HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 May 14, 2014
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
May 14, 2014
PRESENT:Dan Carpenter,Robert Cornell,Tom Willadsen,Dennis Penney, Kathryn Larson,
Robert Krasniewski
EXCUSED:none
STAFF:Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator;Steve Gohde, Assistant
Director of Public Works;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 April 9, 2014 were approved as presented. (Carpenter/Willadsen)
ITEM I:637 W. THIRD AVENUE
City of Oshkosh-applicant/owner, requests the following variances to permit a 7’ high solid fence in required
setbacks:
Description Code Reference Required Proposed
Front Yard Setback 30-29(B)(1)25’10’
Transition Yard Setback (east)30-35(B)(1)(c)25’15’
Transition Yard Setback (south)30-35(B)(1)(c)25’15’
Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is
zoned M-2 Central Industrial District and has been historically used for open storage purposes.The property
is void of any improvements including lack of curb and gutter and the general area is characterized as mixed-
use in nature. The applicant obtained setback variances at the April 9th meeting to improve the parcel with
asphalt paving and 6’ tall solid fencing to screen the open storage area with access via a driveway with gate
on W. Third Avenue and a secondary gate in the southeast corner of the lot. Arborvitae plantings are
proposed in the remaining setback areas for aesthetics purposes. The setback variances were requested
because the improvements will encroach upon the front and transition yard setbacks.The applicant has
revised the plan to increase the height of the fence to 7’ tall with the location remaining the same.The
property’s historical use for open storage and proximity to residential uses are unique and provide a degree
of hardship with one-third of the parcel’s usable area eliminated if compliance with the setbacks are required.
The proposed improvements will reduce dust and debris and will mitigate noise and visual impacts and will
include grading and storm sewer improvements that will benefit the immediate vicinity. No detrimental
impact will occur to adjacent properties and staff is recommending approval of the variances as requested.
Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, stated that this was the same proposal for setbacks as the
request approved last month. The University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh contacted the city requesting a 7’ fence
rather than a 6’ fence in an effort to protect the items within the fenced in area as they have concerns that the
landscaping materials could be removed from the site. The previous 6’ fence possessed barbed wire along
the perimeter and the University is willing to agree to the 7’ fence if possible rather than the barbed wire
feature.
Board of Appeals Minutes 2 May 14, 2014
Mr. Penney questioned what would prevent someone from using a stool or some other device to get over the
fence even at 7’ tall.
Mr. Gohde responded that it would not prevent it from happening;however it would make the situation more
challenging.
Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit a 7’ high solid fence in
required setbacks.
Seconded by Carpenter.
Mr. Penney commented that he did not see how a 7’ fence would make a difference in this case.
Mr. Krasniewski agreed.
Motion carried 5-0.
Finding of Facts:
Further security measures.
No hard to public interest.
ITEM II: 842 BISMARCK AVENUE
Christopher R. Jones-applicant/owner, requests the following variances to permit a detached garage in
required setbacks:
Description Code Reference Required Proposed
Front Yard Setback 30-19(B)(4)(c)(ii)25’18’
Rear Yard Setback (north)30-19(B)(4)(c)(iii)25’2’6”
Side Yard Setback (west)30-19(B)(4)(c)(iv)7’6”2’6”
Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is
zoned R-2 Two Family Residence District and is being used for single family residential purposes.The
irregular-shaped lot contains an existing principal structure built in 1880 and an 8’x8’ utility shed with
vehicular access provided via a curb cut on Bismarck Avenue. The general area is characterized by low
density residential uses. The applicant is proposing to construct a 19.5’x28’ detached garage west of the
principal structure in the side yard with setback variances required as the proposed garage intrudes into the
front, rear, and side yard setback. The parcel dimensions, historical development pattern, and overall
configuration make this situation unique as the parcel possesses no alternatives that would permit a detached
garage by-right and the existing curb cut and principal entrance to the home are on the west side of the
parcel. The property owner has worked with staff to minimize the variances necessary as the initial scenario
would have created a significant safety hazard for pedestrians utilizing the sidewalk and the limited
“stacked” area in front of the garage would not permit a standard vehicle to be parked in the driveway
without obstructing the sidewalk. The alternative plan revises the variance to an 18’ front yard setback
which would resolve both of these issues. Inspections Services noted that two of the garage walls would
need to be built as fire rated and the variances would not be detrimental to adjacent properties or contrary to
the public interest. Approval of the variances as requested is recommended.
Board of Appeals Minutes 3 May 14, 2014
Christopher Jones, 842 Bismarck Avenue, stated that he had submitted larger plans initially and was willing
to build the proposed garage according to the revised plans after discussing it with staff.
Mr. Cornell questioned if he would be removing the shed if the variance for the garage was approved.
Mr. Jones responded affirmatively.
Mr. Krasniewski inquired if the proposed garage should be kept detached or if it would be more
advantageous to have it attached to the home.
Mr. Muehrer responded that it could be done as an attached garage from a setback standpoint due to the
nonconformities of the house. However,this would not address concerns regarding the safety impact as the
attached garage could be allowed to be placed as close to the front plane as the home which would negatively
impact safety issues and significantly impact costs which was not a desirable alternative. The home is
currently a nonconforming structure and to construct a detached garage in any location on this parcel would
require a variance of some kind.As presented, this revised site plan for the detached garage is the preferred
alternative.
Mr. Penney questioned how long the property owner has lived at this residence.
Mr. Jones responded that he lived there for 12 years.
Mr. Penney commented that the lack of a garage on the parcel was obviously acceptable when the home was
purchased.
Mr. Jones replied that he did not care about it at the time and did not know that there would be an issue with
putting a garage on the lot at a later date. He further stated that his storage needs had changed over the years.
Mr. Penney commented that often times property owners purchase homes without the consideration of their
needs and then wish to alter it afterward. He also commented about the small size of the lot.
Ms. Larson stated that the petitioner was also not requesting an oversized garage in this case.
Mr. Carpenter commented that he had to give the petitioner credit for working with staff on this issue.
Motion by Penney to approve the request for a variance to permit a detached garage in required
setbacks.
Seconded by Carpenter.
Mr. Carpenter stated that it was obviously a unique situation.
Ms. Larson commented that the petitioner was doing his best to fit the garage on the site appropriately and a
garage was a requirement in Wisconsin today.
Motion carried 5-0.
Finding of Facts:
Unique situation.
Board of Appeals Minutes 4 May 14, 2014
Unique shape of lot.
Hardship of no garage.
No harm to public interest.
Removal of old shed an improvement.
Outside storage is also minimized.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m. (Krasniewski/Carpenter).
Respectfully submitted,
Todd Muehrer
Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator