HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (variance) - 04/28/1999 Board of Appeals Minutes Page 3 April 28, 1999
Todd Chirart, 852 W. 10th Street, stated he had understood having the garage back 6' as suggested in the
Staff Report, wouldn't meet code requirements. Mr. Bluemke stated as long as the garage was 5' away from
the house it would be required to be 2.5' away from the lot line, per the building code for detached garages.
Mr. Chirart stated he also didn't want the garage to take up the majority of the back yard, as he valued that
space for his family.
Discussion followed regarding the depth of the lot, the location of the driveway, and the fact that there has
never been a garage on the property. The layout of the house was also discussed along with the clarification
of the zoning ordinance as it relates to attached and detached garages.
Mr. Chirart stated he would like to lay over the request until the next meeting to review his options.
Motion by Dahl to lay over the request for two weeks to give Mr. Chirart the chance to review
his options. Seconded by Roehlig. Motion carried 5 -0.
IV: 2121 MiNERVA - Mike LaPorte, Applicant/Owner
Mike LaPorte, applicant and owner, requests a variance for a deck in the side yard with a 3' setback.
Mike LaPorte, 2121 Minerva Street, stated the violation of the deck had been found when a routine
inspection had been done on other remodeling projects they had undertaken. Mr. LaPorte reported the deck
has been there since 1978 per the assessors blotter. He stated he had discussed the situation with the
neighbor who had property adjacent to the deck, and there was no problem leaving it there as long as it
didn't become living quarters. He stated his neighbor didn't feel the deck was a hardship.
Mr. Schorse asked Mr. LaPorte how long he had owned the property. Mr. LaPorte stated he had purchased
the property in May of 1997.
Marilyn LaPorte, 2121 Minerva Street, stated the deck was located off the kitchen of their tri -level style
home, and it was the only entrance and exit with steps down to the patio for the upper two levels, and was
actually located in the back of the house.
Chairman Krueger asked if a condition could be made for no enclosure of the deck to be constructed.
Marilyn LaPorte asked for clarification on enclosure of the deck. Mr. Bluemke stated enclosure meant to
put walls up around the deck. Mrs. LaPorte stated there were walls half way up the deck. Mr. Bluemke asked
if the deck was in good repair. Mr. & Mrs. LaPorte stated they would probably replace the deck in
approximately 5 years. Mr. Bluemke stated at that time they could construct an at grade patio, replace the
deck in compliance with the zoning code or they could apply for another variance.
Mr. Roehlig stated he could understand the reason for constructing the deck in such a fashion was because
it is a comer lot, because of the size of the lot, and the entrance hardship, which were all pre- existing
conditions for the LaPorte's.
Mr. Krueger stated if there was a motion to approve the variance he would like to see a condition made so
no enclosure would be constructed on the deck and when the deck was replaced it would comply with the
zoning ordinance. Mr. Bluemke stated the deck would need to have a setback of 7.5' or be located at grade
level to comply.
Board of Appeals Minutes Page 4 April 28, 1999
Motion by Roehlig to approve the variance for a deck in the side yard with a 3' setback with
the condition that the deck will not be enclosed. Seconded by Husman. Motion carried 5 -0.
Finding of the Fact: Mr. Roehlig stated the configuration and size of the lot created a hardship and the
location of the deck provides an entrance and exit for the upper two levels and use
of the patio.
V: 824 MERRITT - Del Tritt, Applicant/Owner
Del Tritt, applicant and owner, requests a variance for an attached garage with a side yard setback of 1' and
a rear yard setback of 2'6 ".
Del Tritt, 421 W. Bent Avenue, referred to the drawing which he felt verified the lot size as the hardship.
He stated he wanted to create storage space for cars, bikes, and maintenance equipment. He also stated he
had no problem with paving both driveways within one year of the building permit being issued for the
garage, as listed as a condition in the Staff Report for approval of the variance.
Chairman Krueger asked what the square footage was for the garage's. Mr. Tritt stated it was close to 500
square feet. Mr. Tritt also added that the driveways and curb cuts were already in place.
Mr. Dahl stated it appeared to be an improvement to the property. He also noted the house was in excellent
condition and the current garage was quite an eye sore.
Motion by Roehlig for approval of variances for an attached garage with a 1' side yard setback
and a 2'6" rear yard setback with the condition that both driveways be paved within one year
of the building permit for the garage being issued. Seconded by Dahl. Motion carried 5 -0.
Finding of the Fact: Mr. Schorse stated the lot size offered limited room for a garage considering the
placement of the house.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted,
i
, 7
C. BLUEMKE
Principal Planner
JCB /vlr
STAFF REPORT BOARD OF APPEALS
APRIL 28, 1999
ITEM IV: 2121 MINERVA - Mike LaPorte, Applicant/Owner
GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Mike Laporte, applicant and owner requests a variance for a deck in the side yard with a 3' setback
whereas Section 30 -17 (B) (3) (b) requires a 7.5' setback.
