HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter-Board of Appeals approval
~,,:,,~
'''''~!t$A\''
"':,\,').'.'~
City of Oshkosh
Dept. of Community Development
Planning Services Division
215 Church Ave-, PO Box 1130
Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130
(920) 236-5059 (920) 236-5053 FAX
http://www,cLoshkosh,wLus
Jackson R, Kinney
Director
Dept of Community Development
OJHKOJH
Darryn Burich
Director
Planning Services Division
October 11, 2007
Mr. Dennis Schwab
601 Oregon St. Suite B
Oshkosh, VVI54902
Re: 504 & 506 Knapp Street
Dear Mr. Schwab:
On October 11, 2007 the Board of Appeals approved the following variances to permit the creation of
a new off-street parking area:
1. 11 '6" front yard setback (west)
II. 12' front yard setback (north)
III. 11 '6" transitional yard setback (east)
Additionally, the following conditions were included:
a. The 504 & 506 Knapp Street properties shall be combined with the 954/958 & 950VV. 6th
Street A venue properties to create one commercial parcel as shown on submitted site plan.
b. Any existing curb cuts serving the 504 & 506 Knapp Street properties shall be eliminated.
The decision of the Board was filed in the Planning Services Division Office of the Department of
Community Development on October 11, 2007. Per Section 30-6(C)(3) and (4) of the City of
Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance, your variance will expire on April 11, 2008 unless you have started
construction for the activity allowed by the variance. If you fail to begin construction by this date,
you must reapply for a variance if you intend to go ahead with the activity allowed by the variance.
Please be advised that any person or persons aggrieved by any decision of the Board of Appeals may
commence action in Circuit Court within thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision. Permits
may be issued on approval of the Board, but you should be aware that further action could take
place until as much as 30 days after the date of the decision.
Building permits may be applied' for from the Inspection Services Division in Room 205 at the
Oshkosh City Hall between 7:30 - 8:30 AM and 12:30 - 1 :30 PM, Monday through Friday, or call
(920) 236-5050 for an appointment. Please bring all required building plans and information
necessary for review when obtaining your building permit.
If you have any questions, feel free to call me at (920) 236-5057.
.'"
~~!
"'<:di!%W+
OJHKOJH
mlTttEWATEl'l
City of Oshkosh
Planning Services Division
215 Church Ave., PO Box 1130
Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130
(920) 236-5059 (920) 236-5053 FAX
http://www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us
Jackson R. Kinney
Director
Dept. of Community Development
Darryn Burich
Director
Planning Services Division
BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA
OCTOBER 10, 2007
3:30 PM
To Whom It May Concern:
Please note the City of Oshkosh Board of Appeals will meet on WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2007 at
3:30 PM in Room 404 at the Oshkosh City Hall to consider the following agenda.
ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF A QUORUM
APPROVAL OF AUGUST 8, 2007 MINUTES
APPROVAL OF AUGUST 22, 2007 MINUTES
HEARING OF NEW APPEALS AND APPLICATIONS
I. 1842 Mount Vernon Street
Allen J. Wallace-applicant/oWner, requests a variance to permit the creation of an asphalt driveway with a 0'
setback. Section 30-36 (C)(5)(f) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Off-Street Parking and Loading Facilities
requires a driveway to be a minimum of 6" from a side lot line.
II. 504 & 506 Knapp Street
Dennis E. Schwab-applicant, 504 Knapp Street LLC & 506 Knapp Street LLC owners, request the following
variances to permit the creation of a new off-street parking area:
Required (Section 30-25 (B)(2))
I) 25' front yard setback (west)
II) 25' front yard setback (north)
Proposed
11 ' 6" front yard setback (parking)
12' front yard setback (parking)
Required (30-35 (B)(I)(c)
III) 19'2" transitional yard setback (east)
Proposed
11 ' 6" transitional yard setback (parking)
III. 2404 Harrison Street
Steven & Darrell Thoma-applicants/owners, request a variance to limit the amount of solid fencing required
to enclose an open storage area. Section 30-30 (B)(7) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: General Industrial
District requires open storage areas to be enclosed by solid fencing not less than 6' in height.
IV. 207 E. Irving Avenue
Corey Godina (Mitech Services)-applicant, Dale School Apartments Inc.-owner, request a variance to permit
the placement of non-residential accessory structures with a front yard setback of 10' and a side yard setback
of 3'. Section 30-19 (B)( 4 )(g)(ii) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: R-2 Two Family Residence District
requires a front yard setback of 25' and a side yard setback of 7 ~'.
DISCUSSION OF BOA PROCEDURES
.-;
,)
STAFF REPORT
BOARD OF APPEALS
OCTOBER 10, 2007
ITEM II: 504 & 506 KNAPP STREET
GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Dennis E. Schwab-applicant, 504 Knapp Street LLC & 506 Knapp Street LLC owners, request
the following variances to permit the creation of a new off-street parking area:
Required (Section 30-25 (B)(2))
I) 25' front yard setback (west)
II) 25' front yard setback (north)
Proposed
11 ' 6" front yard setback (parking)
12' front yard setback (parking)
Required (30-35 (B)(l)(c) Proposed
III) 19'2" transitional yard setback (east) 11 '6" transitional yard setback (parking)
The subject properties are 0.30 acres combined and zoned C..2 GeneralCornmerc;ial District.
Street right-of-way abuts the properties to the north and west, a single-family dwelling is to the
east, and a mixed-use establishment and single family home are to the south. The general area can
be characterized as mixed c()mmercial-low residential.
ANALYSIS
In reviewing a variance request, the following questions should be addressed:
When considering an area variance, the question of whether unnecessary
hardship or practical difficulty exists is best explained as "whether
compliance with the strict letter of the restrictio.Il~. governing area,
set backs, frontage, height, bulk or density would unreasonably
prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose
or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily
burdensome. "
Are there any unusual or unique physical limitations of the property, which
create a hardship?
Will granting of a variance result in harm to the public interest?
The petitioner recently acquired the two subject properties and intends to have the existing homes
and accessory structures razed to create vacant parcels. Once the properties are vacant, the
petitioner intends to (and will be allowed) to combine the two subject lots (504 & 506 Knapp
Street) with the two adjacent lots to the south (950 W.6th Avenue & 954/958 W. 6th Avenue) to
create one commercial parcel.
Subsequently, variances are being requested from the zoning ordinance to allow the development
of a parking lot on the soon-to-be vacated residential lots to service the .adjacent commercial
establishment (i.e. "Mahoney's" at 954 W. 6th Avenue). Per the applicant, the parking lot is
needed due to the commercial establishment not having ample off-street parking for patrons.
According to the applicant, the variance requests will not have an adverse effect on surrounding
properties because landscaping strips will be placed in the setback areas to buffer the commercial
use from adjacent residential properties. Likewise, the applicant states the overall neighborhood
will improve by the removal of marginal residential uses with substandard buildings and by
reducing current on-street parking tied to the commercial establishment.
In the applicant's opinion, the special condition related to this request is that the property abuts a
residential district, which creates restrictive transitional yard setback standards. If the variances
were not granted, on-street parking congestion would continue and both the commercial
1
STAFF REPORT
ITEM II
-2-
BOARD OF APPEALS
OCTOBER 10, 2007
establishment and the overall neighborhood would suffer as a result.
The proposed new parking lot area would be approximately 9,975 square feet in area and contain
37 total parking stalls. Two existing access points (one off of W. 6th Avenue and one off of
Knapp Street) and one new access point (off of W. 5th Avenue) would serve the proposed new
single parcel. A 12' wide landscape buffer is being proposed along the north property line and
two 11' 6" wide landscape buffers are being proposed along the west and east property lines as
well.
Community Development staff received a phone call from the petitioner on 09/27/07 indicating
that the petitioner explained the scope of the project to the property owners at 422 Knapp Street
(Mrs. Fredrick) and 933 W. 5th Avenue (Marion Thiel). Per the applicant, the property owners are
okay with the project and one of the property owners indicated to the petitioner that she preferred
the current proposal with bushes and would rather not see a fence erected.
Staff agrees with the petitioner and recognizes the detrimental effect current on-street parking is
creating for the neighborhood and the commercial establishment as well. By removing the
existing legal non-conforming dwellings at the subject properties and combining lots, the
property owner is attempting to create a more viable overall lot for business feasibility purposes.
Staff views this as a positive initiative both for current planning purposes and future planning
purposes should the need ever arise for redevelopment at the property.
The proposed landscape buffers along the north, west, and east lot lines will effectively mitigate
negative impacts on adjacent residential uses. Details related to the number and type of landscape
plantings has not been submitted to date. However, it is anticipated these will meet zoning
ordinance standards. The official site plan review process will identify if any proposed plantings
will conflict with the comer lot/vision clearance requirement. Adjustments will be made with the
petitioner to eliminate any conflicts the proposed planting plan may create.
In general, staff believes the applicant's requests are the least variance necessary and no harm to
the public interest will occur with the granting ofthe variances.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information provided within this report, staff recommends approval of the variances
with the following conditions:
1) The 504 & 506 Knapp Street properties shall be combined with the 954/958 & 950 W.
6th Street A venue properties to create one commercial parcel as shown on submitted
site plan.
2) Any existing curb cuts serving the 504 & 506 Knapp Street properties shall be
eliminated.
2
, Please Tvpe or Print in BLACK INK
~
O.fHl<QfH
ON THE WATER
Return to: Department of
Community Development
215 Church Ave.
P.O. Box 1130
Oshkosh, WI 54903-1130
CITY OF OSHKOSH
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
Please submit a complete reproducible site plan (maximum size 11" x 17"). (A complete site plan includes, but is not
limited to, all structures, lot lines and streets with distances to each.) Please refer to the fee schedule for appropriate fee.
FEE IS NON-REFUNDABLE. The fee is payable to the City of Oshkosh and due at the time the application is submitted.
Address of Parcel Affected:
504 Knapp Street and 506 Knapp Street
Petitioner:
Dennis E. Schwab
Home Phone: 233-3675
Petitioner's Address: 601 Oregon Street, Sui te B
SignatnreRequired: ~~ .c: .~
Work Phone: 233-4184
-
Date: 9-13-07
Owner (if not petitioner):
Home Phone:
Owner's Address:
Work Phone:
Signature Required:
Date:
In order to be granted a variance, each applicant must be able to prove that an unnecessary hardship would be created if
the variance is not granted. The burden of proving an unnecessary hardship rests upon the applicant. The attached sheet
provides infonnation on what constitutes a hardship. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary, to provide the information
requested. Additional information may be requested as needed.)
1. Explain your proposed plans and why you are requesting a variance:
Refer to attached information.
SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT
3
2. Describe how the variance would not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties:
Refer to attached information.
3. Describe tlie special conditions that apply to your lot or structure that do not apply to surrounding lots or
structures:
Refer to attached information.
4. Describe the hardship that would result if your variance were not granted:
Refer to attached information.
SUBMllTED BY APPLICANT
A
...."...... R E: .... ',. 504 'KiiappSfi'e'eY'a Ii d..... 5061( napp-SE:r'ee' t .
1. Explain your proposed plans and why you are requesting a variance:
Mahoney's, a restaurant and bar at the northwest comer of 6th Avenue and Knapp
Street is the latest operation of a mixed use establishment which dates back to
1890. Recent operations of this establishment has suffered because ofa lack of
off-street parking for the patrons, besides the parking needs of the apartment and
rental property at the location.
The two adjoining properties, parcel nos. 90604380000 and 90604380100, have
been purchased and it is proposed to expand the existing parking area of parcel
no. 9060437000, Mahoney's and the rental house, into these properties. Although
the two adjoining properties are zoned for Commercial Use, they abut a
residentially zoned area and therefore, residential setback requirements for front,
side and rear lots apply. The strict application ofthose setback requirements
would render such a small area for off-street parking that it would not be feasible
to demolish the existing buildings and expand the existing parking lot on the
Mahoney location into the area.
It is proposed that the parking area be setback 12.0 feet from the 5th Avenue side
of the property, which is the average setback when you consider the Sacred Heart
School to the west of Knapp Street and the two homes immediately east of the
proposed parking area.
It is further proposed to setback the parking area 9.5 feet from Knapp Street,
which is at least 3 feet further back than the Mahoney Restaurant and Bar
immediately south. The setback from the east property line is also proposed to be
9.5 feet, which is about 6.0 feet further than the existing building on parcel
90604380100. Setbacks from this line to the east of the east property line are
about 2.0 feet.
2. Describe how the variance would not have an adverse effect on surrounding
properties:
The proposed setbacks will allow a landscaping strip in the setback areas, which
would substantially benefit the entire neighborhood when compared to the
marginal residential uses that now occupy the two properties.
The building on the most northerly parcel is a former commercial building, in
poor condition and does not comply with residential zoning setbacks. The house
on the southerly parcel currently is non-conforming in so far as front yard
setbacks are concerned. Removal of these substandard buildings would enhance
the surrounding properties.
The landscaping would also serve to shield the abutting residences from any light
or noise nuisances.
SUBMllTED BY APPLICANT
5
'.. .,",-,.. ",'", """"<'--~"""""""-""'~',~";'-'~"",". "":'''''''':'t'''^'''''i'""..:,.",,:,:,~!~.,~_ .'~"'.~-'-.'''':'';'''''''.~.':-'''~':,.~,.",,,-,._.,,,,..,,:.",:..,.'~~'":..;-.~.,,"'~' L"..,.....'..~';>'"_~~"''1''"-.,.~.~....._~~_-"..'''''.......... '.".,x.<', ".''''''''.'''".'_ .-:-...""."",~, '.,.'-,,~._,._ ""'.~"Y"'~~"""""' 'M"'":W~'"O
RE: 504 Knapp Street: and 506 ~l~c3.PP Street
Adding additional off-street parking for the patrons of the Mahoney establishment
will also benefit the surrounding properties, because currently, the patrons park
on-street using parking in the surrounding residential areas.
3. Describe the special conditions that apply to your lot or structure that do not apply
to surrounding lots or structures:
The surrounding properties are zoned residential and thus, have minimal off-street
parking needs.
4. Describe the hardship that would result if your variance were not granted:
If the variance were not granted, the provision of additional off-street parking for
the Mahoney's establishment and the house would continue to be non-compliant
with the Oshkosh off-street zoning requirements and would continue to wholly
inadequate. This causes traffic congestion in the surrounding residential areas.
It would also perpetuate the questionable business feasibility of operating the
restaurant and bar at that location, possibly leading to further blight in the
neighborhood, especially the two residential uses in the commercially zoned areas
that they now occupy.
SUBMIITED BY APPLICANT
6
u~~
9.5'
....L
...
W
w
IX:
...
U)
Q.
Q.
<(
Z
~
I~~I
MAHONEY'S
5TH AVENUE
fa ffi
lE!;E ll:!;E
a. (')3C;j~
::> ~~ ~~
~ ~ ~
RAMP
I 1
HOUSE
6TH AVENUE
f::J
I
40
I I
20 0
1" = 40 FEET
I
40
FRUEH CONSULTING SERVICES, LLC
ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING
P. O. Box 282, Oshkosh Wisconsin 54903
TELEPHONE (920) 235-0279
7
SUBMllTED BY APPLICANT
(W'),...-a VN tl)1.O__
'O:tLOLn CJ>v COCOtl)
cot---r-- ""co cnmea
l.OlJ')l.O Lt)1.t) LOLOLO
NNNC'\INNNNNN
0000000000
0) 0) 0) 0) 0')0') 0>0l0>0>
;:g;:g;:g;:g;:g;:g;:g;:g;g;:g
S:S:S:S:S:S:S:S:S:S:
:r:r:r:r:r:r:r:r:r:r
Nen en en en en en en en en en en
()OOOOOOOOOO
::!~~~~~~~~~~
<cenenenenenenenenenen
:a:0000000000
m m
I-W 1-1-1-
g!l-l-en>g!eneneng!
<cenenz<C<czzz<c
:ra.a.0:r:r000:r
01-a.a.C>lt;1-(!)(!)(!)1-
O"'~~~S"'~~~co
:5S:':::'::0",SOOOS
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~ g ~
M""-OMNN(Y)_____
VtS)tl)lt)CX)VlI)U)LOLO
COI"'-r--.""......CO,....,COQ)CO
Q:u;>u.>L?U;>ll?U?~u?ll{u?
tj~~~~~~~~~g
O~~~~~~~~~~
-I LO l.{) LO ~lJ') Lt) l() IJ) LO U)
g!1-1-1-1-g!1-g!g!g!
<cenenenen<cen<c<c<c
:ra.a.a.a.:ra.:r:r:r
~1-a.a.a.a.I-a.1-1-1-
O"'~~~~"'~COCOco
<CS:':::':::':::'::S:'::SSS
g~~~cg~~~:;g~
..Jo)"d"VL()LO~Lf)O)mcn
~
.~~.
~
~~
>-
W~
~O
u:l~
=>0 :r
8w ()() ()
~!;( ::l~ ::l
~t;; tJ:r tJww
zW<cw():a:w!!l!!l
oWCt:Ct:!r Ct:zz
-'!:!:'wl-<COZI-Zzw
z-,C)enw_enww
<C:.::0ll.:rCt:ll.00ij::
:a:()Ct:ll.o<ca.mm<c
ffiCt:iren~w:a:~~~:a:
001-:.::Ct:-':.::>>
~8WI-""()!!!co:r:r2
o:a:lfaf5c:i~f5gliLr:
Ct:
~r-..."""'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''I'-I'-
0000000000
~~~~~~~~~~~
ObooooooOO
0000000000
OOOT-oooooo
0000000000
Ol.O(OVCOMO>CO""",WlO
""'.......I"-(")(O(Y)('t)('I')(l')!2
Z........COcgCO................O
~ggg<ogggggco
n.~g~~gg~gg~
9
, .
Gehrke, Karin J.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brandt, Darlene P.
Friday, September 21, 2007 9: 15 AM
Gehrke, Karin J.
October Bd of Appeals
RE: Knapp St & 6th Bd of Appeals application by Dennis Schwab (Mahoney's Restaurant)
Please send a copy of the meeting notice and staff report to:
Brian Backus
958 W 6th Ave
Oshkosh, WI 54902
Darlene
Darlene Brandt
Administrative Assistant
Dept. of Community Development
City of Oshkosh
215 Church Ave., PO Box 1130
Oshkosh, VVI 54901
920.236.5055
920.236.5053 fax
http://www.cLoshkosh.wLus
10
89.51'
.0'
SUiBJ.~CT
.SITES
DISCLAIMER
This map Is neither IIll.!gally reconJed mllp DOl'
a survey And it is nollntended to be D.'led as ODl!.
Thill drawing Is 51 compilation ofrt!cords, dllta
and h,fol'mDtlon Iocuted in various dty, county
and state offices and other sources: IIITteting
the IU'ellllhown and it ill to be U!ICd for l'eference
purposes only. The City orOllhkom Is not re-
lIpomible for !liD)' Inllcau'ucies: herein contained.
U dlscrepcnclell are found, plcWIe cODtllct the
City of Oshkosh.
Created by - kjg
+-J
(])
(])
'-
+-J
C/)
c..
c..
CO
c::
~
b "'I:;t.
o
c:i
o
......
100.0'
50.0'
b
.0
N
......
5th Street
.0'
t-.
......
.0
N
......
50.0'
50.0'
50.0'
i'-
i'-
......
.0
N
......
504 & 506 Knapp St
~
N
9/14/2007
Scale: 1 "= 400'
50
i'-
......
.0
N
......
Source: City of Oshkosh GIS
11
I~..!I ..~, - fl.! Ii- I - "~~ I . if ~.
.. ... ~; B42 !1fI ,
~..;' .. !Ill ; ~;;- I"" I~-~ W:'4T~ ~'! .BJO .
Il:i~- , ,," .il III ... !:i:"-........ _
~" ,,' III" I"',jil ~
~LII: ,,"'0 "~~II. . B ,II ,.'\If''I~,';
,,- ~', ~~ \5').. ~a ~ . _ i; '. .. i 0
~ -- , n .reIIIt~ ' · . . ... 1!II1:c
~ · ,~ ; ~t. ~1> -~. i.' ~ · :: Ii fM!l Ii ; i3
::. II , ". '-"1."'r " ~"""-;I_ II' ",B :IJ-"'!.lif~ .. .. ... : IIJ .' II ==-
..,. <e;. ~'~ ~ 8.- t'~ l II a.. ~ --.:
~K AVE. . a'Q 81. ~CK AVE.
~~~~,i; ~I~ ;",;i;~ !~r! !':-:, ~~=i~'~ < . r ~
~'
5TH Ave
1025
"I~~~' - · ~~i~~il.~II~~~~irl ~iiY
6TH I '~, R -2 AVE.
.'; m ~ I. ,1",1',.,,.,1:.,,, ~:I_IL:.. ~jl,'I'IH'
!; I-Cf.)~ IlIB!lO. i!...; ,if... ~ .... ~
~ .. a ~ I~ 'k'i'..'.' l f~? .,' ~ ii';'~ 'i i Ii i..
~ '^ 7TH AVE.
1'.1:111 II I'~ ~ ~~r.I..1 ,I ~~ _ ~ :1 p.: 1:1. .I a;I.I: ~ 1:111 '. II' "I
' ';1-; !II; . 5: . If .. II II I. . en; " l1:l II ::11 "':'~~I ". ,;.:~ iI!. 'i ~ f' II
_Ill II .. II II .. ., .. .. ", ... '.I~ 1,.1. ~ ,fI~r., 'M 1.ir.I~ it
. . , ".' " "" _ . ' ~~ ',;;;'I~ -;; l~~iiI' I 'OIl "'I~~ II! ,
. i i i ;.. - ~ ; ! !.B"- "IE t;;JI' 0451: ir:lilt~11 ~"ll~i' y ~ !~
· I II '~~';I~: III '. ""'. ... .. 1"1 ,,!V' A"'" "
.. ;( ~: ' !" '" "111" .' _ ;!!::
1082: /"1.21.2 ",~ 104. 1044 1038 II , 'I . I~ II Ii II .' _ ~"
I I 1.1 9TH' AVE.
li.II.,II'I. 1041 J~IIt~ I" II'm' ,m I ,-."' 1\ i IliIljll~ ., ,:. .. ~ ,
I- II ~ l1li I " "~~:'IIII! ""l1li II 'III II B II~ r.:' II. . '111-.,...1 I
1u..~I~';'I:'I~;~~~~,~;wlJ ~:~ ~~'~~I;i~'.
w. 10TH AVE.
. .
DISCLAIMER
This lQap is neUbel' a legull~' l'Ceorded mMp oor
a survey and It is nut intended 10 he ll5~d ll.1i one.
This drllwing Is I compilation Dr records, dati
and Information located in 'Vlllious dty, county
and state offices alld Dther SOUI'Cl'S affecting
tile llrea shown and it is tu be used fur reference
purposes only. The Cjty orOshkollh Is not J'eoo
spol1lllbk fur any IDDccuracles herdn cDlltulned.
If discrepencies: are found. pleillilt tontucC the
City of Oshkollh
Created by - kjg
Scale: 1 ": 400'
~
N
9/14/2007
504 & 506 Knapp St
Source: City of Oshkosh GIS
12
DISCLAIMER
This mllp is neltber Illegally l'ccordrd mop nor
II !lun't')' IInd it is not intendl'f.l to bt! Wled M.~ ODe.
Thil; dnlwing is II C(lmllilllrinn of records, datil
and infonllutiollloCllled in "III'klu;.; dtJ.', tuun!:)'
and slllh' timet's and othel' SIJUI'Ct'S IlITretillt:
the IIrl'lI shown !lud it i~ to bl' Il.~ed fol' l'I~rl'renc:l'
pUI"(XlSI'S only. The Cir,. of O!lhkosh is nolo n'~
sptln.~ihll' ful' IIn)' inllcl'unu:il.'s b.'rein contulIlt'd.
lfdi'lcl'l'pl.'ncies U", fOUlld, pll'IlS(' conllu:l the
ell)' uf OlihkWlh.
Scale: 1 "= 60'
~
N
9/14/2007
504 & 506 Knapp Street
Created by - kjg
Source: City of Oshkosh GIS
13
Attachment to BZA Packet 10/10/07
504 & 506 Street
View looking east at 504 Knapp .Street
View from Knapp Street looking south/southeast
14
Attachment to BZA Packet 10110/07
504 & 506 Street
View of 506 Knapp Street looking west
View of subject properties looking northeast across Knapp Street
15
.,
Attachment to BZA Packet 1011 0/07
504 & 506 Kna Street
View of 504 Knapp Street looking south across
View of subject. properties looking east across Knapp Street
16
II. 504 & 506 KNAPP STREET
Dennis E. Schwab-applicant, 504 Knapp Street LLC & 506 Knapp StreetLLC owners, request the following
variances to permit the creation of a new off-street parking area:
Required (SeCtion 30-25 (B)(2))
Proposed
I) 25' front yard setback (west)
II) 25' front yard setback (north)
11 ' 6" front yard setback (parking)
12' front yard setback (parking)
Required (30-35 (B)(l)(c)
III) 19'2" transitional yard setback (east)
Proposed
11 '6" transitional yard setback (parking)
Mr. Muehrer presented the item.
Mr. William Frueh, 1310 Fairveiw St. and Mr. Dennis Schwab, 601 Oregon St., petitioner were present. Mr.
Frueh explained that he had met with city staff to work on the original parking lot plan and they
recommended increasing the setback to meet city codes and plan "B" is the end result.
Mr. Muehrer then explained that the map included with the staff report (plan "A") was not the correct one.
Copies of the altered layout (re~erred to as plan "B") were distributed. Mr. Muehrer clarified that the
proposed setbacks in the staff report were reflective of plan "B" but that the incorrect map was in the board
member packets
After copies of plan "B" were distributed, Mr. Frueh went on to share copies of another plan, "c" which he
wanted the board to consider. He said this altered layout would result in six (6) additional parking stalls.
The investment in the parking lot is around $150,000 and will result in each parking stall costing around
$4,000. He felt it was important that they make the greatest use of the parking lot possible. The setbacks
were very near to those in the original layout and he asked the board to consider approving plan "C." Mr.
Frueh gave a brief history of how the current setbacks came about and then went on to say the amount of
traffic on 5th Street is far less (probably 200-300 cars a day) than that of Murdock Ave. at Jackson St., which
is around 12,000 -13,000 cars a day. Therefore, the shorter setbacks of 11 '6" and 12' would not create a
traffic problem.
Ms. Hentz asked if neighbors were aware of plan "B" as it was not initially included in the staff report.
Mr. Muehrer said no.
Ms. Hentz then said this would mean the neighbors were not aware of plan "c" either.
Mr. Muehrer said that was correct but added that plan "c" is very close to the original layout that the
neighbors received.
Board of Appeals Minutes
2
October 10, 2007
Mr. Frueh said the difference is that plan "c" has a setback is9-1/2' .instead of 11-1/2'. If the original
layout was okay with the neighbors then plan "C" would be as well. .
Mr. Muehrer then shared that as much as Mr. Fruel1 presents a compelling argument for plan "C," the
applicant would need to go through the Plan ComITI:issibn if he wanted approval for it. Comer clearance less
than 40' would require a variance ofthe access control ordinance, which is overseen by the Plan
Commission. This was the reason staff met with the applicant and developed plan "B" which meets the 40'
comer clearance requirement.
Ms. Hentz asked staff if there was anything in their application that the Board of Appeals could address if
they wanted to pursue plan "C."
Mr. Muehrer said the Board of Appeals could only address the setbacks on the west, east and north property
lines.
Ms. Hentz referred to "Players" restaurant and their requirement to put in drainage for theiFcparking lot. She
questioned if this was the case with the current request.
Mr. Muehrer said any time a permit is requested for a situation like this Public Works has to sign off on it for
storm water, Zoning has to sign off and Inspections has to sign off from a building standpoint. Once all three
departments have signed off the permit can be issued.
Ms. Hentz then clarified that storm water drainage will need to be built into the plan.
Mr. Muehrer said that was correct.
Mr. Penney asked how the item got to the Board of Appeals given the fact that they have access control
issues that the Board of Appeals cannot address.
Mr. Muehrer explained that plan "B" eliminated the issue because it has a 40' comer clearance that meets the
access control ordinance. Mr. Muehrer was not aware of the request for plan "c" until Mr. Fruehpresented
it.
Ms. Hentz asked if Mr. Schwab could clarify what setbacks he is requesting with layout "C" so that it can be
documented on the board members' copies to give them a better understand~ng of what the board members
could make a decision about.
Mr. Frueh then apologized for bringing the third plan forward as he did not realize the Board of Appeals
could not address the access changes. He said they could disregard it.
Ms. Hentz then asked if they would need to change the setbacks on the staff report to coincide with plan "B."
Mr. Muehrer said no. The setbacks on the staff report already are reflective of plan "B."
Mr. Penney then asked about the handicapped-parking stall located next to the Knapp 5t entrance on the
original layout.
Board of Appeals Minutes
3
October 10, 2007
Mr. Frueh said that space would not be there. There would only be two handicapped-parking spaces directly
behind the building.
Mr. Penney questioned why they are reducing the number of handicapped- parking spaces to two. As a
disabled person himself he was not in favor of having fewer handicapped spots.
Mr. Muehrer commented that the State statute requires a minimum of two spots for the size of the lot. He
also said the size of the third space that was being eliminated was not code compliant.
Mr. Penney then referred to the staff report, page 2, paragraph 2 and questioned whether the comments by
neighbors that were passed on from the petitioner wouldn't be considered "here-say" and therefore not able
to be considered. Mr. Penney went on to say that previous "here-say" comments were rejected. He asked if
they had received any comments in writing.
Mr. Frueh said no they did not.
Ms. Hentz e,ommented that ifthe neighbors were opposed to the project they probably would have come to
the meeting.
Mr. Muehrer confirmed that the neighbors in question did receive the meeting notice making them aware of
the request.
Mr. Nielsen questioned if the chain link fence would still be required.
Mr. Muehrer said the landscaping they have proposed meets the guidelines and the fence will be taken down.
Mr. Cornell, referring to the photos on page 15, asked if the telephone pole was an issue.
Mr. Schwab said the telephone pole was on the boulevard.
Mr. Muehrer said there is a light pole on the restaurant property.
Mr. Schwab said the light pole was going to be replaced.
Mr. Carpenter said he liked the fact that cars would be removed from street parking. He also thought the
single curb cut entrance on 5th Street was a good idea.
Ms. Hentz asked Mr. Schwab if he was okay with both of the conditions.
Mr. Schwab said yes, he had already turned in the paperwork to have the lots combined (condition #1). He
went on to say the neighbors informed him they were not happy with the current tenant situation at these
properties and were happy the buildings would be removed.
Mr.Frueh commented that he felt the City of Oshkosh was lucky to have a developer such as Mr. Schwab
who is willing to work through the requirements the City lays out in order to get a project done.
Mr. Schwab said he had two previous tenants in the restaurant but both failed and the current tenant owned
"Callahan's" and has been in the Knapp St. restaurant since spring. The renter told Mr. Schwab it had been
Board of Appeals Minutes
4
October 10, 2007
difficult because of the parking problems and the reluctance of people to walk a distance to get to the
restaurant, especially older clientele.
Mr. Cornell asked staff about the issues of curbs, islands and green space with parking lots, and questioned
what the difference was with this parking lot versus one where a curb or island is required.
Mr. Muehrer said the goal of the proposed new ordinance language was to break up large impervious areas
of cement in parking lots (e.g. Shopko, Copps) not only for aesthetic purposes but for functionality as well.
He explained that for every twenty stalls in a row there would need to be a green space island. It was to be
applicable whether the parking lot was in a commercial or residential district.
Mr. Cornell then asked if the lesser number of stalls was the reason the new guidelines would not apply.
Mr. Muehrer said that was correct.
Motion by Mr. Wilusz to approve the item as requested.
Seconded by Penney.
Motion carried 5-0. Ayes- Penney/Wilusz/Carpenter/Cornell/Hentz Nays-None.
Finding of Facts:
The parking lot will be an improvement to the neighborhood.
The safety issues involved with street parking are addressed.
The restaurant located where it is presents a unique situation.
The aesthetics of the area will be improved.
Steven & ell Thoma-applicants/owners, request a variance to limit the amount of solid ncing required
to enclose an 0 storage area. Section 30-30 (B)(7) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code' eneral Industrial
District requires ope torage areas to be enclosed by solid fencing not less than 6" height.
Mr. Steven Thoma, 1219 Alg a Blvd. Oshkosh and Darrell Thoma, 525
applicants were present to answer stions.
plicants could clarify a word missing from
Ms. Hentz referred to page 7 of the staff rep'
their application in the second paragraph.
Mr. Steven Thoma shared with the board the site was previo contaminated and the applicants have
been working to get it cleaned up. H ent on to say that they are WI' to slat the fence area to a height of
8' to address concerns by the nei ors regarding the visual appearance 0 e property. He said they had
agreed to do the landscaping the paving of the access entrance. He voice ncerns that he could lose
the current tenant if more ,c'an that was required to be slatted. The slatting of 3
the view of the stora ea by the neighbors.
what sections would be slatted.
Board of Appeals Minutes
5
October 10,2007