Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES September 12, 2001 PRESENT: Cheryl Hentz, Joel Kluessendorf, John Schorse, Chairman Don Krueger EXCUSED: Carl Ameringer, Fred Dahl 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 August 22, 2001 were approved as mailed. Hentz/Kluessendorf. Unanimous. I: 1410 Algoma Boulevard Barbara Hirshfeld, applicant, is requesting a variance to construct a pergola with a 19’ front yard setback, whereas Section 30-18(B)(5)(iii) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning ordinance requires a 25’ front yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. Barbara Hirshfeld, 1822 Menominee Drive, said the pergola is a beautiful structure, which is to enhance the gardens. It was designed by Dennis Buetiner & Associates and will be used as a viewing spot for people to observe the garden. It was not thought of as a structure, but as more of a shaded space. Chairman Krueger asked if there was an intent to put on a roof . Ms. Hirshfeld stated there would not be a roof, the pergola would retain the same appearance it has now other than the addition of vines. Chairman Krueger asked if this is inside a fenced area. Mr. Tucker responded it is in a confined area with a tall hedge on one side and a wall on the other. Ms. Hentz asked how this was constructed without first receiving the City’s permission. Glenn Spevacek, Project Manager for Garden Restoration, stated that the pergola, which is basically a garden ornament was not identified as a structure. He stated there was no excuse for the professionals involved to have made this error. Board discussion followed stating that the pergola is inside a fenced area and it fits well with the rest of the landscaping, furthermore it does not distract from the rest of the neighborhood. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct a pergola with a 19’ front yard setback. Schorse seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Unanimous Findings: Mr. Schorse stated that because of the uniqueness of the lot, it being bordered on 3 sides by front yards, the use of the property, and the position of the structure, it is the minimum needed to accomplish this purpose. Ms. Hentz further added that it has no adverse impact on the neighborhood. II: 911 Witzel Avenue Walter M. Tack, applicant and owner, requests the Board of Appeals, per Section 30-6(D)(3), to extend a zoning district boundary line where the boundary line divides a lot held in single ownership. Matt Tucker introduced the item and presented pictures. Walter Tack, 324 Pheasant Court, Fond du Lac, owner and applicant, stated he had the property appraised 3 years ago and at that time was reminded that there is a small strip of land that is zoned residential. It was recently brought to his attention again because he has an interest in refinancing and the lender suggested having the entire property zoned as commercial. Chairman Krueger asked if the area is combined into one lot. Mr. Tucker said yes that it is assessed as one parcel. John Paulik, 921 Witzel Avenue, questioned the area involved and questioned when the subject parcel was purchased from the City of Oshkosh. He noted that he was against the request to extend the zoning district boundary line from residential to commercial because he does not want to see all commercial buildings around him. Mr. Tucker responded that according to the assessment record the property was purchased in 1987. He explained that this portion of the lot is a land locked piece and any plans to expand the property would require that the owner obtain a Conditional Use Permit for the intended use. He added that this request is essentially a tool to correct the zoning line on a property in split zoning. Board discussion followed. Mr. Kluessendorf questioned why the Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning of the subject property when on October 3, 1985 the Common Council rezoned the parcels from R-2 to C-2. Mr. Tucker said he did not have the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting at this time. He noted that the existing use is a conditional use. He added at the time the property was initially developed, the protective tools that currently exist were not in the zoning code. Chairman Krueger noted that it is not unusual when lots are combined for there to be zone line changes. Motion by Schorse for approval to extend a zoning district boundary line. Seconded by Hentz. Motion carried 4-0. Unanimous. Findings: It was concluded that it was a matter of cleaning up zoning boundaries so the lot is not split by two different restrictions. III. 804 Ohio Street James A. Nigl, applicant and owner, requests a variance to construct a parking lot with a 5’ transitional yard setback, whereas Section 30-35(B)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 19’3” transitional yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. Sue Schroeder, 801 W 6th Avenue, representative for the applicant, stated that she is the manager of Nigl’s bar, and the intent is to eliminate the old building, which is an eyesore. She introduced Dan Binder, the contractor. Ms. Hentz asked Mrs. Schroeder if she had a problem with any of the conditions recommended by staff. Mrs. Schroeder said she had no problem with the conditions. She further added she has been waiting a long time for the opportunity to improve this site. Discussion followed on the existing approaches. Suggestions were made on the elimination of the three approaches on Ohio Street due to a concern about the proximity of the near building and the excessive traffic pattern. It was also noted that traffic often cuts through the driveway on 9th Avenue and issues of safety were discussed. Discussion continued on the traffic patterns for 8th Street and 9th Street egresses and the parking spaces available. Chairman Krueger said he was in favor of closing all three approaches on Ohio Street. He noted that because 8th Street has a stop sign it is an easy way to get on to Ohio Street. He said that traffic flowing on Ohio would expect cars at intersections versus driveways. Dan Binder, 835 Merritt Avenue, stated it was his opinion, after speaking with the Transportation Director, that one approach would be left open on Ohio Street. He noted this would be convenient for delivery trucks. He stated that the variance request is for the 5’ setback and if this were granted they would be willing to work with the Department of Public Works concerning the approaches. Mr. Kluessendorf asked if the gas tanks were removed and if there are any restrictions on the digging depth of the soil. Mrs. Schroeder answered that the gas tanks were removed and it is now a clean site. Ms. Hentz asked Mr. Tucker if condition #5 included all three approaches on Ohio Street. Mr. Tucker responded that it refers to the removal of two approaches, per the site plan that was submitted. Board discussion followed. Ms. Hentz stated she was not comfortable closing all three approaches on Ohio Street. Mr. Kluessendorf said he did not agree, but as long as the approach was more in the center of the lot it would be acceptable. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct a parking lot with a 5’ transitional yard setback, with the following conditions: 1.) The two properties be combined prior to obtaining a building permit. 2.) A landscaping plan be submitted and approved prior to obtaining a building permit. 3.) The entire parking area be paved per section 30-36(C)(3)(a). 4.) The parking spaces on Ohio Street side of the property be redesigned as such to provide 20’ of vision clearance. 5.) The existing approaches and adjoining sidewalks on Ohio Street, between 9th Ave. and 8th Ave. be removed and restored, per the Department of Public Works. Seconded by Kluessendorf. Motion carried 4-0. Unanimous. Findings: Ms. Hentz stated it would improve the appearance and the safety of the neighborhood and assist with storm water drainage. Chairman Krueger said it allows the city to eliminate an eyesore. IV. 1195 Freedom Avenue Walter M.Cook III, applicant and owner, requests a variance to construct an off street parking space along side an attached garage, with a 2’8” side yard setback, whereas Section 30- 36(C)(5)(a)(ii) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 7’6” setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item and presented pictures noting the space is already existing. Walter Cook, 1195 Freedom Avenue, stated Fox Cities Construction Corporation built his home in 1995. He had requested extra parking on the side of his garage and paid the contractor $650.00 for this slab. The purpose of the extra space was to park a utility trailer and a Mustang car that he owns. Mr. Cook said he was not aware there was a problem until recently when a neighbor wanted the same configuration and was told it was not allowed. He said he would have moved the house 5 feet over during construction had he known there was a problem with the setback. He stated he does not feel he has created the hardship. Mr. Cook added that the neighbors do not object to the variance request. Chairman Krueger asked if the original site plan depicted the parking space. Mr. Tucker answered that it was not on the original site plan. He added that he has spoken with the contractor and the contractor is aware of his responsibility. Mr. Cook said it was a mistake by the contractor that the parking space was not shown on the site plan because he had requested this space from the beginning. Mr. Tucker commented that if the board does consider approval of this variance he would recommend that conditions be applied for screening of off street parking areas. He explained the requirements would be a 5’ high solid fence or 5’ high four- season hedge that would that would extend across the side and the rear to screen the area. Ms. Hentz asked if the applicant had a problem with conditions. Mr. Cook said he did not have a problem with this. Discussion followed