Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES July 14, 2010 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Robert Krasniewski, Dennis Penney, Jane Cryan EXCUSED: Mark Nielsen STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of June 9, 2010 were approved with the following corrections: the motion on the minutes should be 3 -0 instead of 4 -0; Mr. Krasniewski arrived at 3:42 pm instead of 3:32; page 3, paragraph 7, a grammatical error "if' should be "of'. Carpenter/Krasniewski 4 -0 -1. (Penney abstained from voting as he was not present for the meeting.) ITEM I: 2551 JACKSON STREET Bayland Building Inc. - applicant, St. Vincent DePaul Society of Oshkosh- owner, request a variance to permit a 10,000 s.f accessory commercial structure to be located in the side yard. Section 30 -25 (13)(3)(b)(ii) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: C -2 General Commercial District requires accessory commercial structures to be located behind the principal commercial structure. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He reviewed the features of the proposed structure and stated that the zoning ordinance standards require accessory structures to be located in the rear yard however the subject parcel has two front yards and two side yards with no existing rear yard on the property. The placement of the accessory structure would result in the reduction of off - street parking stalls but would not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties. The property is unique as it does not possess a defined rear yard and the placement of the proposed structure is limiting as many adverse variables as possible. Dick Conners, President of St. Vincent de Paul, 1820 Winchester Avenue, stated that the accessory structure was necessary for storage space as they have sold the other building to the Housing Authority pending the approval of their tax credits. Mr. Carpenter commented that he appreciated the re -use of this site and would support the variance request. Motion by Penney to approve the request for a variance to permit a 10, 000 square foot accessory commercial structure to be located in the side yard. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5 -0. Finding of Facts: Hardship due to lack of rear yard area. No detrimental effect to neighborhood. Board of Appeals Minutes 1 July 14, 2010 ITEM Il,• 1358 CEAPE AVENUE Dawn & Chris Deringer - applicants /owners, request variances to permit a single family residential driveway with a 2' side yard setback and to be wider than the garage. Section 30 -36 (13)(1) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Off - Street Parking Facilities requires a minimum 7.5' side yard setback for single family residential driveways and to be no wider than the garage. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the home and attached garage had been built in 1942 and the owners are proposing to widen the existing driveway 5' to the east to provide an additional off - street parking area to be screened from the adjacent property by 8' tall shrubs. A hardship is present as the existing placement of the principal structure and limited side yard area precludes feasible placement alternatives for improvements within setbacks. Current ordinance requires single - family uses to provide two off - street parking spaces which could only be attained in this case by razing the existing garage and reconstructing a detached garage in the rear yard area which would appear to be unnecessarily burdensome. An alteration to the submitted site plan was being recommended that the proposed driveway expansion be tapered to avoid vehicles backing over the public right -of -way area and creating damage. Dawn Deringer, 1358 Ceape Avenue, stated that the home was constructed by her grandfather and they did not desire to demolish the garage and reconstruct a new one in the rear yard as there is an existing bedroom above the garage area. She further stated that the neighbors had signed a petition that they do not object to the variance request. She commented that they did not wish to taper the driveway expansion as recommended as they were hoping to have the apron widened to match the driveway sometime in the future when Ceape Avenue would be reconstructed. Mr. Cornell requested further explanation of the tapering of the driveway expansion. Mr. Muehrer explained the diagram in the staff report representing the tapering concept and stated that he did not know when the Capital Improvement Program would have funding scheduled to reconstruct this street and recommended that the condition to require the driveway expansion be tapered remain in place. Mr. Krasniewski commented that if Ceape Avenue is reconstructed, the existing aprons would stay in place unless a request was approved to have the area widened. The tapering concept was further discussed and it was concluded that the apron already appears to be wider than the driveway and that the recommendation to taper it should stand. Ms. Deringer commented that a neighboring property owner widened their driveway in sections and it did not look satisfactory and reiterated that they would prefer to not taper the expansion area with anticipation of being allowed to widen the apron in the future. Mr. Krasniewski commented that it appeared that to widen the apron could intrude on the adjacent property. Mr. Muehrer further explained the reasoning for tapering the driveway and how code standards address this issue. Mr. Carpenter commented that although dimensions are different in older neighborhoods, he understood the reasoning for tapering the expansion area and would support the condition remaining in place. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 July 14, 2010 Motion by Cryan to approve the request for a variance to permit a single family residential driveway with a 2 ' side yard setback and to be wider than the garage with the following condition: 1. The proposed driveway expansion be tapered starting a minimum of 5' inside the parcel in accordance with Section 30 -35 (B) (1) (c) (i). Seconded by Krasniewski. Motion carried 5 -0. Finding of Facts: No harm to the public interest. A unique situation. ITEM III: 403 S. EAGLE STREET Cary A. Rowe - applicant /owner, requests a variance to permit an attached garage with a 13' rear yard setback. Section 30 -17 (B)(4)(a) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: R -1 Single Family Residence District requires a 25' rear yard setback for attached garages. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the home was built in 1963 and the owner was proposing to construct an addition with an associated tapered driveway approach on the south side of the attached garage for storage purposes. An existing shed is located in the area of the proposed addition and the property owner feels the addition would have a positive effect on the surrounding properties. A degree of hardship is present as the existing principal structure placement and limited yard area precludes feasible placement alternatives for improvements within setbacks and the residence can only provide one code compliant off - street parking space as it exists. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the shed would be removed if the variance was granted for the garage addition. Cary Rowe, 403 S. Eagle Street, responded that he would move the storage shed to another location until the garage addition was completed to determine if the storage area in the garage would be adequate. Mr. Carpenter then questioned if code requirements would allow the shed to remain after the garage addition was constructed. Mr. Muehrer responded that the shed could remain on the site providing it is located in an area that provides a 2.5' setback from the side and rear lot lines. Mr. Krasniewski requested clarification of the relocation area for the shed and if the garage addition would be a single stall. Mr. Rowe displayed the location where the shed would be placed and stated that the addition would be a single stall. Mr. Carpenter inquired if this addition would require any change to the existing driveway. Mr. Rowe responded that there would be a bump out area added to the driveway near the tree which is noted on the site plan. He also commented that he was planning on having new siding and a new roof put on the home at the same time so everything would match. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 July 14, 2010 Motion by Carpenter to approve the request for a variance to permit an attached garage with a 13 ' rear yard setback. Seconded by Penney. Motion carried 5 -0. Finding of Facts: Benefit to neighborhood. Least variance necessary. ITEM IV: 2015 NEBRASKA STREET Charles Fluegel- applicant /owner, requests variances to permit a detached garage in the rear yard with a 1'6" rear yard setback and a 1'6" side yard (north) setback. Section 30 -19 (B)(4)(b)(iv) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: R -2 Two Family Residence District requires a 2'6" rear yard setback and Section 30 -19 (B)(4)(b)(v) requires a 2'6" side yard setback. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the home was built in 1956 and the garage in 1957 and that the owner is proposing to replace the dilapidated existing garage with a new structure. The proposed new garage would have the same roof line and be generally located in the same vicinity as the current structure. The existing principal structure placement and legal nonconforming lot area are creating a hardship and the property is only able to provide one off - street parking space. Conditions on the request recommend that no portion of the garage extend over the property lines and that all storm water runoff be directed away from adjacent properties. Charles Fluegel, 2015 Nebraska Street, stated that he purchased the property last year and did not realize at the time the limitations of the garage and that he had reviewed the conditions recommended for his request and did not have any issues with them. He further commented that he planned to utilize not only gutters but rain barrels to retain water to avoid any runoff on adjacent properties. Mr. Carpenter questioned if this method of water retainage was permissible and if water runoff was allowed to flow down the driveway to the street. Mr. Muehrer responded that drainage issues are under the supervision and approval of the Department of Public Works and that storm water management regulations dictate that no sheet flow is allowable across sidewalks to the street. The use of rain barrels is permissible. Board members further discussed the current water flow in this area. Roger Hill, 2009 Nebraska Street, stated that he was the adjacent property to the north closest to the location of the proposed garage reconstruction, and he did not have any concerns with the issue. Motion by Carpenter to approve the request for a variance to permit a detached garage in the rear yard with a 1'6" rear yard setback and a 1'6" side yard (north) setback with the following conditions: 1. The garage shall be designed so no portion extends over the north and/or west property lines. 2. The garage shall be designed to direct all storm water away from adjacent properties. Seconded by Cornell. Motion carried 5 -0. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 July 14, 2010 Finding of Facts: An improvement to the neighborhood. Will bring off - street parking into compliance with current regulations. ITEM V: 910 & 916 ELMWOOD AVENUE Jeffrey A. Jahnke/Dean D. Korn - applicants /owners, request the following variances to establish a new multiple - family dwelling with associated improvements: Description Code Reference Required Proposed 1. Front yard setback 30 -22 (B)(5)(c) 25' 15' 2. Trans. yard (south)setback 30 -35 (B)(1)(c) 19 10' 3. Trans. yard (north)setback 30 -35 (B)(1)(c) 19 10' 4. Trans. yard (east) setback 30 -35 (B)(1)(c)(i) 10' 2 Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the petitioner is proposing to demolish both existing single family structures and associated accessory structures, combine the parcels and construct a new two -story 6 -unit multiple family dwelling structure. No formal plans have been submitted at this time, but the proposed structure would feature four 3- bedroom units and two 2- bedroom units with seven uncovered off - street parking spaces and a nine stall covered parking structure with a refuse disposal area. The petitioner feels that single family residential uses are no longer viable in this neighborhood and a hardship will be imposed if the variances are not granted as the development as proposed will not be attainable. Sizeable setback variances are needed on all sides of the proposed development and the large proportion of impervious surface that will exist on the property is also a concern. Snow removal and storage as well as accessibility to the refuse disposal area are a concern as well. Feasible alternatives are present for both parcels such as single family dwellings or a two or three family unit that would not require any variances therefore qualifying this situation as a self - created hardship. Dan Meissner, 1230 E. Calumet Street, architect for the development, displayed graphics of the project and stated that they were guided by the regulations for the R -5 Multiple Dwelling District. He further stated that Mr. Jahnke and Mr. Korn had purchased the properties with the intention of creating a multi - family use on the site. He displayed photos of neighboring properties in the vicinity and explained that the properties in the neighborhood have changed and the majority of uses are no longer single family homes but rental properties. He also displayed graphics of what could be developed on the site if the variance was denied which would be a taller structure with parking possibly placed underground. The proposal they are presenting today which would require the requested variances is more aesthetically attractive with additional areas for landscaping. Jeffrey Jahnke, 1107 Twin Harbor Drive, Winneconne, stated that the first property was purchased for his partner's daughter to live in and that the area possesses a R -5 Multiple Dwelling zoning classification. There is a University parking lot in close proximity to this location and most of the housing is utilized for student rental purposes. He further stated that his proposed apartment complex would be more aesthetically pleasing and would maintain a better sight line than the existing housing in the area and would provide better rental units for students. There would be adequate parking stalls for all the tenants and the alternative plan, although it would not be a hardship to development, would create a structure that would not coordinate well in the neighborhood as it would look like a tower in comparison to surrounding structures. The proposed site plan would be more user friendly and attractive and would provide space for landscaping between it and the adjacent parcel which currently has no screening for its parking area. Board of Appeals Minutes 5 July 14, 2010 Board members discussed what the potential square footage of the proposed units would be; however, architectural designs have not yet been developed as the petitioner was waiting to see if the requested variances would be granted prior to incurring the expense of the design plans. Mr. Muehrer reviewed the zoning ordinance to determine code minimums for the size of the units and some discussion took place regarding the reasoning to create the number of units proposed on the site. Mr. Jahnke stated that design plans would be developed once the board determines of the requested variances would be granted. Mr. Krasniewski inquired about the concrete sidewalk in front of the development shown on the site plan submitted with the application as it did not appear to agree with the graphics displayed on the diagrams presented at the meeting. Mr. Jahnke responded that there was an error on the graphic design and the concrete walk was inadvertently omitted. Mr. Krasniewski also inquired about the setbacks from the street for the adjacent properties in the area. Mr. Muehrer responded that the setbacks appeared to be about 15 feet. Mr. Krasniewski expressed his concern with problems on the site due to the loss of drainage with the amount of impervious surface that would be created. Mr. Meissner replied that the driveway would be constructed of pervious pavement to allow the water to drain through it. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if that concept would be feasible as Oshkosh has a predominantly clay base which would not allow the water to drain through regardless of the pervious pavement. Mr. Cornell commented that the snow removal on the site also appeared to be an issue. Mr. Carpenter stated that considering that the development would require variances to the setbacks on all sides of the parcels, it appeared that the project was too large for this site. Jeff Rasmussen, 1914 Greenbriar Trail, stated that he owns the property at 904 Elmwood Avenue which is adjacent to the site of the proposed development. He stated that he understands the situation from a business standpoint however he questioned if his rental property was destroyed by fire, if he would receive the same considerations when it came to reconstruction of the site. He also voiced his concern with if this development would decrease his property value and explained how he had to conform to neighborhood standards with something as minor as the replacement of the steps on his property. Mr. Jahnke stated that the rental properties are the current nature of the neighborhood and displayed photos of various apartment buildings in the area and commented that he wished to provide something to the students that would be more appealing than the existing units. He further commented about the setbacks applied for the R -5 zoned district and the number of tenants, number of units, and bedrooms sizes and living quarters that would be provided with this development compared to other concepts. Mr. Penney commented that he felt there were too many "if s" and "but's" with this issue and stated that he felt it was a self - created hardship. Board of Appeals Minutes 6 July 14, 2010 Mr. Krasniewski stated that he felt the front setback request was the only reasonable variance presented and that there was not sufficient space on the site for the proposed development. Mr. Cornell questioned if there was adequate parking stalls for the proposed project. Mr. Muehrer responded that the number parking stalls provided would be code compliant. Mr. Penney inquired if zoning regulations require one stall per bedroom. Mr. Muehrer reviewed the parking code requirements for the various forms of single and multi - family housing uses. Motion by Cryan to approve the request for a variance to establish a new multiple family dwelling with associated improvements with a I5' front yard setback, a 10' transitional yard (south) setback, a 10' transitional yard (north) setback, and a 2'6" transitional yard (east) setback. Seconded by Penney. Motion denied 5 -0. Finding of Facts: It is a self - created hardship. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. (Krasniewski /Carpenter). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 7 July 14, 2010