Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (minutes) - 09/25/1996 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES PAGE -2- SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 Vice Chairman Roehlig inquired as to what would happen if the church sold one of those lots. Mr. Stark stated the Foundation actually owns the property. It is their intention to eventually eliminate both houses and put in a parking lot, and hopefully acquiring more land in the future. Motion by Dahl for approval a variance to construct a driveway with a 0 ft. side yard setback. Seconded by Schorse. Motion carried 5 -0. As to the Findings of Fact, Vice Chairman Roehlig stated the variance is a solution to a potentially dangerous problem with the traffic on West South Park Avenue. They would not be creating a negative effect on the adjacent properties. There is no other alternative for access for a driveway. The hardship is created by West South Park Avenue and the heavy traffic on a major arterial of the City. III: 47 -51 MILL STREET - Carl Simpson, et al, owners /applicants The applicants are requesting a variance to construct a driveway and parking spaces with a 0 ft. side yard setback; whereas Section 30- 36(C)(3)(f) Access and Section 30- 21(B)(5)(b) Side Yard Setback of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 6 inch minimum side yard setback for driveways and a minimum side yard setback of TA ft. for a parking space. Bill Howard, 5240 Primrose Lane, gave a brief history of the property in question and reiterated the variance request. Mr. Schorse inquired if the intent was to have a driveway off Poplar Avenue and Mr. Howard stated that was correct. John Gradl, 643 Ceape Avenue, inquired what how the driveway would be constructed. He also inquired as to how far the driveway would be from his property. Mr. Howard stated it is their intent on having parking in the back of the lots and would make sure they weren't too close to the fence between theirs and the Gradl's property. He drew a diagram on the chalkboard indicating his proposal and showing his intentions. Mr. Roskom stated driveways /parking lots are required, under the Zoning Ordinance, to be made of a hard surface (asphalt or concrete). Matt Kozel, 55 Mill Street, stated he has lived in his property for approximately five years. He stated it is his understanding the applicants' reasoning for the driveway is to eliminate parking in front of the residence. During those five years he has lived in his residence, he's noticed the parking in the back of 47 Mill Street has never been used. He doesn't feel the variance will eliminate the parking in front of the property. He feels in the long term plan, the parking lot would look bad. He was also concerned that the value of his property would be lower due to the presence of a parking lot as proposed. He felt problems will be created in the long term as people would be driving over two pieces of land. Mr. Howard argued the alternative is to park on the street which looks bad. He also stated it is their intent to tie these two properties together in the future. Mr. Kozel inquired if there is one driveway for four vehicles for two separate families, how will these people get in and out. Mr. Roskom stated the site plan indicates that the parking area is big enough to maneuver vehicles. The proposal is functionable. Mr. Baudhuin inquired of Mr. Kozel if there were a lot of people parking in front of his property now. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES PAGE -2- SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 Mr. Kozel stated there are people parking their boats in front in the summertime. People in the apartments park on the street as it is more convenient. The only thing that deters them from parking on the street is getting a ticket. Vice Chairman Roehlig suggested that a condition of approval be added to require a landscape buffer on the north side of the parking lot and restrict the setback from 5 ft. to 10 ft. Leona Gradl, 543 Ceape Avenue, inquired as to exactly where the landscaping would be placed and how high the plantings would be. Vice Chairman Roehlig stated it would be placed between the parking lot and the lot line - that 10 ft. strip. He stated the plantings would be between 3 -5 ft. in height. The net result would be an improvement of the property. Once paved and landscaped, it would make a great visual improvement to the neighborhood. Motion by Schorse for approval of a variance to construct a driveway and parking spaces with a 0 ft. side yard setback contingent upon a landscape buffer on the north side of the parking lot and that a 10 ft. setback be maintained. Said landscaping plan to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development before installation. Seconded by Baudhuin. Motion carried 5-0. As to the Findings of Fact, Mr. Schorse stated the hardship is that both Tots are narrow without the possibility of getting additional lands. The existence of the buildings are beyond the owners' control. Vice Chairman Roehlig added that the improvements proposed to be made to the property will be an improvement over the existing conditions. The conditions of approval, when applied, will minimize any negative impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Baudhuin stated that also a hardship is not to have any off - street parking available. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, 71 (1.4, Bruce A. Roskom Principal Planner