Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 2001 PRESENT: Carl Ameringer, Fred Dahl, Cheryl Hentz, Joel Kluessendorf EXCUSED: Don Krueger, John Schorse STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; Mary Lou Degner, Recording Secretary Matt Tucker called for nominations for Chairman Pro Temp. Fred Dahl 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 November 28, 2001 were approved as mailed (Ameringer/Dahl). I: 420 S. KOELLER STREET Anchor Bank is requesting a variance to create a lot with a parking lot that will have a 0’ side yard setback, whereas Section 30-34(D)(4)(b) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 15’ side yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item presenting the original copy of the certified survey map and the Planning Commission file. Russ Reff, 217 Ceape Avenue, the representative for Anchor Bank, said they have worked with staff on the configuration of the subject parcel and specifically the access issues to Koeller Street. He said they feel that access should be provided to the existing Anchor Bank parcel and the vacant parcel, which they will be selling, by virtue of a common driveway on the boundary line between the two parcels. He noted that in the area of the common driveway it is impossible to comply with the setback requirement because the asphalt would be on each side of the property line. Attorney Reff said there is also cross access being required at the rear of the bank property so they will have to have asphalt connecting in that area also. He said there is a small area between those two points of cross access where the parking lot now extends to the property line and to remove the asphalt at this time would have a significant adverse effect on the existing Anchor Bank parcel. Attorney Reff stated when the new property is developed it will have to comply with the parking setback requirements, except for the cross access areas. So there will be some green space between the parking and the areas between the cross access points. He added it is an unusual situation and it is impossible to comply with the ordinance, which would require a 15’ side yard setback. Discussion ensued on the location of the boundary lines. It was stated that Lot 1 would be commercial and Lot 2 would be residential. Mr. Ameringer inquired about the condition recommended by staff and why the area could be substantially reconstructed. Mr. Tucker explained that in a normal development in the 41 corridor overlay, setback requirements would result in a minimum of 30’ of space between the two properties that would be landscaped. Attorney Reff said, in his opinion, the area will not be reconstructed for some time, but he understands staff’s concern that if for some reason the configuration of the parking lot was changed then the green space should be provided. Discussion continued on the wording of the condition recommended by staff. Mr. Tucker said the intent of the HWY 41 corridor overlay is to achieve an appropriate green space separation between structures, parking lots, etc., and it would be a good idea to provide this green space in the future, if possible. George Hohenwalter, 403 Lilac Street, asked what was intended for Lot 2. Mr. Tucker explained the zoning and the uses of the Lots 1, 2 and 3. It was clarified that the variance request is for the parking area on Lot 3. Board discussion followed with Mr. Ameringer saying he did not have a problem with the variance or the condition that was discussed, with the understanding that it involves only Lot 3. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to create a lot with a parking lot that will have a 0’ side yard setback, with the following condition: 1.) If the existing asphalt in the setback is ever removed on Lot 3 it can not be replaced, the area shall be returned to green space, and the setback requirement shall then apply. Ameringer seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Unanimous. Findings: It was stated it was a development on the 41 corridor and there would be no adverse impact on the neighboring properties. II: 101 KNAPP STREET Arden Parfitt and Joseph Schweda, owners and applicants, are requesting a variance to perform repairs and improvements to a nonconforming structure, which will exceed 50% of the current total assessed value of the structure, whereas Section 30-4(B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance prohibits alterations and expansions to nonconforming structures that exceed 50% of the total assessed value of the structure. Matt Tucker introduced the item. He stated the City uses the Wisconsin Supreme Court Ruling of Marris v. City of Cedarburg to address nonconforming structures. The case concerned the issue of what improvements constitute “structural repairs and alterations” under a zoning ordinance which limits the total lifetime structural repairs and alterations to more than 50% of a nonconforming structure’s assessed value. Mr. Tucker cited sections of the Supreme Court opinion. Joe Schweda, 1309 Oshkosh Avenue, and Arden Parfitt, 1289 Wheatfield Way, were present to clarify the lists they submitted regarding structural repairs and structural improvements. They stated, they were told by the Inspections Department, that the items on their list were structural repairs necessary to comply with the City of Oshkosh correction notices. Discussion followed on which items were actually structural alterations and which items were nonstructural repairs. It was determined a variance was not required because the structural repairs and improvements of the structure do not exceed 50% of the total assessed value. It was noted that the immediate repairs to satisfy violations may occur, without this item coming up again in the future if the item is withdrawn. John Otto, 1019 Witzel Avenue, voiced his concern to the improvement and the maintenance of the subject property. The applicants withdrew the variance request. III: 420 W. LINCOLN AVENUE Jeff Wicinsky, applicant and owner, requests a variance to create an off-street parking area with a 0’ rear yard setback and a 3.5+ side yard setback, whereas Section 30-36(C)(5)(a) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ rear yard setback and a 7.5 side yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos. Jeff Wicinsky, 6529 Lasley Shore Drive, Winneconne, said the property is currently substandard because of the two dwelling structures that exist on it. He said he would be making an improvement to the area by taking down the second property and added that the secondary structure encroaches on the neighbor’s property by approximately 8’. Mr. Wicinsky mentioned he would be screening the east lot line so he does not believe it would be necessary to eliminate proposed parking space #8, as recommended by staff. He said because parking is such a premium in the university area he would like to provide as much parking as possible, which would reduce street parking problems. Discussion continued on the location of the proposed fence, possible screening, the concern of snow removal, and the number of bedrooms in the structures. Leslie Draves, 410 W. Lincoln Avenue, said he is the property owner to the east. William Manske, 300 Division Street, Attorney representing Mr. Draves, said they have no objections to the proposal because it would enable Mr. Draves to regain the portion of his property where there is an encroachment. Mr. Manske explained in 1971, when the property was purchased, there was an easement for the 8’ encroachment. He added they also do not object to the proposed eight parking stalls or the next item involving the variance for the porch. Board discussion followed with Mr. Ameringer saying the only issue seems to be the 8th parking space. Mr. Tucker explained staff is trying to minimize what variances are needed and it is not the least possible needed. He stated code requires 6 parking spots be provided, so parking spot #8 is unnecessary. Mr. Ameringer stated that he understands staff’s concern about the side yard setback reduction, in regard to future development. Discussion continued on potential parking opportunities, and side and rear yard setbacks. Motion by Ameringer to create an off-street parking area with a 0’ rear yard setback with the following conditions: 1.) The driveway opening be narrowed to 12’ at the sidewalk. 2.) The entire parking area be screened by a 5’ solid fence or hedge. 3.) Parking space #8 be removed. Seconded by Dahl. Motion carried 4-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded it would be an improvement to the area, it is removing a structure and providing parking spaces that are needed, it is improving the unusual and unique property to a great extent, and there would be no adverse impact to neighboring properties. IV: 420 W. Lincoln Avenue Jeff Wicinsky, owner and applicant, is requesting a variance to allow for an irregular shaped deck with an 11’ setback to W. Lincoln Avenue and a 9’ setback to Wright Street, whereas Section 30-19(B)(3)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’front yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. He said the City would like to see the reconstruction of the porch, in the front yard setback, completed without the use of unpainted green treated lumber. He stated it would be beneficial to have a porch that compliments the original architecture and design of the structure and surrounding like structures. Jeff Wicinsky, 6529 Lasley Shore Drive, Winneconne, said his intent is to rebuild the porch, that was partially removed, and to put the roof back on the porch. He said he had intended to use the original pillars, but had no idea what the original porch looked like. Mr. Tucker informed Mr. Wicinsky there are pictures of the original porch available in the City property file, located in the Inspection Services Department. Mr. Kluessendorf questioned the existing east stairway and landing to the second story and how it would look in relationship to the reconstructed front porch. Board discussion continued with it being noted it would be a definite improvement and it is nice to see older homes being refurbished in harmony with their original construction. Motion by Ameringer to allow for an irregular shaped deck with an 11’ setback to W. Lincoln Avenue and a 9’ setback to Wright Street, with the following condition: 1.) The applicant must submit architectural drawings to the Department of Community Development, depicting that the proposed new porch will look the same as the partially removed porch. Motion seconded by Dahl. Motion carried 4-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded it would be an asset to the neighborhood and aesthetically appealing. V: 420 Division Street Jim & Carl Stapel, applicants and owners, request a variance to construct a 6’ high, less than 50% solid fence for an open storage area in the C-3 District, whereas Section 30-28(B)(4) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires open storage areas be screened by a solid fence. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated an air photo map of the area. He noted this item was in conjunction with the 6’ high ornamental fence variance that was approved in October and a Conditional Use Permit that will be discussed at the December 18, 2001 Plan Commission Meeting. Jim Stapel, 427 N. Main Street, and Carl Stapel, 1580 Lakeshore Drive, Menasha, stated they were okay with the condition recommended by staff, and added they would like to use the John Deere tractors inside the storage area to provide screening for the storage area. Discussion continued on the intended aesthetic benefit of the proposed fence. Motion by Dahl to approve the request to construct a 6’ high, less than 50% solid fence for an open storage area in the C-3 District with the following condition: 1.) Materials behind the fence be stacked no higher than 7’ tall. Seconded by Kluessendorf. Motion carried 4-0. Unanimous. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld