Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (minutes) - 10/11/1995 � , r BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES PAGE -2- OCTOBER 11, 1995 Mr. Spaeth stated the stairs would access toward the driveway. Chairman Krueger stated they are really building more than what existed before, but it doesn't stick out into the setback any further, just a longer slice of setback. Mr. Roskom stated the neighboring stnactures are basically the same. This request would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. This improvement would have a positive impact and may also help to stabilize the neighborhood. Motion by Roehlig for approval of the variance to construct a porch addition to a sing/e family dwelling with a 9 ft, front yard setback, with the condition that the stairs leading to the enclosed porch be constructed to direct access to the side of the strucfure or existing driveway, not to the front of the structure or the sidewalk. Seconded by Goers. Motion carried 40. As to the Findings of Fact, Chairman Krueger stated it is really a win situation for the neighborhood because it is up-grading that house and maybe it would lead other people to do the same. They are not taking any more setback to the street-just taking a larger slice of the pie. No other place to put the front entrance. There are no other alternatives, but to go into the setback and it is just a matter of degrees. III: 1203 NORTH SAWYER STREET - Rick Kryzaniak, owner; Carleton Hanson, applicant The owner/applicant is requesting a variance to construct an accessory structure (swing set and playhouse) with a 5±ft. front yard setback; whereas Section 30-16(B) Standards of the R-2 Two Family Residence District of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25 ft. minimum front yard setback on a corner lot for accessory structures. Carl Hanson gave a brief history of the property in question and reiterated the variance request. He stated they were merely proposing to replace a rusty metal structure with a wooden one. It would be in the same spot as the metal structure was for the past 10+ years. He stated this is the oldest house in the block and it is the comer lot, and all we have is front yard. Our backyard has a cemented clothesline -to put the swing set and playhouse in the back which would mean destruction of the clothesline, and we wouldn't be able to put the clothesline in the front yard. We have received no complaints from the neighbors in the past 10 years with the existing swing set. Mr. Roskom stated it would be real tight if the swingset and playhouse was put in the back yard and to remove the cement clothesline did not make sense. Mr. Hanson also stated there is a garden in the back and a sandbox. Mr. Roskom stated staff supported this request because it was the only place available and there had been no complaints from the neighbors with the existing structure. Mr. Roehlig inquired if there was a foundation or if the swing set was cemented in. Mr. Hanson stated there is no foundation or cement. There is crushed stone laid down and the structures floats on top of that. Chairman Krueger inquired if there was an existing playhouse before and Mr. Hanson stated there was not, just a metal swing set. � , BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES PAGE -3- OCTOBER 11, 1995 Motion by Roehlig for approva/of a variance to construct an accessory structure(swing set and p/ayhouse) with a 5+ ft. front yard setback. Seconded by Goers. Motion carried 40. As to the Findings of Fact, Mr. Roehlig stated the hardship is there is no other place on the lot to place a structure like this. There is no visual obstruction to the road. It is a reasonable accessory use. This is a normal household structure and they are not getting anything out of the ordinary. IV: 1309 GRAHAM AVENUE - Scott Wa�a, owner; Wade Wara, applicant The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a 0 ft. fill radius in the side yard setback areas; whereas Section 30-50(C)(1)(a)(i) of the Floodplain Standards of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a fill radius area of 1 ft. above the regional flood elevation extending at least 15 ft. beyond the limits of a structure within the floodfringe. Wade Wara gave a brief history of the property in question and reiterated the variance request. He stated without the variance, his neighbors get flooded and this would not be a positive to the neighborhood. Chairman Krueger inquired if the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) needed to be involved in this issue. Mr. Roskom stated this is the only floodplain issue in the Ordinance that the City can vary, but we do have to : notify the DNR with whatever action is taken. Chairman Krueger inquired if putting that all around will make it difficult for the neighbors on either side. Mr. Roskom stated yes. In these older neighborhoods, they simply don't have the room for fill radius. It becomes necessary to allow the reduction of the fill radius or the property becomes useless as these are narrow lots to begin with. He would be more concemed if they weren't providing any fill radius. If there is no fill radius, then staff would have recommended denial because it would be rendered unsafe. Mr. Baudhuin stated even if he had 8 ft on the side, then it wouldn't be safe for his neighbors and that's not good either. Motion by Baudhuin for approva/ of the variance to have no fill radius in the side yards as requested. Seconded by Goers. Motion carried 40. As to the Findings of Fact, Mr. Roehlig stated the size of the lot will not allow any fill radius to be established and there is provisions in the front of the rear of the building to create that safety area of fill. Mr. Baudhuin added that providing the fill radius on the sides would create hardships for adjoining neighbors from a water run-off point of view. Denial of the variance would probably result in the land being rendered useless and, at least, not being able to use the land for which it was intended for. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:10 P.M. Respectfully, BRUCE A. ROSKOM Principal Planner