HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
April 11,2018
PRESENT: Dan Carpenter,Robert Cornell, Robert Krasniewski
EXCUSED: Dennis Penney,Kathryn Larson
STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Zoning Administrator; Brian Slusarek, Assistant Planner; Katie
Breselow, Recording Secretary
Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared
present.
The minutes of February 14, 2018 were approved as presented. (Carpenter/Krasniewski)
ITEM L 1314 CATHERINE AVENUE
Randy H. Nelson-applicant and Barbara J. Konkel-owner, request the following variance to permit a second
driveway at a single,family residence:
Description Code Reference Minimum Propose
Driveways 30-172(N)(1) 1 2
Mr. Slusarek presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. The subject .21 acre property is
zoned Multi-Family Residential 12 District(MR-12). The 60' X 157 lot is located on Catherine Avenue, west
of Rainbow Drive and fronts
e rear of the p�iqj)erty. This single family residential property
.Lc aIle t the
consists of a 1,552 square foot two-story principal structure which was built in 1900, according to City of
Oshkosh Assessor's information. The property also includes a 342 square foot, two-stall detached garage with an
existing driveway fronting Catherine Avenue. In November of 2015 Planning Services issued a correction notice
to the property owner requiring removal of a gravel driveway/parking area that had been constructed in the rear
yard at this property, which is being accessed from the rear alley, as gravel is a prohibited surface and a second
driveway is prohibited for a single family use. According to prior aerial photos, this gravel driveway was
constructed sometime between 2009 and 2015. A variance request was denied for the second driveway in July
2016. The applicant is again requesting a variance to construct a second paved driveway to be accessed frorn a
rear yard alley. According to the application, the main reason for this request is that the current legal driveway
(along Catherine Ave) is difficult to use due to the location of a wheelchair rarnp, and access to/from the ramp is
inhibited when a vehicle is parked in the driveway. Although the handicap ramp that is, blocking the garage
from the driveway may be necessary for medical reasons, the location of the handicap ramp seems to be a self-
created hardship as the petitioner could have installed it in a location that would not restrict access to the
driveway. While four(4)of the thirteen (13) single and two family properties on this block have driveway access
from an alley, only one (1) appears to have more than one driveway. Based on the information provided within
this report, denial of the variance as requested is recommended.
Randy Nelson, 1314 Catherhie Avenue. He stated that for starters the location of the rainp is where it is
because if they put it in the front of the house, then they would need to have redone the entire porch,. Given
the weather and situation, the contractor and neighbors decided it was best suited where it currently was.
Secondly, lie stated that there is more than one property that has two driveway entrances citing 1319
Board of Appeals Minutes 1 April 11,2018
Catherine as an example and that page 4 and page 10 are the same property with two different driveways.
Third, he stated that lie was instructed by Allen Davis, the director of the Community Development, that he
was allowed to keep the gravel on his property as a landscape feature although he keeps receiving
correction notices for this. He further stated that he has a motorhome that lie needed to park on his
property that is currently being stored off site due to a correction notice.
Mr. Cori-tell asked if there were entrances off both the north and south sides of the garage or if the applicant
only entered through the-south side.
Mr. Nelson responded that he enters through the south but he would like to build a garage with an
entrance on both ends. Currently there is landscaping that he would like to redo to make look more
appealing after building the garage. He then stated that most neighbors have people parking on their lawn
near the street and he does not, therefore his lawn look better.
Mr. Krasniewski asked what the applicant on pages 13-15 was trying to show as there are no dimensions or
explanations on them.
Mr. Nelson replied that on page 13 showed the house, deck,ramp, and space in between the structures.
Mr. Krasniewski asked why page 14 and 15 look so different and which is the most accurate referring to
what he would like granted with the variance.
Mr. Nelson responded that page 15 was the most accurate.
Mr. Krasniewski asked if there were more structures on the property as page 24 showed structures behind
the house and garage,
Mr. Nelson responded there is nothing else in the back of the house. Potentially a shadow or there is a very
small deck that is roughly three feet.
Mr. Muehrer answered that it could possibly be a shadow as it is a two story house.
Mr.Krasniewski asked if the wheelchair ramp is permitted.
Mr. Nelson confirmed the ramp was.
Mr. Krasniewski asked if the applicant was still using the driveway in the back as the photos are showing
usage.
Mr. Nelson responded that he moved his trailers in the last two days but other than that he is not using it.
My. Cornell asked if page 3 was aiir example of the RV and where it was parked.
Mr. Nelson confirmed that it was but he moved it due to citations he received. Due to a medical issue, he
stated that it took hirn awhile to move it but he has done so now.
Board of Appeals Miritites 2 April 11,2018
Mr. Krasniewski asked the applicant what stopped hien frorn building the garage in a different location as
to then the variance would not be needed.
Mr. Nelson answered that he needs a place for his motorhome, ramp, and other various vehicles.
Mr. Krasniewski responded that it sounds as though it is a personal choice.
Mr. Nelson stated that he, felt as though he had no other choice in the matter as he could not relocate the
ramp,
Mr. Carpenter motioned to approve a second drivezvay at a singlefamily residence.
Seconded by Mr. Krastriezvski.
Mr. Carpenter stated that he drove past the property and one would only know about the driveway
through an aerial view. He stated that there was no harm to the public interest with the driveway as the
public is unable to see it. Further stating that if the zoning is changed in the future that the variance may
not be an issue and that he asked the City to have an informational session on the changes in that
neighborhood in case they would affect the Board of Appeals. He was instructed that it has to do with
zoning and not the Board of Appeals.
Mr. Cornell stated that lie concurred with that statement,
Mr. Krasniewski replied that the Board can only make decisions based off the current facts not potential
future plains.
"I-.,--,"-Ml,,.-CarpleateLlata,ile-&Illd..Ltlg! a V all. the houses have a driveway comm
hard to find and almost,
out into the alley or street. Then he looked on Google Earth and realized that the garage is in the wrong
location.
Mr. Krasniewski agreed with Mr. Carpenter and stated that if the garage were built elsewhere there would
be ample space for parking.
Mr. Carpenter stated that there is one other driveway that does set a precedent and is the same as the
applicant's variance request.
Mr. Slusarek responded that there is one across the street where the garage is off the rear alley and
driveway access is off the street. To the east is multifamily.
Mr. Carpenter mentioned that when the variance first came to the Board of Appeals in 2016 there were
numerous cars parked in driveways and now there is wood piles, RVs, cars, and things everywhere in the
neighborhood. It is very consistent of the neighborhood.
Mr. Krasniewski stated that he drove by in 2016 and it was totally different compared to pictures presently.
Mr. Carpenter responded that he does not feel there is any harm to the public, it makes it easier and looks
consistent with the neighborhood.
Board of Appeals Minutes 3 April 11,2018
Mr. Krasniewski replied that he looked at the facts from 2016 and in the findings, it states that approval
would allow the property owner a right that is not enjoyed by other owners in the same district that no one
else has, no physical hardship on the property as the garage could be built further back. The applicant has
other options available. According to the 2016 application, the ramp or lift was not installed at that time and
that would have been a problem then but believes it is a sell-imposed hardship.
Mr. Carpenter stated that there is no harm to the public and there,are other properties with two driveways.
Mr.Krasniewski replied that the one property is legal with the two driveways. If the Board were to approve
the variance, then it would be saying others can do the same.
Mr. Carpenter asked if Mr. Slusarek used more than one block as wi example of other driveways.
Mr. Slusarek responded that he only looked at the block fronting Catherine Avenue.
Mr. Carpenter stated that all the blocks looked the sarne and sees no harm.
Mr. Muehrer responded that he would be cautious to use the word precedent as there may be
nonconforming properties,but as it is developed the goal would be to make the properties conforming.
Mr. Carpenter stated that the alley makes it a unique situation.
Denied 2-1 (Nay-Kramiewski, Cornell;Aye- Carpenter).
Findings offacts:
Approval of this variance wotild allow property Miiers a right not enjoyed by others in a shnilar residential zoning
Withow a physical hardship to the property, approval woidd be contrary to the established zoning regidations.
The owners have other options srich as redesign available with the garage and drivezvay placenient.
ITEM 11: 2713 CLAIRVILLE ROAD
Brian R. Spanbauer-owner/petitioner requests the following variance to permit a new 20'x30' detached
garage in the side yard north:
Description Code Reference Maximum Proposed
posed
Total allowable area for garages 30-714(B)(4) 1,200 sq.ft. 1,632 sq. ft.
Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. The subject 1.49 acre property is
a rectangular-shaped lot located on the west side of Clairville Road in the Town of Algoma. It is zoned R-1
ETZ (Single Family Residence Extraterritorial District) and being used for single family residential
purposes. The applicant is proposing to construct a new 20'x30' (600 square feet) detached garage in the
side yard north to supplement the existing 1,032 square feet attached garage. The proposed garage is to be
used for personal storage of vehicles, equipment, etc, of the homeowner. A variance is needed as the
proposed total allowable area for accessory structures will be exceeded by 432 square feet. Board members
will recall the City of Oshkosh performed a comprehensive update to the zoning ordinance in January 2017.
The new ordinance has a provision for lots larger than one acre in size to increase the accessory structures
Board of Appeals Mitnites 4 April 1t,2018
total area by one square foot for every 100 square feet of lot area over an acre. In this instance the
homeowner would be allowed 1,414 square feet of total accessory building based on the 1.49 acre lot size
(te. 64,904 sf- 43,560 sf=21,344 sf/ 100 =2.1.4 sf+ 1200 sf=1,414 so if it was in the City of Oshkosh or when
it automatically annexes into the City at a later date per the intergovernmental agreement. This section
unfortunately does not apply to the Extraterritorial Zoning District at this time as the Extraterritorial
Zoning Ordinance was not amended to mirror the new City standards in 2017. Therefore, a degree of
hardship and uniqueness is present in this case. Using the Town's appraisal information if the parcel
contains a 1,032 square feet existing attached garage the new detached garage should be limited to no more
than 382 square feet to rneet the 1,414 square feet limitation based in the current city standard for a 1.49 acre
sized lot. Based on the information provided within this report, staff recommends approval of the variance
with the conditions of the proposed new garage and the existing, attached garage shall not exceed 1,414
square feet in total area using Town of Algoma Appraisal Records and a revised site, plan showing paving
of the new driveway addition be provided as gravel and/or grass is not permitted as a surface for the
garage approach.
Brian Spanbauer, 2713 Clairville Road stated that he would like to build a 20' x 30' garage. They built the
house in 2001 with the,intentions of building the extra garage but due to finances they were unable to build
it but did purchase the materials to do so already. In 2003 code changes were made and now there is 200
less sq. ft. He would like to build the garage because he has a truck he,has to park outside, a third stall that
is full and he will be purchasing a boat that he would also like to store on his own property. The neighbors
around hh-n have detached garages and have no issues. He believed it would add value and look the same
as other neighboring properties. He plans to make it match the existing garage and would like to build it in
June/July of this year along with a full length driveway that is either black top or concrete, likely concrete.
He is originally from Oshkosh and would like to remain here and live on his dream property. He spoke
with Ben Krumenauer from the Town of Algoma as there was a question on the sq. ft. of the current garage.
He, was unsure where they came up with the dimensions and is currently h-t contact with them about the
t il�j:esolved and measured acc2KqjpQX,
Mr. Carpenter asked where on page 4 the space is located that he is referring to.
Mr. Spanbauer responded the northwest side of the garage, he showed pictures on his phone (unable to
obtain) of the stairs that lead to the basement that the Town of Algoma was including in the sq. ft. count.
He is in contact with Jim Frank from the Town of Algoma because it takes away 100 and some odd feet he
could use to build the new garage which then affects his variance.
Mr, Corbell asked Mr, Muehrer if it sounds correct to include that information in the sq. ft. estimate,
Mr. Muehrer stated that staff had many measurements and used the most recent record which was the
appraisal and that is why the first condition listed on the variance is worded so that the applicant is able to
get that measurement figured out and potentially change the appraisal record of the garage to get the most
available square footage. The staff is of the opinion though that the square footage should not go over 1414
sq. ft.
Mr. Spanbauer asked if the Board would be willing to budge and meet the 20' x 30'he is requesting.
Mr. Muehrer responded that based on current circumstances 1414 sf. is where the City feels comfortable
recommending approval.
Board of Appeals Mintites 5, April 11,2018
Mr. Spanbauer asked what the difference between the extra 100 feet being granted along with if anyone
drove by his property to view it.
Mr. Muehrer replied how the State defines hardship is what is determining the extra 100 feet. Everything
heard so far is personal circurnstm-tces, the Board has to look at property circumstances relevant to give
hardship. If the code was mute on larger properties it would be different but since the code has specific
Circumstances based on the size of the lot the 1.414 sq. ft. is the number used.
Mr. Krasniewski clarified that there is no wiggle room based on State law.
Mr. Muehrer responded that it is up to the Board but the City standard is 1414 sq. ft. based on the fact that if
he were to annex into the City or when he is automatically attached that would be,his limit to get a by right
permit.
