase in January 2000, and feels this structure would enhance the appearance of the property. Mr. Dahl asked what would be stored in this storage building. Mr. Cihowiak responded it would be an accumulation of two households, clothes, books, and seasonal decorations. Discussion followed as to the size of the proposed structure, code compliant parking, and building codes. Mr. Tucker explained the building code differences between a shed and a garage. He stated that once the 100 square feet is exceeded the more restrictive building codes for a garage must be met. Mr. Schorse asked if there were any drawings of what the building would look like. Mr. Cihowiak presented pictures. Chairman Krueger commented on the fact that the building is not really big enough for a garage and yet too large for a storage shed. Discussion followed as to the size of the lot and the square footage of the house. Discussion also ensued concerning the possibility of adding conditions to the variance or the possibility of changing the size of the structure that the applicants have requested. Board discussion followed. Chairman Krueger said the fact that there is no basement contributes to the hardship, but questioned whether the hardship is self-created. Ms. Hentz questioned the use of deed restrictions. Mr. Ameringer stated his concerns about the issue of the hardship being self-created and the issue of precedence that is involved. Chairman Krueger stated a concern about the probability of future use of such a large building being detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Cihowiak interjected that they would be willing to consider a smaller size storage structure. Discussion continued as to the possibility of modifying the dimensions of the requested variance. Mr. Ameringer stated his belief that consideration should be given to expanding the size of storage sheds that are allowed. Mr. Tucker commented that the current $25.00 filing fee for variances provides a cheap opportunity to ask for a shed larger than permitted by code, as an alternative to building a shed to code. He also explained that the code refers to all properties in the city and a larger shed would have a considerable impact on a smaller lot. Mr. Tucker suggested that the code could be amended to address lot coverage, but currently the 100 square foot standard has been established. Motion by Hentz for approval to allow a 12’ by 18’ or 216 square foot utility shed in the rear yard setback with the following condition: 1.) No other storage structure, detached or attached, be permitted on the property. Schorse seconded the motion. Motion denied 2-3. Nays; Ameringer, Dahl, Krueger. III. 57 Stoney Beach Road Daniel D. Harmon III, applicant and owner, requests a variance to allow a 12’ by 14’ or 168 square foot utility shed in the rear yard setback, whereas Section 30-17(B)(4)(e)(iii) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance allows for utility sheds up to 100 square feet in size. Matt Tucker introduced the item and noted that there is an additional storage structure on the property that is not denoted on the submitted site plan. Daniel D. Harmon III, applicant and owner, stated he annexed from the Town of Algoma and the 10’ x 12’ structure was grandfathered in. He added that he also has a small clubhouse on the property. His intent is to replace both buildings with the proposed 12’ x 14’ utility shed. He stated the current structure is in a state of deterioration and needs to be replaced. He stated that he has a one-story home, which is 24’ x 22’, with no basement or attic. Mr. Harmon said he can not expand the size of the home because it is a brick structure and stated other barriers that make this an impossible option for him. He commented that he looked for storage elsewhere in town and found that it was not readily available due to the high demand and this option would cause a transport issue for his equipment. Mr. Dahl asked the sizes of the existing sheds. Mr. Harmon responded 10’3” x 12’3” and 9’ x 12’. Mr. Dahl asked if the request was to replace the two existing buildings with a new shed that has less square footage than the two sheds combined. Mr. Harmon said this was correct. Board discussion followed. Ms. Hentz said she was in support of the applicant requesting 168’ to replace 236’ of storage space. Mr. Ameringer stated there are circumstances in this case which mitigate against denial; the existing structures are grandfathered, the total size will be less than the current size, and the new structure will be an improvement to the property. Motion by Ameringer for approval of the variance to allow a 12’ by 14’ or 168 square foot utility shed in the rear yard setback. Hentz/seconded. Motion carried 5-0. Unanimous. Findings: It was concluded that the requested utility shed is less square footage than is now existing, aesthetically it will be an improvement, and the hardship was not self –created. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 4:26. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld