Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 August 10, 2016 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES August 10th, 2016 PRESENT: Robert Cornell, Robert Krasniewski, Kathryn Larson, Dennis Penney, Tom Willadsen EXCUSED: Dan Carpenter STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Zoning Administrator; Katie Breselow, 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 July 13, 2016 were approved as presented. (Penney/Larson) ITEM I: 536 PYLE AVENUE Stephen Wuethrich-owner/petitioner requests the following variance to permit a 7’x9’ shed in the minimum rear yard setback: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Rear Yard (North) Setback 30-17(B)(4)(d)(v) 25’ minimum 4’ Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated the subject .17 acre (approx. 7,344 sq. ft.) property is rectangular in shape and located on the northwest corner of the Pyle Avenue and Powers Street intersection. It is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District and used for single family dwelling purposes. Adjacent land uses to the subject parcel include single family residential in all directions and the general area is predominantly low-density residential. A 7’x9’ shed in the rear yard (north) is being requested. Due to the degree of hardship to the subject property staff is recommending approval of the variance. Mr. Wuethrich, 536 Pyle Ave, Oshkosh, stated that he was requesting the shed for storage purposes of his gardening business equipment such as a snow blower and lawn mower. He referenced the shed photo on page 11 that he would like to put up and stated that his neighbor at 615 Baldwin, Patrick Huisman is in favor of this shed, He then stated that there would be no gas located in the shed. and that the shed’s purpose is to help clean up the side of the garage. Ms. Larson asked Mr. Muehrer how the shed would have firewalls. Mr. Muehrer stated that the owner had spoken with the Inspections department regarding that matter. Mr. Wuethrich confirmed he had spoken with the Inspections department and it was determined that he would have to put green drywall on the side wall closest to the house. Mr. Penney asked Mr. Wuethrich to describe the landscaping business that he was referring to. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 August 10, 2016 Mr. Wuethrich stated it was called “Groundskeeper Lawn Maintenance” and he needs to put his equipment in the shed so that he can put the trailer in the garage. Mr. Krasniewski stated that according to page 6 there is no grass or other plantings in that area. He then asked if there were any future plans for that. Mr. Wuethrich responded that he was going to put grass there. Motion by Willadsen to approve a 7ft x 9ft shed in the minimum rear yard setback. Motion seconded by Krasniewski. Mr. Penney stated he was having difficulty understanding the hardship for this variance. Ms. Larson also started she had difficulty understanding the hardship as well, as there is a garage on premise that could be used for storage. Mr. Muehrer stated that the staff is looking at the variance from a physical standpoint. It is a corner lot and the rear and side yards are very limited to have any practical placement for an accessory building which is a standard for other existing lots. Mr. Krasniewski responded that he felt Mr. Penney and Ms. Larson were addressing the commercial aspect of the business storage rather than the residential property aspect. Ms. Larson asked if there is any size accessory building that can be put up without a permit. Mr. Muehrer responded that there is not, all accessory buildings need a permit. The only additional requirement would be a foundation if it were to exceed 100 sq. ft. but the variance is only asking for 7ft x 9 ft. Ms. Larson stated that she understood the business was off premise. Mr. Krasniewski replied that he understood but he was having trouble with the storage of the equipment on the property even though many contractors store those on residential property as well. Mr. Penney stated that the applicant did have neighbors that stated they were okay with it. Mr. Cornell replied that he was under the impression that only 615 Baldwin stated their approval and that was back yard to back yard. Mr. Krasniewski stated that with the size of the property the applicant is unable to use anything else other than the garage. Mr. Willadsen responded that it had very minimal impact on the neighborhood. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 August 10, 2016 Mr. Penney commented that he was still having a hard time with the hardship; asking if there was a safety feature needed for the equipment. Ms. Larson states that this cannot be a personal decision from the Board and that she understands the physical limitations of the lot. Mr. Cornell asked the Board if there was harm to the public if the variance was granted. Motion to approve the variance request carried 5-0. Findings of facts: No harm to the public interest. There are physical limitations of the lot size. ITEM II: 2920 Quail Court JHA Properties LLC-owner/TLC Homes, Inc.-petitioner requests the following variance to permit existing attached garage and driveway facilities to meet parking requirements for a congregate living facility: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Required Parking 30-36(F)(2)(a) 4 stalls 1 garage & 3 driveway Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated the subject .42 acre (approx. 18,295 sq. ft.) property is pie-shaped and located on the north side of the Quail Court cul-de-sac. It is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District and used for congregate living purposes. Adjacent land uses to the subject parcel include single family residential in all directions and the general area is predominantly low-density residential. A variance is being requested as it is needed from the off-street parking requirements to permit the existing attached garage and driveway facilities to meet off-street parking requirements. Per the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II Technical Assistance Manual (see II- 3,6000 Reasonable modifications). “a public entity must reasonably modify its policies, practices, or procedures to avoid discrimination. If the public entity can demonstrate, however, that the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of its service, program, or activity, it is not required to make the modification,” Based on the site limitations, existing development pattern, and population proposed to be served at the dwelling, staff is recommending approval of the variance. Timothy Frey, 1103 Aspen Road, Kohler stated TLC Homes has been operating at this location since 2013; they filed this petition based on a parking violation that was received back in April 2016. The business is not looking to make changes to any operations or any staff at this time. Mr. Willadsen asked if the employees working at this location parked on the driveway. Mr. Frey responded that they do not park on the driveway they use street parking. Mr. Krasniewski stated the house has a two stall garage that could be used for two parking spots. Mr. Frey explained that the house was formally and still is wheel chair accessible and that there is a ramp inside the garage that is taking up one side of the garage therefore they are unable to park there. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 August 10, 2016 Mr. Krasniewski mentioned that it would have been nice to have a photo showing the ramp in the garage for evidence as to why they were unable to park in there. Ms. Larson questioned if there was a van that parks at the residence. Mr. Frey responded that there is a transport vehicle that comes but does not stay at the residence to alleviate parking. Carl Glowcheski, 2910 Quail Court, Oshkosh asked that the variance be denied. He states that Board guidelines explain a variance cannot be granted for self created hardship which is what has happened in this situation. Previously the applicant had correspondence with the City of Oshkosh per email before opening the CBRF and had knowledge of existing codes, in an email to Mr. Glowcheski dated 7/19/13 with the City of Oshkosh it was stated that there would only be one employee on site and that is not currently happening. DHS codes state that the residence needs to have a written statement within 30 days of the resident moving in as to what kind of care the individual is going to need and how much supervision would be needed; the applicant ignored this thus needing more staff and the hardship then was self created because they knew the code. The City of Oshkosh has 19 adult family homes which none are on a cul-de- sac according to online data, city staff knew staffing/parking was going to be an issue at the beginning of operation and did nothing. This variance will change the character of neighborhood by approving it, if more parking is allowed more traffic will then occur making it unsafe for individuals such as young children, Mr. Glowcheski strongly disagreed with the staff report. He states that the business is a “for profit” business and went on describing their financials. Mr. Cornell interrupted and informed Mr. Glowcheski that only facts related to the variance are prevalent and that no monetary issues/dialogue would be relevant to the Board of Appeals. The facts he states have to be related to the hearing. Mr. Glowcheski stated his understanding and continued on stating that Quail Court is a small family neighborhood with five driveways that come together with numerous children living there and visiting. He stated it does not make sense why a business would be operating there 365 days a year 24/7 hours a day; it endangers the safety of the children and does not make sense to be there. The character of the cul-de-sac changes when the safety of the children are at risk. He stated that a bus comes daily at various times along with staff; there is a supervisor in the basement, along with any family that comes to visit on a daily basis. Thus far the business has destroyed two fence posts and four sections of fence on his property. The applicant is unable to control their staff and he believes the business has been in violation since it opened. Mr. Penney mentioned that it sounded like he was questioning the right of the business to be there and that is not what the variance is referring to. The Board does not have the authority to decide whether or not that business can be there. Mr. Glowcheski stated he understood. Ms. Larson asked if the business was currently operating in violation. Board of Appeals Minutes 5 August 10, 2016 Mr. Muehrer responded that yes the business was and that is why the variance is being requested. Stating Mr. Penney is correct and the use is not going away. Mr. Glowcheski then referred to the hardship being self created and stated that facts support it being self created, according to Snyder, the applicant knew of the ordinance and did not obey it. Snyder states that the property should not become useless; the property is able to be used without the variance therefore making it a self created hardship. The staff report does not answer the second, third, and fourth guidelines to be used by the board on how the variance would change character of neighborhood. Mr. Krasneiwski stated that the fact that the business is there does not affect parking and further explained what information the board could take into consideration. Mr. Glowcheski stated his understanding. Ms. Larson responded that she has a problem with more than one employee on premises not the business being there. Mr. Krasniewski stated his understanding. Mr. Glowcheski continued on stating that the staff report did not explain the hardship that was created or how it is unique to the property and not other properties thus the variance should be denied. The applicant represented only one employee would be on site when the business started. In an email sent by Mr. Burich it stated the City needed staffing level numbers for the business in order to look at things further, this was not addressed but surely the City was aware of the issue and did nothing. The ADA guidelines have examples that the staff did not include in the staff report also that would have been relevant when stating what a reasonable modification was to the individuals living there. He further stated the safety of the children need to be included in examples given and that the ADA is not a golden ticket to everything, other factors need to be considered along with the rights of all the other residents and visitors to the neighborhood. Next Mr. Glowcheski commented on the application for the variance, question one asks why the variance is being requested and the applicant gives a great story but it’s untrue and not supported with enough evidence as it did not address the hardship or why ADA is applicable. The second question was how it would not have an adverse affect on the surrounding neighborhood, history shows that they have more than one staff and it has been reported numerous times to the City staff, staff has stated they observed and did not see any issues. The business is already operating as if they have the variance and have no regard to his property and cannot keep their employees in line. Question four is to describe the hardship; he feels there is no hardship as they will continue to do what they want. If they truly cared about the residents wouldn’t they want to make sure that everything was taken care of first before they opened the business? They created their own issue and Snyder supports denying the variance. Mr. Penney complimented Mr. Glowcheski on the extensive research he had done but he keeps mentioning that the neighborhood is destroyed and by the staff parking there it will be destroyed, he does not understand if by approving the variance if the neighborhood is or will be destroyed or how much more it would be destroyed. Board of Appeals Minutes 6 August 10, 2016 Mr. Glowcheski responded that he is unsure if there was only one employee on site if the neighborhood would be destroyed. Further stating that it was his understanding that there were four employees on site which is not what was stating in the initial plan. Mr. Penney again asked Mr. Glowcheski how that is destroying the neighborhood if it is already going on or what approving the variance is going to change. Ms. Larson stated that by approving the variance it will allow them to continue but essentially nothing is going to change. If the Board denied the variance then something would need to change. Mr. Muehrer responded that they would have to change their staffing levels or they would need to create additional parking perhaps in the backyard through the garage. Mr. Krasniewski asked Mr, Muehrer if one space was in the garage. two spaces outside that’s three spaces is the fourth required and are the two outside spaces legal because of the set back. Mr. Muehrer responded that the current ordinance states vehicles need to be in a garage or stall next to the garage, not stacked which is what the variance is asking for. The original plan that was proposed was for eight beds, they were told that is unlikely, then they thought about expanding the front but that was unlikely due to disrupting the neighborhood. Mr. Krasniewski asked if there was any indication of the number of employees at that time. Mr. Muehrer responded that they were aware of one although staffing levels change just as any other business does therefore now having a reason to come back to get additional parking. Another variance came through last year asking for more parking with a home that was built in the 1960’s and used for the Community Based Residential Facility and only had a single car garage and needed four stalls. There are no parking violations or accident records with this neighborhood other than one citation given in the last three years for parking too close to a fire hydrant. Ms. Larson stated that if the business knew they were going to have certain types of people at the residence that required extra care then they knew they would need more than one staff on site. Mr. Muehrer responded that based on the information the City had they were code compliant with parking. Mr. Glowcheski asked to elaborate on code compliant. Mr. Muehrer answered that TLC Homes got their permits and were code compliant before the variance was submitted, beforehand the City did not have any evidence that they were not in compliance and that they are aware that Mr. Glowcheski disagrees with that statement. Mr. Glowcheski asked if there is documentation that there should only be one staff on file. Mr. Muehrer responded he is unsure what is on file as to staff numbers. Board of Appeals Minutes 7 August 10, 2016 Mr. Glowcheski commented that he does not believe the neighborhood knows what Quail Court looks like with only one staff present. Mr. Krasniewski stated it would have been preferred to have Mr. Glowcheski’s statement beforehand given its length. Anne Glowcheski, 2910 Quail Court, Oshkosh stated that it was previously mentioned that the business couldn’t park two vehicles in the garage however the family that resided there previously parked a truck and a van in the garage therefore making it possible and that there were no issues with those residents running over their property. She went on to state that parking has been an ongoing issue for the last three years and is not an isolated issue. She addressed many situations that occurred due to the parking issue with photos as proof and they are the following: employees would have to back out of the driveway to let another employee park because stalked parking is not allowed; Quail Court has been filled with vehicles on both sides that people were parking on Fox Fire; she has had to wait for the garbage truck before she could enter on to Quail Court because of the cars; there were as many as 14 vehicles on Quail Court parked at one time enabling her to get to her residence; during a snow storm an employee decided to park in the road instead of shovel enabling the snow plow to come through and plow the road thus having to come back again; cars are picking up staff at late hours of the night honking their horn; and one time an employee backing out almost hitting a child. She recommends the variance be denied due to all the issues. She then stated the neighborhood is being affected because JHA Properties has received a 15% decrease on their taxes and no one else has received that. (Photo copies were not provided) Mr. Cornell interrupted Ms. Glowcheski and informed her that monetary value cannot be addressed on this board therefore having no bearing to the variance. Ms. Glowcheski stated understanding and continued on stating that employees are continually running over their property particularly a fence that they put up. She states that if there were only one staff working onsite there would not be 14 cars parked outside and not as many issues. Peter Kroll, 2935 Quail Court, stated that there have been numerous issues in the past 2 ½ years, he listed them as follows: many visitors and buses coming all day long; 14 cars parked daily on the street; and blocking access to mailboxes and garbage cans thus no mail being delivered and no garbage pickup. His main concern was the cars parked on the street and not being able to back out of the driveway stating that the cul-de-sac has turned into a parking lot. Mr. Penney asked Mr. Kroll how the Board of Appeals denying the variance was going to stop the applicant from parking on the street in the future. Mr. Kroll responded that it would add more problems regardless because it is a never ending battle with the number of cars parking and no matter what the outcome the employees are still going to park on the street. Mr. Penney asked if he is suggesting the number of employees be decreased. Mr. Kroll responded that the business should have done what they said that they were going to do in the first plan which was only have one employee. Board of Appeals Minutes 8 August 10, 2016 Mr. Willadsen stated that he understands that it is an inconvenience to have so many vehicles parked in the cul-de-sac and then asked if the cars that are parked there are illegally parked. Mr. Kroll responded affirmatively that sometimes the cars that are parked there are facing the wrong way on the street. Mr. Krasniewski asked if he had called the police to report these violations. Mr. Kroll responded that he has never called the police unless the situation really warranted it; other neighbors have called the police in the past. He further stated that it is more of a safety issue for the children living there because of the employees jockeying for position and potentially hitting a child while doing so. Karen Behring, 2925 Quail Court, Oshkosh stated that she wanted to voice her concerns about the parking issue as she does have four small children and with the employees hitting the fence that is taller than her children she is very concerned about that. Either way the variance goes, she would strongly suggest the board consider the children when making the decision. Mr. Frey responded to the public comments by first stating that the previous made comment about an eight bed facility was on Maricopa Drive not this location. Mr. Muehrer stated that according to his records the eight-bed was talked about at the subject location. Mr. Frey stated it was a duplex with garages. He then strongly disagreed that the business was represented as a one staff home as the individuals living there would need at least 2-3 staff. Looking back in emails he stated that he did not file this variance sooner because back in April the Gowcheski’s filed a lawsuit against TLC Homes to be in the neighborhood at all. He realizes the neighborhood has concerns, first it was about the individuals living there and now it is about parking. He was unaware of the parking issue until April of this year when it was brought to his attention by a violation. Ms. Larson asked how Mr. Frey did not know there was an issue previously. Mr. Frey responded that the company works in seven different communities and Oshkosh by far has the most extensive ordinances and due to the lawsuit that was filed they never made it closed circle on the parking issue. He then stated that they always had two staff from the beginning and he never represented one staff at any time. He stated that currently there is an individual there that needs more care than usual for about the next three months and then it will return back to normal again with the 2-3 staff. Ms. Larson asked when the company was looking for properties did they consider the extra parking and visitors that would be accompanied with it. Mr. Frey responded that they did consider that along with expanding the garage but with the dimensions of the house and lot size they were unable to. Regarding the 14 cars parked on the street, he stated that he would be interested to know when that photo was taken stating that at times the facility will have team meetings regarding an individual that lives on the premise thus having family members attend but it is not Board of Appeals Minutes 9 August 10, 2016 a daily occurrence. He will go back to his manager and make sure that there are not 14 cars parking on the road regarding that facility daily although it is something that may not change because even if he goes back to compliance of one employee the 14 cars will still be there because they are for the individual that needs care at that facility. Ms. Larson stated that consideration should be given to a neighborhood when the company is looking for a facility of this nature. Mr. Frey responded that there may be larger places but parking is still going to be challenging. Mr. Krasniewski asked about the previous residence being able to park in the garage and asked why they were unable. Mr. Frey responded that they probably could park there. Mr. Krasniewski responded that Mr. Frey previously stated they were unable due to a ramp being in the way. Mr. Frey stated that it depended on the vehicle they have and that the employees are being forced out of parking in the driveway/garage by neighbors having to relocate to the street parking. Mr. Krasniewski asked if there was an office on the property. Mr. Frey confirmed that there was one although the manager that uses that office is only there 25% of the time. Mr. Krasniewski asked if the manager was one of the employees included in the three employees previously mentioned because the residence would then technically have 3.5 employees. Mr. Frey responded that the count does not include the manager; the manager’s job is to support the individual living there and goes between three different homes. On another note he did not prefer Carl’s half truths and lies that were previously stated about the business, there is a difference between this residence and a single family home therefore they need to look at them differently. Mr. Willadsen stated his impression is that there is ill-will between the residents on the cul-de-sac and the home. Whether or not this variance is approved or not the neighborhood is going to need to figure out how to get along as the residents on both sides are not moving. Mr. Frey responded that there are neighbors that are supportive of the home being there but they were not there. Mr. Willadsen stated that if they are not at the meeting it is hearsay and in order to hear what they have to say the individuals must be present. Ms. Larson asked if there was a percentage of a property that could be covered with cement. Board of Appeals Minutes 10 August 10, 2016 Mr. Muehrer responded that yes it is an impervious limitation and that it is possible to add on to the garage in the rear but it would have a huge impact on the neighbors especially on the side and rear yards. Mr. Glowcheski stated he has no ill-will to the individuals living at the residence; the previous individuals living there were also disabled and he had no issues. He stated this is a business that is violating codes therefore asking for a variance. He asked that the comments about the lawsuit be stricken from the minutes as they were regarding a deed issue and had nothing to do with the City of Oshkosh. Mathew Dubie, 2915 Pheasant Court, Oshkosh asked about the residence being able to build parking stalls in the back of the garage. Mr. Muehrer states they are able to do so as long as they can meet code when getting the permit to construct. Mr. Dubie asked how much of a setback would be needed to construct that. Mr. Muehrer replied that 25feet would be needed but it is a big leap into the future as an alternative if the variance is not passed. Mr. Frey responded that Carl uses the term business but he needs to realize that he is referring to the disabled individuals living there. Motion by Penney to approve an existing attached garage and driveway facilities to meet parking requirements for a congregate living facility. Seconded by Krasniewski Mr. Penney understood the neighborhood being upset but stated the issue before the board is the variance of parking that is already being done. The majority of the comments before the board were regarding the neighborhood not liking the facility he felt. Ms. Larson disagreed and stated that she felt the neighborhood had legitimate concerns. Mr. Penney expressed that he felt as though the neighborhood was using this hearing as a vehicle to voice their concerns that may not be an issue of this board. Mr. Krasniewski stated that the applicant/employees actions have been less then appealing, whoever is running the business needs to be responsible for their employees which is what could possibly be causing all the ill-will between the neighbors. Mr. Penney stated that he understood that the neighborhood is upset that the business is in operation but that is not a matter of the board. Mr. Krasniewski responded that he found it interesting that there are actually more than three employees on-site. Board of Appeals Minutes 11 August 10, 2016 Mr. Penney stated that fact was not related to the board for this variance. Mr. Krasniewski disagreed stating that three employees are what is listed in the staff report and the applicant is now stating 3.5 therefore potentially needing five stalls all together which he can then see the parking concern. Ms. Larson asked if it was possible to layover the item. Mr. Muehrer responded that this had been an ongoing issue for the last three years and asked what Ms. Larson would anticipate happening if it were to get laid over. Ms. Larson asked if the Board needed to have another public hearing if it is laid over because she would like to collect her thoughts. Mr. Willadsen responded that if the item were to get laid over he would like to see emails that were previously mentioned. Mr. Cornell explained that if a continuance were to occur that all five members of the Board that were present today would need to be present next time and that there would be many other factors that would need to be considered in order to layover this item. Motion carried 3-2. (Ayes-Penney, Larson, Willadsen. Nays- Krasniewski and Cornell). Findings of facts: The use of this property as a CBRF is an allowed use as a residential district; a variance is needed to be in compliance with parking regulations and is a reasonable modification. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:09 p.m. (Cornell/Penney) Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Zoning Administrator