Mr. Spanbauer stated that he is asking for a variance for the 600 sq. ft. extra, lie stated an understanding of
the 1432 sq. ft.
Mr. Muel-ff er replied it was 1414 sq. ft. based on city standard due to having 1.49 acres.
Mr. Spanbauer responded that his Lmderstanding is that the Board, regardless, is not going to allow a 20' x
30' garage.
Mr. Muehrer replied it is up the Board to make the decision but the City is coming from case law,
precedent, etc. and that the City used the 1414 sq.ft. to justify a variance recommendation.
Mr,Krasniewski stated that the applicant has an out with the appraisal.
Mr.Muehrer answered that the applicant may challenge the appraisal dimensions.
Mr.Krast-dewski stated he's within 32'.
Mr., Muehrer stated that it is up to the appraiser to reduce it 32' feet based on their determination.
Mr. Spanbauer stated he spoke with the Town two days ago and asked for someone to come out that day
for the correct measurement.
Mr. Krasniewski asked if the applicant would like the.Board to carry over the decision for a month for him
to get the measurement he needed.
Mr. Spanbauer replied that he is changing the length making it-narrower so that the truck, boat, and other
things can fit.
Mr. Muehrer stated that if the Board decided on tabling the request until the next month they would need
to take into consideration that the best case scenario is they came back with more square footage.
Mr. Krasniewski responded that the applicant can make a 20 x 29 and be legal.
Board of Appeals Mhuites 6 April 11,2018
Mr. MUel-aer asked that if the applicant does get the extra footage is that going to be enough to grant the
variance.
Mr. Krasniewski responded that it would actually delay the applica.r-rt from building. Then asked who
would decide what the number is.
Mr, Muehrer replied the town based on the condition of approval.
Mr. Spanbauer stated there was 1032 sq. ft., the answer from the Town was that they were unsure if the
space was basement or garage.He then detailed the measurements of the space in question.
Mr. Muel-Lrer replied the Board needed to make a decision on if they would like to go above the 1414 sq, ft.
the City staff is recommending, If they do delay the hearing and the applicant gets a decision in the next
couple days he would then need to wait until the next month to start building regardless.
Mr. Spu-tbauer stated in closing that he understood he does not have the correct square footage to build the
size garage he would prefer 20' x 30' due to the rule change. He is asking for this garage because he has a
lot of things such as a boat, trailer, recreational vehicles, and more that he would like to keep in the garage
to make his property look more appealing.
Mr. Krasniewski niotioned to approve a nezo 20'X30' detached garage in the side yard north with the
conditions that the proposed nezo garage and the existing attached garage shall not exceed 1,414 sqnarefeet in
total area itsing To�vn of Algoina Appraisal Records and a revised site plan shozoing paving of the nezv
driveway addition be provided as gravel andlor grass is not permitted as a staface for the garage approach,
Seconded by Mr. Carpenter.
t
................
......
Krasiew stated that is is.a scenario w-tere t ere are a ....on o
storage for them. He uriderstood that the garage will look nice and match the house along with that the
rules changed but he believed this was a self-imposed hardship. The applicant could make the garage
smaller and then be in line with the ordinance and a variance not needed.
Mr. Carpenter stated that over the years he is always in favor of things being stored properly than outside
even if it means a few more feet.
Mr.Krasniewski asked Mr. Carpenter if he would currently vote no right now.
Mr. Carpenter stated that they are stuck on a decision based on the facts currently.
Mr. Krasniewski replied that they could offer the applicant the opportunity to come back.
Mr. Carpenter asked if he could come back again.
Mr. Krasniewski went over the overall picture of voting each way and the specific outcome of each.
Mr. Muehrer reminded the Board if they deny the variance he would only get 1,200 sq.ft. Alternatively,the
Board could repeal all conditions and just vote on the size of the garage.
Board of Appeals MillUteS 7 April 11,2018
Mr. Krasniewski stated that voting to allow the size of the garage the petitioner wants would throw out all
rules that are established for the rest of the cornmunity.
Approved 3-0.
Findings of facts:
There is do hami to the pitblic interest.
By granting the variance 7ve visit an wiitsiW and' wiiqrie sititatim bW lie has the opporbinity to do research with the
Town to achieve what lie zvoidd like his eiid result to becoille.
There,being no further business, the meeting adjOLLrned at 4:39 p.m. (Krasniewski/Carpenter).
Respectfully submitted,
--2
Todd lVluehrer
Zoning Administrator
Board of Appeals Minittes 8 April 11,2.018