concerning the contractor’s responsibilities in this issue and questions were asked as to the relevance of the expired license plates on the car parked in this area. Mr. Tucker explained that the City has a municipal code that does not allow inoperable or unlicensed vehicles. This is a tool that the inspectors use regularly for abandoned vehicles. Mr. Cook responded that he would be glad to bring this vehicle up to date. Chairman Krueger commented this is one reason he has a problem with parking spaces next to garages. He said these areas tend to become storage areas. He added he does not hold the applicant responsible, but it was put in illegally and does not meet the setbacks required. Chairman Krueger stated he finds no hardship. Mr. Schorse commented that the Board approved a previous request for an apartment building in the area that was too close to the lot line. He said in his opinion the applicant should not be held responsible because the hardship was beyond Mr. Cook’s control. Mr. Schorse added that screening could mitigate this problem. Mr. Kluessendorf said he thought the only hardship would be if the contractor was not liable for removing the area. Chairman Krueger pointed out that would be an economic hardship and would not qualify. He added Mr. Cook has other alternatives. Motion by Hentz for approval to construct an off street parking space along side an attached garage, with a 2’8” side yard setback. Motion seconded by Schorse. Motion denied. 1-3. Aye: Schorse. Nay: Hentz, Kluessendorf, Krueger. V. 1825 White Swan Drive Benedict A. Schneider, applicant and owner, requests a variance to construct a 12’ x 12’ or 144 square foot utility shed in the rear yard, whereas Section 30-37(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 with pictures. Ben Schneider, 1825 White Swan Drive, said he was not familiar with the City ordinances so he first determined the size of structure necessary according to his storage needs of lawn equipment, snow blowers, etc.. He then went trough the process of finding sheds that would fit his requirements. Following this he learned from a city handout that sheds over 100 square feet require a cement slab, so this led him to believe that he could build a 12’ x 12’ shed. Mr. Schneider said he then found out his request would call for a variance. In the process he was told staff would recommend denial for this request. Mr. Schneider stated that alternatives recommended were to expand the present garage, or to build a detached garage, which would require another driveway. In his opinion neither of these options would be cost effective. He said the hardship is that a 10’ x 10’ is not large enough for homeowners of today. Mr. Schneider added that another problem is that the smaller sheds all have a 6’ tall opening and he is 6’4”. He noted the structure would be sided and roofed the same as the house and the structure would be setback further than required. He added the neighbors do not have any objections. Ms. Hentz asked the size of the existing garage. Mr.Schneider answered two cars fit in snugly and mentioned the fact that a chimney is on the inside of the garage. Mr. Kluessendorf asked about the issues of adding on to the current garage. Mr. Schneider said the addition would have to be on the backside because there would not be enough room on the side to meet setback requirements and the roof peaks toward the back so architecturally it would not fit right. Chairman Krueger stated he could support this if they attached a condition that no other storage structures be built without removing this one. Mr. Schneider stated there is a covenant for his neighborhood that only allows for one out building. Mr. Schorse asked what the hardship is. Chairman Krueger replied storage. He said the applicant has a garage, which is barely a two-car garage in an older subdivision. He added this would allow for items that are now outside to be stored inside. Ms. Hentz said she could support the condition and the variance. Motion by Hentz to construct a 12’ x 12’ or 144 square foot utility shed in the rear yard, with the following condition: 1.) No other storage structure be erected on the property. Seconded by Schorse. Motion laid over. 3-1. Aye: Hentz, Krueger, Schorse. Nay: Kluessendorf. The item is laid over until October 10, 2001, since the applicant is not available for the next meeting.. Other Business Mr. Tucker commented he is always available to the Board if they have any questions and they are welcome to contact him. Chairman Krueger made a request for the City Attorney to be present at the next meeting to answer questions concerning the memorandum from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel regarding variances/zoning standards, which Mr. Tucker included with the staff reports. Mr. Tucker said he would extend the invitation to the City Attorney’s Office. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 4:55. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld