Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES May 8,2019 PRESENT: Robert Cornell,Kathryn Larson,Dennis Penney,Wesley Kottke,Barbara Schmitz EXCUSED: Robert Krasniewski 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 November 14,2018 were approved as presented. (Larson/Schmitz,Penny/Kottke abstained) ITEM I:2850 HOMESTEAD DRIVE Glenn R. Warga-owner/petitioner, requests the following variance to permit an attached garage addition in the front yard setback: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Increase of Front Yard 30-113(B)(2) Mean of adjoining properties 25' Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. The subject .44 acre property is rectangular in shape and located mid-block on the north side of Homestead Drive. It is zoned SR-5 Single Family Residential. The parcel also has a 460 square feet attached garage accessed via a curb cut near the west side of the property. The parcel is bordered by single-family residential uses in all directions. The applicant is attempting to modernize the existing floor plan of the 54-year old home and improve the front facade with several building proposals. The variance-specific request relates to the 207' x 9'4" garage addition south of the existing attached garage extending toward Homestead Drive. The proposed addition extending toward the street would replace the existing re-purposed garage space. The proposed setback of the addition is 25' from the front (south) property line. Normally the 25' setback would be the minimum required in the SR-5 District and no variance would be necessary. However, the revised ordinance that took effect January 1, 2017 now requires an increase in the minimum front yard setback in certain instances. From 1998 until the revised ordinance date of January 1, 2017 the property was zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and the proposed garage addition with the 25' setback would have been permitted by-right and required no variance. Furthermore the layout of the existing improvements and floor plan is creating physical limitations for by-right alternative placement as well. Overall the request appears to be the least variance necessary to accomplish the proposal. Based on the information provided within this report, staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. Glenn Warga,2850 Homestead Drive, Oshkosh Wisconsin. Debbie Warga,2850 Homestead Drive, Oshkosh Wisconsin. Board of Appeals Minutes 1 May 8,2019 Mr. Warga stated that they are trying to bring the house up to more modern standards including first floor laundry, this starts with aging. There are other renovations that they are doing as well that are more global. Looking at future needs they want to stay in the area but they would like to renovate now in order to get the house ready before that time comes. He stated they will also be looking to put a ramp on, zero entry bathrooms, wider openings for doors, and more renovations for an overall change out the front of the house in the future. New brick fagade on the outside of the house as it is deteriorating would also be included along with siding. He then stated that the house would look like the surrounding houses in the neighborhood and the setback issues they encountered from the municipal code are the only thing restricting their ability to complete the renovation. Their house needs to have this renovation done in order to advance to the next stage of their lives. Ms. Warga continued with stating that in 2011 they added a large deck to the rear of the house and it would inhibit them to put the addition there. She stated it was previously stated that the utilities are also located there and would need to be relocated. She was unaware that there was an ordinance issue with patio doors overlapping if they went to the north to do the addition at that location. Mr.Warga asked if there were any questions associated with the staff report. Ms. Larson stated she had concerns as their house would be considerably in front of every other house on the street by 7 feet. She felt as though she did not see the hardship. Mr.Kottke asked when they purchased the house. Mr.Warga responded in 2001. Ms. Warga stated that it was prior to the Zoning Ordinance change in 2017 and that if one were to go one block to the south all the houses are at the 25' mark. She stated that they have a nice lot and would like to remain at their home but without being able to do the addition they may not be able to stay. Mr. Warga stated that they understood the concerns of the board with setback variations. He stated that the distance is not so much the issue as is the variation to what he understood of the intent of the standard. He stated if one were to look at the opposite side of the street there are setback variations among the houses. Ms. Larson replied that none of the houses are closer than 25' or at 25'. Mr.Warga responded that one house is at 25',the new home that may be in the Town of Algoma. Ms. Larson replied that the Town of Algoma never had a 25' setback as it was in the County zoning and it never allowed residential districts to be less than 30' for their setback. Ms.Warga stated that it is a considerably new home that may be the City of Oshkosh. Ms. Larson stated it may be in the City and then asked Mr. Muehrer if the City allowed a 25' setback. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 May 8,2019 Mr. Muehrer confirmed that the applicants' house was built in the Town of Algoma originally, there was the greater setback allowance. It then was annexed into the City where in residential neighborhoods a 25' setback is required. Mr. Warga stated that if one were to go into any of the adjoining neighborhoods, they are all built very similar to what they are proposing. It is not much different than some others that have a garage that comes in front of the house. Ms. Larson replied that those houses are still at the setback line with those garages. Mr. Muehrer responded to Ms. Larson that if she looked at page 19 of the staff report she would see the overhead map that shows the lot south on Homestead with a jagged edge or nonlinear setback of the home. Example 2849 Homestead Drive with the variation that the applicant is trying to communication being in the neighborhood. Ms. Larson asked if staff saw this as being reasonable under the new ordinance. Mr. Muehrer responded that it was not an easy decision to make internally. The ultimate decision was made when they took into consideration that if the applicant would have come in prior to the 2017 Zoning Ordinance change it would have been permitted. The other factor was based on the improvements that were built on the north side although personal circumstances would be hard to overcome. Ms. Larson stated that there are no physical limitations therefore she was struggling with seeing the hardship. Mr. Muehrer responded that with any request the hardship cannot be personal in circumstance, usually what drives the variance is what the property owner plans to do with their property. There's always a degree/spectrum on the hardship of the case and this one is not extreme from their personal standpoint, to staff though it was enough to support the variance. Mr. Warga stated that he was unsure if value had any role is making the decision as it would raise the value of the neighborhood. Ms. Larson responded that value cannot be taken into consideration on the Board of Appeals. Mr. Muehrer followed up with the decision was not an easy recommendation for staff as there was not a definite property hardship. There was some when discussed and he understood where Ms. Larson was coming from. Mr. Penney asked if there was an alternate plan if the variance was denied. Mr. Warga answered that they would most likely relocate given the reasoning behind what they are trying to accomplish. They do like the area and would prefer not to move. Mr. Cornell asked if there was any feedback from neighbors who may object to extending further into the front yard. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 May 8,2019 Mr. Warga responded that they have only had positive feedback. The neighborhood likes to see things updated and given more value. Mr.Muehrer stated that the Planning office had not received any calls regarding the variance request. Mr.Penney asked staff what the motive was to changing the setback in 2017. Mr. Muehrer replied that they knew there would be significant annexations from the Town and by strict letter of the law ideally this situation is what they were aiming for to maintain that linear row of setback. Mr. Penney asked if the variance would be defeating that change by going against the ordinance. Mr.Muehrer responded is some ways it would. Mr. Kottke stated that his concern is in that area also of going against ordinance. Ms. Larson responded it does not meet any criteria for granting a variance. Mr. Kottke asked how close in variation would the house be to other buildings on the street, 7 feet he questioned. Ms. Larson confirmed that is what the staff report says. Mr.Penney asked if the Board would be setting a precedent if they approved the variance. Ms. Schmitz asked if the applicant could show her on the site plan where the addition would go. Mr. Warga replied that it would be where the stump is on the picture to the north. It would go roughly out where the sidewalk shows on the photo. She also mentioned that on the other side of the road, although they all meet the setback, there is variation that the garage and house are not the same and one comes out further than the other. Personally she believes it will give individuality rather than everyone looking exactly the same. She stated that if one were to go down Ruschfield Dr. one would see different types of houses that give the neighborhood diversity and a pleasing eye esthetic. Ms. Larson responded that all the houses are built to code though meeting the setback with the closest house being 25 feet. Mr.Kottke asked why they could not build off any other portion of the house.He questioned if it was solely because they have the deck built there. Mr. Warga responded that the deck is there but also the utility lines are there and the roof lines do not meet up. The roof line being the biggest issue,logistically it does not make sense looking at the usability aspect. Ms. Warga answered that they have an addition built on the house already that was added before they moved in in 2001. That entire side is an exit onto the deck meaning that if they went off the garage Board of Appeals Minutes 4 May 8,2019 backwards it would remove that entire exit off of the house. Then they would need to remove the utilities and remove three or four trees along the property edge which distinguishes their house from the neighbors. Mr. Warga stated that architecturally the inside would not flow because they would need to put the laundry room adjacent off of the kitchen that would then encroach on to the garage. Mr. Penney motioned to approve the variance as requested. Seconded by Mr. Cornell Mr.Penney asked staff to explain in greater detail where the hardship was. Mr. Muehrer responded that when staff was looking at it they had two aspects. The first one being that originally it was annexed in from the Town. Second they looked at the variance from the point that before the 2017 Ordinance change it would have been permitted by-right. Another factor taken into consideration is that if they would have proposed anything to the north, architecturally/building code speaking, there's enough impediments in that area that it would be a very difficult challenge to meet building code. Ms. Larson stated that it is a brand new code. Mr. Kottke stated that because it is a very recent code he felt as though the variance is something that they were clearly trying to avoid and prevent when passing the legislation. He stated that it is a struggle to see the hardship and that if it is possible to build in another area, even if they do not prefer it, they need to investigate that option further. If it is not architecturally possible then he would like to see that evidence to establish the hardship. Ms. Larson responded that with a home that has a reasonable use to the property, not doing what the applicant wants to do, does not give them a limitation. Mr. Kottke stated that with that train of thinking than he does not believe there will ever be a hardship. He believes that there could be a hardship but if there is another way to accomplish and get the same outcome he does not see the hardship. Mr.Penney stated he is also struggling with setting a precedent. Mr. Cornell responded that he has a different perspective on the variance as he was on the committee to rewrite the Zoning Ordinance. He sees the staff s position on the fact that it is a hardship because he spent three years in the movement and studies to change things. He can see the difference in opinion. Ms. Larson stated that with the adoption of any Ordinance, there will be cases where they have to state they are sorry but that is the new code. Mr. Cornell stated that is why the Board is here because nothing is permanent and sometimes things need to be adjusted. Approved 4-1. (Yay-Kottke,Larson, Schmitz, Cornell;Nay-Penney) Board of Appeals Minutes 5 May 8,2019 Findings of facts: The board finds at this point a hardship exists in this case as it would be nearly impossible to add an addition to another portion of the house based on the layout of the home as it is at this time with the utilities being on the back. Moving would create an addition hardship if not allowed. No result in harm to the public. Mr. Cornell gave his goodbye wishes after 15 years on the Board of Appeals. Mr. Penney replied that the respect he has for Mr. Cornell is outstanding over the 13 years he has had on the Board. There is no other man more capable in Oshkosh to serve on a board than Bob. There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 3:59 p.m. (Larson/Kottke). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer f Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 6 May 8,2019