HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 August 14, 2013 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES August 14, 2013 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penn ey, Kathryn Larson, Robert Krasniewski EXCUSED: Tom Willadsen STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Admin istrator; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declare d present. The minutes of July 24, 2013 were approved as prese nted. (Penney/Krasniewski) ITEM I: 449 DOVE STREET Keith Doxrude-applicant/owner, requests the followi ng variance to permit a porch in the minimum front yard setback: Description Code Reference Minimum Proposed Front yard setback 30-17 (B)(3)(c) 25’ 23’11” Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed phot os of the subject site. He stated that the propert y is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District and is b eing used for single family dwelling purposes. The existing principal structure was built in 1925 and the general area can be characterized as low densit y residential in nature. The applicant is requesting a variance to reconstruct a covered porch that wou ld project 1’1” into the required front yard setback. The wor k commenced as part of a siding project on the home but a building permit was not obtained and a correction n otice was subsequently issued. It was determined t hat due to building code standards the proposed covered porch would need to be altered or removed altogeth er in order to meet zoning setback standards. While an a lternative exists, it is not preferred as the home would lose an important aesthetic feature and negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. Keith Doxrude, 449 Dove Street, stated that when th e project was started, he was intending to install siding on the home only; however, he discovered that the p orch was decaying and the concrete and brick underneath it were not in good condition. At that time he decided to reconstruct the porch and placed new footings around the concrete base and thought it wa s included with the building permit he already obta ined. Subsequently, he received a correction notice from the City and has been working with both Todd Muehre r from the Planning Services office and Nicole Krahn from Inspection Services to rectify the matter. He stated that both staff members have been very helpful duri ng the process. Steve Martell, 442 Dove Street, stated that he live d across the street from the subject site and would like to see the project completed as it would look so much better when it was done. David Raddatz, 445 Dove Street, stated that Mr. Dox rude had spent a lot of time and money on this proj ect and he had no problem with it and was in favor of t he variance being granted.
Board of Appeals Minutes 2 August 14, 2013 Carol Dehn, 452 N. Lark Street, agreed with Mr. Rad datz and stated that she would like to see the proj ect completed as well. Jane Riley, 1307 Rush Avenue, stated that her backy ard was adjacent to Mr. Doxrude’s property and she also was in favor of the variance being granted. Ms. Larson questioned if the project was going to b e finished with a roof in place. Mr. Doxrude responded that the porch would not have a roof but would be completed as an open deck as after researching it he discovered it would cost a lot more money for it to have a roof. He was plann ing on installing railings around the open deck and instal ling siding on it only. Mr. Penney commented that financial issues cannot e ffect the variance decision. Mr. Krasniewski stated that the application materia ls indicated that the porch would have a roof insta lled and since that has changed, how does this affect the va riance request. Mr. Muehrer responded that it exceeds the 4 by 6 st andards and would still require the variance. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the deck would have ste ps extending down to the ground level. Mr. Doxrude responded affirmatively. Mr. Krasniewski commented that he would like to see drawings of the porch showing what it would look l ike since the plans have been changed; however, if it w as only a deck it should be okay to proceed without seeing revised drawings. Mr. Penney questioned what the height of the deck w ould be and if it would be enclosed by railings. Lisa Doxrude, 449 Dove Street, responded that it wo uld be approximately 3 ½ feet in height with railin gs. Motion by Penney to approve the request for a varia nce to permit a porch in the minimum front yard setback. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: No harm to public interest. Least variance necessary. ITEM II: 1602 W. 9 TH AVENUE AT&T Wisconsin-applicant, Roger D. Russ Trust-owner , request the following variances to permit telecommunications structures in the minimum front & side yard setbacks: Description Code Reference Minimum Proposed Front yard setback 30-17 (B)(4)(g) 25’ 10’ Side yard setback 30-17 (B)(3)(d) 25’ 1’6”
Board of Appeals Minutes 3 August 14, 2013 Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed phot os of the subject site. He stated that the propert y is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District and is b eing used for single family dwelling purposes. The existing principal structure was built in 1920 and the detached garage in 1993 and the general area ca n be characterized as low density residential in nature. The applicant is proposing to install a telecommu nication cabinet immediately adjacent to a supplemental powe r ped which will intrude into both the side and fro nt yard setback areas. The majority of these cabinet s are located in the public right-of-way however th e existing right-of-way along W. 9th Avenue has place ment limitations due to a lack of adequate area and therefore private property easements are being acqu ired. The limited right-of-way and terrace areas a vailable are creating a justifiable hardship and the structu res are located outside of vision corners at street intersections upholding pedestrian and vehicle safe ty. No detrimental impact will occur to adjacent properties and approval of the variance is recommen ded. Matt Grimm, 2005 Pewaukee Road, Waukesha, represent ing AT&T, stated that they have an existing easement on the site; however, they do not have ade quate room for placement of an additional cabinet. He further stated that they could not locate an area f or the new placement without requesting a variance and the area selected was at the property owner’s recommend ation. This area should be adequate to place both cabinets. Chuck Bartelt, 70 E. Division Street, Fond du Lac, indicated that AT&T had several requests last month and he was not sure how many more they would have in th e future as they were still in progress of expandin g their services in Oshkosh. Mr. Muehrer added that the company had numerous pla cements in the community that met code requirements and did not need to request variances for the placement of those cabinets. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit telecommunications structures in the minimum front and side yard setbacks. Seconded by Penney. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Krasniewski commented that this request was not increasing the width of exposure for this placemen t and would not have a negative impact on visibility. Findings of Facts: No harm to public interest. Least variance necessary. ITEM III: 1631 JEFFERSON STREET Clarity Care Inc.-applicant/owner, requests the fol lowing variance to permit a detached garage in the front yard: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Accessory Structure Location 30-1(A) Rear or Si de yard Front yard Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed phot os of the subject site. He stated that the propert y is zoned R-2 Two Family Residence District and is bein g used for group home purposes. The existing principal structure was built in 1976 and the detac hed garage in 1993 and the general area can be characterized as low density residential in nature. The applicant is proposing to construct a detached garage north of the existing principal structure and since the subject parcel is a corner lot, the proposed l ocation is
Board of Appeals Minutes 4 August 14, 2013 defined as a front yard where all accessory structu res are to be located in the rear or side yard. Th e historical development pattern of the parcel is creating a jus tifiable hardship as the location of the principal structure leaves the north side as the only practical alterna tive to place a detached accessory building. The s tructure would aesthetically compliment the surrounding neig hborhood and will be screened by matured landscapin g along the north lot line. Staff is recommending ap proval of the variance as requested. Jim Marvin, 1414 Lake Breeze Road, stated that he w as the maintenance manager for Clarity Care which was a group home facility and passed out photos of a rendering of what the proposed garage would look like. He further stated that it would be a 24’ by 28’ str ucture and would be constructed with the help of Fo x Valley Technical College if the variance was approv ed. The facility needed the accessory structure fo r storage use and the issue requiring the variance wa s that the property was a corner lot. Jeff Stark, 1215 Maricopa Drive, stated that the bu ilding is a licensed community based residential fa cility and the outdoor storage on the site was an eyesore in the neighborhood and the garage would also provi de a safer way to enter and exit the facility. Mr. Krasniewski questioned what the setback for a s tructure was. Mr. Muehrer responded that it would be 25 feet for a principal structure and that the issue in this ca se was the fact that it was a corner lot and the placement of the principal structure left no alternatives fo r placement of an accessory structure. Mr. Krasniewski then questioned what the structure to the west of the subject site was. Mr. Stark responded that it was another assisted li ving facility which used to be the Centennial Inn. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if they would be utilizing the existing driveway. Mr. Stark replied that the driveway could not excee d the width of the garage and they would adjust it accordingly to meet code standards but they would u tilize the existing curb cut. Ms. Larson questioned if the dimensions on the site plan were accurate since the photo distributed loo ked different. Mr. Marvin indicated that the dimensions on the sit e plan were accurate. Mr. Carpenter inquired if the applicant could also place a sidewalk leading to the garage from the fac ility. Mr. Muehrer responded that they could place a sidew alk to connect the two structures no more than 4 to 5 feet in width providing that it was not utilized fo r parking purposes. Mr. Cornell questioned if no vehicles would be park ing in the garage as the application stated that it was for storage use. Mr. Marvin replied that they have multiple care giv ers working at the facility and using the garage fo r storage of the equipment and garbage receptacles wo uld allow for more parking on the site and ease som e of the on street parking issues.
Board of Appeals Minutes 5 August 14, 2013 Motion by Carpenter to approve the request for a va riance to permit a detached garage in the front yard. Seconded by Cornell. Ms. Larson stated that she felt it would be an impr ovement to have a protected parking area and the ga rbage receptacles inside as well as relieving the parking on the street issues. Mr. Penney commented that he felt the placement sit uation for the garage was unique to the property. Mr. Cornell felt it would be an improvement to the site. Motion carried 5-0. Findings of Facts: Unique property and limitations. Significant improvement to the property. ITEM IV: 711 & 715 WASHINGTON AVENUE Paul & Janet Eberhardy-applicants/owners, request t he following variance to permit a 6’ high solid woo d fence in the minimum front yard setback: Description Code Reference Minimum Proposed 6’ high solid wood fence 30-35 (E) 25’ 4’ Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed phot os of the subject site. He stated that the propert ies are zoned R-4 Multiple Dwelling District with 715 Washi ngton Avenue being used for single family dwelling purposes and 711 Washington Avenue being used for r ecreational/open space purposes. The existing principal structure and garage were built in 1947 a nd the structures on 711 Washington Avenue were raz ed in 2009. The general area can be characterized as low density residential in nature. The applicant has constructed a 6’ high solid fence along the south l ot lines of the subject parcel with a 4’ setback an d is requesting a variance as the zoning ordinance requi res fences 6’ high to be placed as far back or fart her back from a front property line as the principal structu re. The applicant submitted a site plan and was in formed that it did not meet code requirements and would re quire a modification or the granting of a variance prior to construction. The fence was subsequently installed without a building permit and a correction notice was issued. By-right permitting alternatives are prese nt and the placement and height of the fencing is a personal preference that will have a negative impact on neig hborhood aesthetics and sightlines and would be con trary to the public interest. Staff recommends denial of the variance as requested. Janet Eberhardy, 715 Washington Avenue, stated that they previously pulled a building permit for a par king pad by their garage and since they were replacing a n existing fence they thought that a permit was not necessary. She further stated that she thought the re was some miscommunication as the fence brochure from the City stated that fences 6 foot high or less may be installed on any part of the lot so they felt t heir placement was within code requirements. She stated that there were beautiful homes going toward the l ake but the homes located in the area going toward Main Street were less desirable and their lot was being used as a cut through from the bars downtown. They were tired of picking up trash in their yard and the fe nce blocks people from cutting through their property a nd makes the neighborhood safer. A 4’ fence would not be adequate in height to keep people off their prop erty and they needed a safe environment for their c hild.
Board of Appeals Minutes 6 August 14, 2013 She claimed that their efforts to improve their pro perty had inspired other neighbors in the area to m ake improvements to their property as well. Paul Eberhardy, 715 Washington Avenue, stated that pedestrian safety was not an issue as there are no sidewalks on Shawano Avenue and the fence does not protrude any further out than their yard markers. Ms. Eberhardy commented that they purchased the adj acent lot for use as a side yard and the houses in this area are situated very close to the street. She fu rther stated that she would understand the reasonin g for these requirements if they owned a corner lot. Mr. Krasniewski stated that the property owner had requested a building permit with their initial site plan and were told by City staff that modifications were necessary to receive approval and questioned when the fence was installed. Mr. Eberhardy responded approximately April of 2013 . Mr. Krasniewski commented that the fence was instal led essentially after the property owner was told t hey could not have it. Ms. Larson stated that the property owner should ha ve called the City to clarify the regulations if th e brochure was not understood. Ms. Eberhardy reiterated that she interpreted the b rochure to mean that this requirement for a setback was only applicable if the fence was greater than six f eet. Ms. Larson responded that they should have contacte d City staff to verify this before proceeding. Mr. Muehrer stated that the handout she was referri ng to is an informational brochure and not the offi cial ordinance and further explained the code requiremen ts which are different for front yards and side or rear yard areas. He also stated that the work proceeded without a permit after they were informed that the fence they desired to install was not allowed. Mr. Eberhardy indicated that he did not think a per mit was necessary because they were replacing an ex isting fence. Mr. Muehrer replied that a building permit was stil l required for the replacement. Discussion ensued on why fences were different than other structures and why there were no sidewalks o n Shawano Avenue. It was determined that the lack of sidewalk was due to the limited right-of-way in th is area. Mr. Carpenter questioned what the property owners c ould do to comply at this point. Mr. Muehrer responded that the fence height would h ave to be reduced by two feet and be modified to be picket-style rather than solid. Ms. Eberhardy stated that it would waste too much o f their yard and it was not detrimental to the neighborhood to leave the fence as constructed.
Board of Appeals Minutes 7 August 14, 2013 Mr. Carpenter commented that the adjacent neighbor’s fence was shorter and picket style as code requir es and he felt it would initiate other variance reques ts if this one was granted. Mr. Penney inquired how long they have owned this p roperty. Mr. Eberhardy responded they purchased it in 2003. Ms. Larson suggested that the height be reduced and remove every other board and plant landscaping features along the fence between the openings. Ms. Eberhardy reiterated that there were safety iss ues in their neighborhood. Mr. Carpenter commented that fencing in an area giv es people a place to hide and the openness is a saf er environment. Ms. Eberhardy disagreed and stated that they need s ecurity for their bedrooms as it was a one story ho me. Ms. Larson stated that the property owners have ref erred to Shawano Avenue as an alley but it is stree tscape to the adjacent property owners in this area. Ms. Eberhardy felt that the fencing cuts down on no ise and was a wind block as well. Mr. Penney questioned if the police department had ever been contacted about her safety concerns. Ms. Eberhardy responded negatively. Mr. Carpenter inquired how much the street was wide ned when it was reconstructed. Mr. Eberhardy responded two to three feet. Discussion ensued on where the fence would be locat ed if moved to meet the required 25’ setback and wh ere the additional fencing would be located to enclose the remainder of the yard. Ms. Eberhardy objected to this concept as they woul d lose the practical use of their yard and trees an d the additional expense to move the fence from its curre nt location. Discussion continued on various concepts of where t he fence could be located. Mr. Penney commented that if safety issues were the main concern in this matter, have they checked wit h the Oshkosh Police Department for a record of arrests i n this area. Ms. Eberhardy responded that they did not check on arrest incidents however she had seen squad cars on Shawano Avenue more than once and suspects there ma y be drug activity. Mr. Penney stated that they should have applied for the variance prior to installing the fence if it w as for safety reasons. Ms. Eberhardy replied that they did not think the f ence was going to be an issue.
Board of Appeals Minutes 8 August 14, 2013 Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the property owner di d not receive the phone call from City staff that t he placement of the fence as proposed was not allowed. Ms. Eberhardy responded that they did receive the c all but she felt it was a miscommunication verbally and that she had interpreted the brochure correctly. S he further stated that the other party requesting a variance today did not get a permit either and their varianc e was approved. Mr. Cornell indicated that the board cannot conside r other cases when making a decision as each varian ce request has to be reviewed as a single item. Ms. Eberhardy commented that she has only been in O shkosh for three years and wants a safe neighborhoo d for both them and others. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit a 6’ high solid wood fence in the minimum front yard setback. Seconded by Carpenter. Board members continued discussion on the safety is sues and whether fencing would make the area safer or create more places to hide. Mr. Krasniewski stated that there were other areas to gain access to the yard if someone has the desir e and that he did not want to see neighborhoods surrounde d by six foot fences and does not want to set prece dence by approving this request. Ms. Larson commented that the City has neighborhood watch programs for safety purposes and the propert y owners were requesting something not allowed for ot hers. She further commented that she did not want to see homes surrounded by privacy fences in this comm unity. Motion denied 0-5. Ms. Eberhardy questioned if she could place bird fe eders or other objects on the four foot fencing. Mr. Muehrer responded that it would be allowed as l ong as the requirement that it remains 50% open is still met. Findings of Facts: Harm to public interest. Self created hardship. Creates a more dangerous situation. ITEM V: 440 W. SOUTH PARK AVENUE Lorenz L. Rangeloff-applicant/owner, requests the f ollowing variances to permit two ground signs in th e minimum front yard setbacks: Description Code Reference Minimum Proposed Front yard setback (south) 30-19 (B)(2)(c) 25’ 9’ Front yard setback (north) 30-19 (B)(2)(c) 25’ 7’
Board of Appeals Minutes 9 August 14, 2013 Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed phot os of the subject site. He stated that the propert y is zoned R-2 Two Family Residence District and is bein g used for institutional purposes. The existing principal structure was built in 1896 and has an op en off-street parking lot north of the structure fr onting W. 12 th Avenue. The general area can be characterized as low density residential in nature. The applicant has constructed two non-illuminated identification sign s within the front yard setbacks without a building permit and subsequently a correction notice was issued. The proposed sign fronting W. South Park Avenue possesses a degree of hardship as the principal str ucture is setback 25’ from the south lot line and a lternative placements would not be desirable as it will not be readable from the street or would negatively impac t a historically significant property. The proposed si gn fronting W. 12 th Avenue does not possess a hardship as a by-right permitting option is present and the pub lic interest and adjacent properties would benefit most by requiring this sign to be altered to meet code stan dards. Staff is recommending approval of the 9’ fr ont yard (south) setback variance and denial of the 7’ front yard (north) setback variance as requested. Lorenz Rangeloff, 3020 Oregon Street, stated that t his was an old neighborhood and the structure has b een there since 1890 and the homes in the area do not m eet the required 25’ setback either. He felt that people were having problems finding the church and parking lot and if the signs were not high enough they wou ld not be seen when snow was on the ground. He furthe r stated that the parking lots go up to the sidewal k for other churches in the area as well. Mr. Krasniewski questioned who installed the signs and why a building permit was not obtained. Mr. Rangeloff responded that he manufactured and in stalled them himself and did not know that a permit was necessary. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the property owner wo uld be allowed to have two smaller signs in the bac k of the structure (north side). Mr. Muehrer indicated that two smaller signs would be allowed by code standards. Mr. Krasniewski inquired how tall and how wide the sign was in the back. Mr. Rangeloff replied about 2 ½ feet tall and about 15 square feet. He stated that he could lower it a foot but it would not be as visible with snow cover. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the property owner wo uld be satisfied with keeping the sign in the front of the structure and replacing the sign in back to two sma ller signs. Mr. Rangeloff responded that he could reduce the he ight of the sign in the back. Ms. Larson commented that the visibility issue coul d be maintained by the party who handles the snow plowing of the lot. Mr. Rangeloff stated that the visibility was crucia l as people were not able to find the church. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if the church had newcomer s on a weekly basis. Mr. Rangeloff responded affirmatively.
Board of Appeals Minutes 10 August 14, 2013 Board members briefly discussed how to handle the v oting on this item since there were two variance requests involved. It was determined that they sho uld have two separate votes on the request. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit a ground sign in the minimum front yard setback (south) and the minimum front ya rd setback (north). Seconded by Penney. Motion by Larson to drop the 12 th Avenue sign (north) from the motion and vote on th e South Park Avenue sign (south) only. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Ms. Larson commented that all churches have identif ication signs and a more visible sign is required a nd appropriate in this neighborhood. Motion carried for the approval of the ground sign in the front yard setback (south) 5-0. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit a ground sign in the minimum front yard setback (north). Seconded by Carpenter. Motion denied 0-5. Findings of Facts for approval of the sign in the s outh setback: No harm to public interest. Unique physical limitations. Findings of Facts for denial of the sign in the nor th setback: No variance is required to identify the parking are a with revisions to the signage. No harm to public interest. Applicant willing to work with City to resolve issu e. Mr. Carpenter commented that he appreciated the wel l written staff reports that are prepared by Mr. Mu ehrer for the variance requests. There being no further business, the meeting adjour ned at 4:55 p.m. (Penney/Carpenter). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator