Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (minutes) - 11/03/1993 MINUTES PAGE -2- NOVEMBER 3, 1993 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Mrs. Hoppe stated that was limited parking, i.e. 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Mr. Roskom added that the Police Department would not issue parking permits. Mr. Husman inquired if there as any other alternative to taking down the mature tree. Mr. Dahl stated that after a careful analysis of the area, he was positive that the mature tree would have to be taken down. Discussion ensued relative to parking restrictions in the stated area being reevaluated by the City within the next 90 days. Lengthy discussion ensued as to viable alternatives for Mrs. Hoppe's parking dilemma. Motion by Krueger to approve a variance to place a single parking space in the front yard, along the easterly lot line with the following conditions: 1) That a landscape plan be submitted to the Department of Community Development for review and approval prior to utilizing the parking space in question. The landscape plan must indicate a landscaped buffer placed along the easterly lot line and that the landscaping be installed no later than the end of May, 1994. 2) That the applicant remove the existing graveled area illegally placed in the front yard and that area be returned to its originally grassed state prior to the end of May, 1994. 3) That the parking space be paved with a hard asphalt type surface prior to the end of May, 1994. Seconded by Roehlig. Motion denied 0-5. As to the Findings of Fact, Mr. Krueger stated that this request would be a detriment to the neighborhood and noted there is a possible aspect of parking on the street if parking is allowed as requested and other avenues should be investigated before. Chairman Stover added that there may be something forthcoming relative to street parking and as indicated, Mrs. Hoppe may still be able to talk to her neighbors for a possible solution. 1231 MINERVA STREET - Paulette Michler, owner /applicant The applicant is requesting a variance to construct an 8 ft. high fence on a side lot line; whereas Section 30- 31(E)(3) Fences and Hedges of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance permits a 6 ft. high maximum fence height on a side lot line. Ms. Michler gave a brief history of the property in question and reiterated her variance request. She stated there had been some miscommunication between herself the Building Inspector's office as to the height of the fence. Mrs. Michler stated her neighbors did not have a problem with the fence. She stated that the only neighbor affected by the fence was her next door neighbor, who preferred the 8 ft. height of the fence because it allowed for privacy. Mr. Krueger inquired if there had been a diagram reflecting the total proposed height of the fence given to the Inspector's office. MINUTES PAGE -3- NOVEMBER 3, 1993 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Ms. Michler stated there had been nothing by way of a diagram, but that she had given the Inspector's office the height measurements orally. Mr. Roskom stated that the permit issued had been for a 6 ft. high fence, wherein Ms. Michler stated she never looked at the permit itself because she thought she knew what it indicated per her conversation with the Inspector's office. Chairman Stover inquired when Ms. Michler picked up her building permit, did she read the other material relative to fences and hedges that was given to her by the Building Inspector's office. Ms. Michler stated she had not because she felt she knew what she needed to know. Chairman Stover inquired as to the height of the previous fence and Ms. Michler stated it was 6 ft. high. Mr. Krueger inquired if the reason for the 8 ft. high fence was for privacy and Mrs. Michler stated yes, privacy was the most important factor and went on to say that the height does not hinder viewing with other neighbors or interfere with traffic. Cleoneann Baird, 1905 Winchester Avenue, stated she was the only adjacent property owner affected by the 8 ft. high fence and indicated that she would be lost without it. She stated she preferred the 8 ft. high fence versus the 6 ft. fence because it allowed for privacy from Ms. Michler's residence. Fred Schefsky, 1905 Winchester Avenue, stated he was the neighbor who constructed the present fence, and was present to answer any questions. Chairman Stover stated there had been a lack of communication between the applicant and the Building Inspector's office, but noted that was not a basis for automatic approval of the additional height of 2 ft. Mr. Roskom stated it is important to note that no one did anything intentional relative to this issue, it was just a matter of miscommunication. He stated that the permit was issued for a 6 ft. high fence. Mr. Krueger inquired why at this point in time the necessity for the 8 ft. high fence, when before a 6 ft. fence was sufficient. Ms. Michler stated the previous fence was in a deteriorated stated and they were replacing it, so it seemed like the ideal time to replace it with an 8 ft. high fence for privacy. She stated she did not want to add to a fence that needed replacing and noted that the previous fence would not have been able to support the additional lattice work. Mr. Roskom inquired if the 8 ft. high fence was a personal desire for privacy and Ms. Michler stated yes. Motion by Krueger to approve the variance as requested. Seconded by Roehlig. Motion denied 1 -4 (AYES: Husman; NAYS: Dahl, Krueger, Roehlig, Sloven. MINUTES PAGE -4- NOVEMBER 3, 1993 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS As to the Findings of Fact, Mr. Krueger stated basically there as no hardship stated, just a matter of preference to which affirmative action could be taken. He further stated there was an altemative of a 6 ft. high fence. 111: 16 EAST LINCOLN STREET - St. John's Ev. Lutheran Church, owner /applicant The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a parking lot with a 4 ft. front yard setback from East Lincoln Avenue, a 3 ft. front yard setback from Jefferson Street, and a 2 ft. side yard setback; whereas Section 30 -19(B) Standards of the R -5 Multiple Dwelling District requires a 25 ft. minimum front yard setback and a 7 1/2 ft. side yard setback for parking Tots. Mr. Orville Burdick, 1654 Ontario Street, gave a brief history of the property in question and reiterated the variance request. Mr. Burdick presented a picture (said picture not being made a part of these minutes) depicting two vans in the area of the present handicapped entrance and noted with the present sidewalk and the presence of the two vans (or more), the entrance becomes a fire hazard. He stated he had discussed landscaping with Ray Last, owner of Sterling Gardens and George Singstock, who indicated they would work with the church relative to appropriate landscaping measures. Mr. Burdick stated that Mr. John Sundquist had expressed concern relative to angle parking on the street and stated that if the church used existing parking, the variance request would be fine with him. Mr. Roskom inquired if the rear entrance would be used primarily as a handicapped entrance and Mr. Burdick stated it would be. Mr. Krueger inquired as to how many handicapped parking spaces the church felt was necessary. Mr. Burdick stated there were at least six parishoners who used wheelchairs and they would like three handicapped stalls on each side of the entrance. He also stated there were quite a few senior citizens that would be benefited by the handicapped parking spaces to which the church would issue them parking stickers. Mr. Roskom stated that staff supported the 4 ft. front yard setback because it is all one property that is just off Main Street which is zoned commerical. The multiple family zoning district splits that block and in essence, that block will not be used in a multiple family manner. Secondly, the church is right up to the sidewalk and if they were to put on an addition, they could extend that existing line of the church without obtaining a variance. It is true, however, that they can get seven parking spaces on Lincoln Avenue, but if those parking spaces were eliminated, it is doubtful they would still meet the setback and have a workable parking lot. Mr. Roskom added that the church has no assurances that the owner of the property next door would be selling to the church and that the church. Motion by Krueger to approve the variance as requested with the condition that a landscape plan be submitted by the applicant to the Department of Community Development prior to permit issuance and that all landscaping be completely installed no later than the end of May, 1994. Seconded by Roehlig. Motion carried 5-0.