Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES September 26, 2001 PRESENT: Carl Ameringer, Fred Dahl, Cheryl Hentz, Joel Kluessendorf EXCUSED: Chairman Don Krueger, John Schorse STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; Mary Lou Degner, Recording Secretary Matt Tucker called for nominations for Chairman Pro Temp. Carl Ameringer nominated Cheryl Hentz, seconded by Joel Kluessendorf. Unanimous. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Pro Temp Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of September 12, 2001 were approved as mailed. Dahl/Kluessendorf. Unanimous. I: 21 W New York Avenue James L. Serwas, applicant, Terry Laib, owner, are requesting a variance to construct a 6’ high, less than 50% solid fence in the front yard area, whereas Section 30-35(E) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires fences in the front yard area be less than 4’ high and less than 50% solid. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. Jim Serwas, 3356 Leonard Point Lane, stated a concern with a 4’ high fence, due to the fact that there is a 6” curb and this would only allow for a 3’6” high fence. He said the requested 6’ fence would not be constructed at 4’ because it would be hazardous due to the open stake design. He noted there is a school across the street and this could present a problem with the children. Mr. Serwas said he would like for the fence to be taller to make it safe and for it to be aesthetically pleasing with the site. He stated it would be a nice addition to the property. Mr. Kluessendorf asked if there were any problems with sight restrictions. Mr. Tucker responded it does not fall in the vision triangle. Mr. Dahl asked if the existing cyclone fence extends all the way to the sidewalk. Mr. Serwas replied that it does extend to the sidewalk and added that previously there had been a cyclone fence across the front also. Board discussion followed stating the fence is keeping with the restoration of the property and it is important to consider the safety of the school children. Motion by Ameringer for approval of the variance to construct a 6’ high, less than 50% solid fence in the front yard area. Dahl seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Unanimous. Findings: It was stated the fence fits appropriately with the historical use of the building and that the safety concern was addressed with the additional height. II: 1418 Oshkosh Avenue Elaine Fritz, representative for Ameritech, requests a variance to construct a building with a 3’ transitional side yard setback, 21’ transitional front yard setback to Punhoqua Street, and 10’ transitional front yard setback to the alley to the north, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 19’3” transitional side yard setback and 25’ transitional front yard setbacks. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. Elaine Fritz, 221 W. Washington, Appleton, stated there will be extensive landscaping done and they are trying to match the brick on the neighbor’s house for the building to be more pleasing to the area. Mr.Kluessendorf inquired as to the other six locations that were previously chosen. Ms Fritz responded that they had chosen an area about 5 doors east of the now intended location, but it was discovered it was part of the Oshkosh Redevelopment Plan. Other locations chosen had included Mary Jewell Park, Davis Children’s Home, and Evergreen Manor. Mr. Ameringer asked if it was approximately a 10’ high hut that was to be constructed of brick, and inquired as to what would be housed inside the structure. Ms Fritz answered yes and explained that it is a switching station, which will provide a service upgrade to the area. She stated it would bring the latest in telephone technology to the area. She noted this is Ameritech’s final location in the Oshkosh area. She added the City Council has made approval pending the Board of Appeals approving the requested variance. Mr. Kluessendorf asked about the buried conduit, questioned where the fibers come from, and inquired whether the hut employs anyone. Ms Fritz replied the fibers are coming from the manhole on the corner of Oshkosh Avenue and Punhoqua Street. She stated once the equipment is in and it is working, it pretty much operates on its own. She added there might be a technician in occasionally. Mr. Ameringer asked if there are any environmental safety hazards to be concerned with and inquired about the proposed landscaping. Ms Fritz said there is an air conditioner that runs at a decibel level of 65 from 5’ away, which is the equivalency of normal speaking. She said the landscaping would include spruce trees and lilacs and directed the Board to the site plan, which was submitted. Discussion continued on the variables of where conduit and fibers can be located. Chairman Pro Temp Hentz asked if the Common Council had any reservations before approval. Ms Fritz said the item went right through. Board discussion followed. Mr. Kluessendorf asked where the redevelopment area begins and ends. Mr.Tucker explained that in the 1993 Comprehensive Plan there were some areas that were identified in the City as potential redevelopment areas, one of which is the area at the intersection of N. Sawyer and Oshkosh Avenue. The requested location is not in this potential redevelopment area. Further discussion continued on the division of the land parcels in the area. It was noted that there are many lots in the City that have substandard setbacks and sizes, and the City has the flexibility to develop these lots for reasonable use and to generate tax revenue. Motion by Dahl for approval of a variance to construct a building with a 3’ transitional side yard setback, 21’ transitional front yard setback to Punhoqua Street, and 10' transitional front yard setback to