The general area is characterized by residential uses, and is zoned R -1 Single Family Residential
District.
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
In reviewing a variance request, the following questions should be addressed:
Is there an unusual or unique characteristic about the subject property which
creates a hardship?
Is the hardship self - created?
Is the variance being requested the least possible needed to remove any
hardship?
Will granting of the variance have a considerable adverse impact on the
neighboring properties?
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an 8'5" by 17' deck to remain in the side yard of the
subject property. The deck, which was not constructed by the applicant, is about 5' above grade and is
within 3' of the side lot line. A building inspector, during the course of a normal inspection, found that
the deck had been constructed without a permit. The age of the deck is not known but it appears to
have been constructed several years ago.
While the issue was not self - created, there are options available rather than continuing to allow a deck
with a substandard setback. Outside stairways could be constructed which could lead to a code
compliant deck located in the side yard or in front of the house on Wilson Street. As the deck is about
5' above grade, it would appear activity on the deck has an adverse impact on the property to west.
Based on this information, staff recommends denial of the variance.
Please Type or print in BLACK INK Return to: Department of
Community Development
215 Church Ave., PO Box 1130
CITY OF OSHKOSH Oshkosh, WI 54902 -1130
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
Please write legibly with black ink and also submit a complete reproducible (maximum size 11" x 17 ") site plan. (A complete site
plan includes, but is not limited to, all structures, lot lines and streets with distances to each.) There is a $25.00 fee for each variance
application. The fee is payable to the City of Oshkosh and due at the time the application is submitted.
Address of Parcel Affected: 2.121 / J )LNF 2JP cj -
Owner (if not petitioner): M /c.E ( Home Phone: q ac.) - 133 ' }S 8Gc(
Owner's Address: C(L 2.1 ( (Y'\t N' ' A 3 f Work Phone: ? 20 ° ? 3 -75'4
X / /
Signature: �; t e Date: L//.'j I l g y y
Applicant or Agent (if different from owner): Home Phone:
Applicant's Address: Work Phone:
Signature: Date:
In order to be granted a variance, each applicant must be able to prove that an unnecessary hardship would be created if the variance is not
granted. The burden of proving an unnecessary hardship rests upon the applicant. The attached sheet provides information on what
constitutes a hardship. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary, to provide the information requested. Additional information may be
requested as needed.)
1. Explain your proposed plans and why you are requesting a variance: Sic AT TA-,17:60 .
2. Describe how the variance would not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties: V6E /2T,3199
•
3. Describe the special conditions that apply to your lot or structure that do not apply to surrounding lots or structures:
4 r r /3a$'J9
4. Describe the hardship that would result if your variance were not granted:
Ste 4rri r'lIt.3
•
(See Reverse Side)
1. Explain your proposed plan and why you are requesting a variance:
I am requesting a variance because during a rough inspection of our garage remodeling project we
were informed that the existing deck and the roof over it do not meet current bu ilding codes. We
purchased the home in May of 1997, we were not made aware of any code violations by the seller or real
estate agent at that time. I've asked our neighbors across from us on Minerva St and next to us on Wilson
St. (the only ones who might be effected by the deck and roof) and they both said that its been up for a
number of years.
2. Describe how the variance would not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties:
The neighbors to the west ( 1907 Wilson ) are the only neighbors that would be effected by the
deck. They do not have any area between their house, the lot line and our deck that is used on any regular
basis except lawn mowing.
3. Describe the special conditions that apply to your lot or structure that do not apply to surrounding
lots or structures:
We are on a comer lot with a small back yard.
4. Describe the hardship that would result if your variance were not granted:
We would have to tear down the deck and replace it with one that would protrude into the lawn on
the north side of the house. This would be a large cost to us and would take away from the visual and
selling appeal of the home. This doorway is also the only exit on the upper levels of the home.
•
2121 MINERVA MIKE LAPORTE KEN & JANICE BUNKE
2121 MINERVA ST 1907 WILSON AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54901 OSHKOSH WI 54901
DAVID LOKKEN JOSEPH ROYCRAFT LOIS RUCK
2120 MINERVA ST 8495 HWY 21 RT 1 1906 ROOSEVELT AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54901 OMRO WI 54963 -9801 OSHKOSH WI 54901
PATRICIA MILLER MR & MRS SCOTT PATTEN BRIAN PEPLINSKI
2210 MINERVA ST 1900 WILSON AVE 2102 MINERVA ST
OSHKOSH WI 54901 OSHKOSH WI 54901 OSHKOSH WI 54901
DONALD DIEDRICH
1904 WILSON AVE
OSHKOSH WI 54901
9 °r
� ' ` i
0 t r ts 1� 18 S
u) E g
L _ $8 i 0 8
� C O 'p 1 Hffihil.. u Vii
.f z ¢ c = a
O
N V) N rI° gl ° a 11
N U Z . :g „ if_ v y
s0: 1 t g
J!ll
iUt
O O
OZ LZ o 0
LO in 1 1! Z
10'52 L
i
y 8 x SO
J
VN t;RVf� 5 7z4:. 0 0 J`�l 1 N 3_ r
1 _ T
_ r
10 I- N 10
o L7, L7 1 .--'
37..
0
In ►C/ i j
s a
r
o O
O
u
l
,-
O r-
O
`u '0'0 1. 16' 6 9
�.; 0 1 1 4 . 1 1 3
..
N co E t a 4 � I= I • � o -
> -c w 1.I151111)1 °° y
. - z O 0 Q 1 .it I II `= 1
L W `~ 1, d° x g .,0 S a .t a$
�.
to 0 0' N o liltb° 4`6
1 10 C 0 !.e. i
N
m U § ttililiii t o $
0 WHAM.
`1 �! ■1 11111111111N IIILs al
MI — Mfg F 111 1/111111 : :111111
� en
ra
Li
— • a* c 11111 ■1111111- :Mill
— > . \ 1111 1111111 =1ifilv
gi — a . 11111 11911!111 !IBM'
ill — w "� 1111 luli1111C Bill11111
rm w ° Ism mum' =inn
1- - _ ■M 11111111[ �H � -{ I II 1111
—
— Till a 11111 IlI 1 I I tit y nil IIIIIIIII H,
—
a III1II I 1111111111 _
dN`d NIA II . 1 1 L1 ,1 1 IUIIM Li1Z,�04: :__ _ IQ = � AS I1I. ■11111 mar: mar: = h i' ■ :1111111i NOME n. ■ -�
1 I l. i � 1 70 1�C d 111►1 -11 L- :11111: II11111i i t
Al IEEE 111111M •111111: 1111hI• 1 =1 lid 1 �
■I 1 Id 111.a■;i111111 ■11111111111=
i : —
___ 1111 ` I!L ' a 111= Rol Inn n Mail Ik -V Slum I 1 11111 mum � C
> lil t ;� =111E 11111 �� a ` ` ��' C
a I 1 1111 i — =� — 7 ' = _ 1� j
4.1 1■■ _- =111i1 IIIIIl .1111 0 •-. =11� = C% " P— -- =3II1 .111!1 1111 �
awl I= El "- nil ., N l.: III= _uui 11111° :1 At
1 1 t ■111111'111111 go v, 1�� .tip _111 11 I ri1 . _tii, d1
1 ■ii1111,111111 N 11 , Mai =11 = =111 = �'' ' g o Tte . 4
I ll ■1�1��1111111 4II um &I � Im
I� ■1��111111111 -a. =7 'or i . g* I,
I I uIuj p =oa w , .,-.. :;;;;;;* w-
< < i W LU
Z i
Y , 0. '
\,.' d
.'''
• M AI N
' 11'i 11
ima . i '
Will MI,
ti
CC0
+% ct:4411;11 oy 1
( 0 bb ►
0 D. O 1EY$� •� O S
z TB W �3.$ i
N z O o Q tig.2 .G - i
• L
2 0
0 •� cn"eg' °
.- c cp 1.. :5L .
F\1
o E N
o tuna 6 E a
1 [..1 EZ—el IN I
L_-� EZ Lz ZO I SZOZ I
'1S
50ZZ N lZ a ££OZ
LZZZ 1111 �£0 LZ
I I ■ I
co I co 0
0 1 8 1_._�l 1111
Li c.'' C3 O
N
MI �I o
LJ
Fr_j_.; ..m 1
0 � .
r
I ZZZZ 0 Lzz zo z 1 1 fr£Oz
• 1S dn�3NIW
c 22, F • ,4 - 1 I o
6 lZZ c H ������ ��� p" •
.
0 •
.. w 0
N >
N I o
J 0 - 1
Ell 1
I I I I N
01
9 LZZ Z lZZ
OZ lZ z , Z£OZ
'1
LO lZ S£OZ
r I 0
N to 0
N
1 Li n 1 1 Z N n
_■, O _
° Z k $ ;'g1 llig = 6
'
0 a o a 11:§116-1111 p
o Y p gl $h..4 0 8
s 1j L n_
cn z O 0 Q 1 6i 11�
'� 9_ >, U °xig..5 .� a g
(D o b " Z
N 0 0 gr�� a
N
N . ` E ° ' gl : o t o
-. b
•U U I l l g g a c n I i i
111111111111111. N MINIMMEMIMMEMMIMMI — 77"1 -
J
= 1 ii .is
1111 I
I
.is Mvailms
1 I
• Ls H1fK)'IAld
M1flpwAld I
1 <
1
I
v W ma �w
I ad!' gi cn 32§ W H
\i'—' I _ J
i t — I . •a
■
g 1 -
iu = Er _ R:
ats .00
1
U
W
1