the alley to the north. Ameringer seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Unanimous. Findings: It was concluded that it will enable the area to have digital service provided by Ameritech, it is an improvement to the aesthetics and to the safety of the intersection, and it is an unusual piece of property because of the small size . III. 885 Graceland Drive Ginger Lennon, applicant and owner, requests a variance to construct a 10’ x 12’ deck on a principal structure, which will result in the principal structure having a 17’ rear yard setback, whereas Section 30-17(B)(3)(d) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ minimum rear yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. Ginger Lennon, 885 Graceland Drive, said she is applying for a variance for a deck and she does not want to put on an addition. She stated she purchased the house on May 25, 2001. She became the primary for purchase of the house in April and was told by the contractor she had 60 days to construct a deck or patio. Ms Lennon noted this issue was reinforced at closing when she received a copy of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy stating a deck or patio must be provided off the rear door by July 25, 2001. She also stated there is a patio door in place and voiced a safety concern regarding the steps that are currently there, because she has two small children. She said she objects to the alternatives listed in the Staff Report. The suggestion of putting the deck on the side of the house is inappropriate because the north side is steep and the south side is the location of bedrooms, which would serve no purpose. Ms Lennon presented signatures from neighbors stating they have no objections to the variance request. Chairman Pro Temp Hentz questioned the condition in the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, stating that a deck or patio must be provided. Mr. Tucker explained that there are two different entities; the building codes that work with the State single and two family building code requirements, and the zoning requirements. He stated there is an opportunity in the zoning code that allows for projections in the setbacks for decks and platforms to meet the minimum requirement in the building code, it requires that there be a landing with steps that step down to grade. He said when the inspector wrote this letter, the reference was to a landing, which could be a deck or a patio. Mr. Ameringer asked the applicant what her understanding of the words “deck or patio” meant. Ms Lennon said the entire time she expressed an interest in this house it was always presented to her that a deck or patio was required. She said the 10’ x 12’ patio was pictured on the site plan and the size was acceptable to her. Discussion continued on the original ownership of the house, being the contractor, and the fact that the applicant never had any discussion with the City regarding the deck or patio. Ms Lennon said she took the contractor at his word about the requirement of a deck or patio, and this was reinforced at closing when she was given the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Board discussion followed with Chairman Pro Temp Hentz stating that the language presented in the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was misleading. She stated although the hardship may be self-created it was not self-created by Ms Lennon, and she closed on the sale of this house believing the requirement was for a deck or a patio. She added that it makes more sense to have the deck attached than to be 5’ away from the principal structure. Chairman Pro Temp Hentz stated her support for the variance. Mr. Ameringer agreed. He stated he has concerns that would allow future homeowners the opportunity to build a house addition at the 17’ setback. He questioned whether the hardship was self-created. Mr.Tucker responded that the builder understood the issue. He stated the standard for granting a variance is whether one has reasonable use of the property and pointed out that there are other options for this property. Mr. Ameringer said the discussion that took place between the builder and the city was one thing, and Ms Lennon’s understanding came from the contractor and the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Kluessendorf suggested the board could add a condition. Motion by Kluessendorf for approval of the variance to construct a 10’ x 12’ deck off the rear of the principal structure, which will result in a 17’ rear yard setback for the principal structure with the following condition: 1.) The deck may not be expanded or modified, and if removed, any new structure would be required to meet principal structure setback requirements. Dahl seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Unanimous. Findings: It was concluded that the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was the reason why the property owner had the understanding that a deck was to be built on that structure and the size would be10’ x 12’ as indicated on the site plan. It was stated that it enhanced the area and the value of the property, and the safety issue was addressed. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tucker said that Warren Kraft, City Attorney, will attend the next meeting of October 10, 2001. His attendance was postponed due to the fact that Chairman Krueger was unable to attend this meeting. Mr. Tucker also stated there is legislation that is coming down from 1998, that is lessening the requirement of no other reasonable use of the property being a burden to approve a variance. He stated the law is so incredibly strict now from the state statutes, that this should help. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 4:29. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld