Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (10/1/1986)Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 1, 1986 Page Seven V. 1805 JACKSON STREET - Michael Twohig r. Laraine explained that Mr. Twohig is requesting a variance to provide parking with a 2 1/2 ft. front yardsetback, a sign with a 3 ft. front yard setback, and 20 off-street parking spaces. The C-2 Commercial District and the Off-Street Parking Regulations require a 25 ft. minimum front ,yard setback, and that a minimum of 28 parking spaces be provided. Mr. Larson, representative for Mr. Twohig, stated that unlike the other site, Jackson and Murdock is a complete turn around. We have a corner lot problem with corner lot front yard setbacks. This site is smaller than Kentucky Fried Chicken might like to have us have in this location. This location is anticipated to be primarily drive thru, as other Kentucky Fried Chicken's are. Mr. Twohig stated that 60% of the business is drive thru as compared to the location on Hwy. 41, where 80% of the business is sit-in. That is an interior seating type __ location. Mr. Twohig stated that the 60 ft. drive thru provides the best circulation with the existing curb cuts. This is the best number of parking stalls. The curb cuts will enhance the traffic flaw in and around the building. The signage location in this particular site is best on the corner. That is also in keeping with what has been previously approved and it is the best visible location for the signage. Part of the sign is a reader board which is 8 ft. out of the problem area, in order to see underneath the sign. The landscaping will consist of low shrubs on the corner. Mr. McGee stated that this property will have much more traffic going through. Did they plan to put up the same size .structure as the other site? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have a smaller structure? Mr. Twohig explained that this location will require more kitchen space. Mr. McGee stated that primarily they would need a larger kitchen. Were they expecting 40% more volume? He thought that they could justify a smaller structure here. With a smaller structure they would not need as many parking spaces. Mr. Twohig replied that this is a standard Kentucky Fried Chicken building, Mr. Larson replied that it will have 74 seats. He thought that in figuring the area that there has been some concern. He questioned if they would consider the area of the kitchen space or only the dining space? Mr. Lamine replied that they consider the entire area. In reference to the request for this site which had been reviewed in 1983, they figured the seating area of the restaurant and they needed a variance for one or two of the parking spaces. Mr. McGee asked what they would need only for the seating area? Mr. Lamine replied 22 spaces. He added that the sign was located in the front of the building rather than on the corner. Mr. Kimberly asked if the square footage of the building is the same? Mr. Larson replied that this model quite possibly has just a bit more area in the dining room. Discussion ensued on the Lexington design which Mr. Twohig has hgsen,for this site. This is a higher class structure than most of the Kentucky ~ried thicken structures. . Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 1, 1986 Page Eight Ms. Hintz asked if that had changed from the last time? Mr. Twohig replied yes. Mr. Larson stated that they would not like to see it with the sign in front. He asked the Board to note the cupola with the Kentucky Fried Chicken sign on it. He explained that the sign with the logo is standard placement on the top of the building. He has no control over this. They understand that the request is to limit signage, but that piece comes with the building. Mr. Lamine stated that the intention of that recommendation is because they did not want to see the building looking like a sign. That sign is very minor as compared to the whole building looking like a sign. Mr. Larson stated that the last time they came before the Board there was signage on the mansard, three sides and 20 ft. in length. The bucket is on top of the sign and this is a requirement of Kentucky Fried Chicken. The total area of the signage does comply. Mr. McGee stated that he had a concern with the property. He felt that they were trying to do too much. He could see too why Kentucky Fried Chicken was concerned with the size of the lot. It is a little more than half as big, 51% of the size of the property we looked at on 9th Avenue. If it were larger, we wouldn't need to be talking about parking and signage into the setback. It is my thinking that you just are trying to do too much and this is not the appropriate location for the structure if you don't have any more space. Mr. Twohig stated that they have arranged with the Knights of Columbus to lease parking stalls in their lot; Kentucky Fried Chicken is aware of this. They are very hot on this location. Ms. Hintz wondered what might otherwise happen to that lot? What might they foresee if not a Kentucky Fried Chicken? Mr. McGee replied that it is not the Board's job to foresee what might happen. Mr. Twohig stated that he had come before the Board two and one-half years ago; and he did pay quite a bit for this property. It would be a disaster if they had to go some place else. Ms. Hintz stated that if it is not a Kentucky Fried Chicken, it will be someone else. With the size of the lot, it would be hard to put anything on it without a variance. The Board has to consider the possibilities and the size of the property. There are some concerns about the request because it is a corner lot and with the sign variance. She further commented about the sign locations of the gas stations at this intersection. Mr. McGee rep lied that with gas stations they always have a problem. Ms. Hintz stated that the City had taken property to round those corners. They were not automatic. These are awfully open, big, wide lots. The County Fairgrounds was there; we did not have to grant the sign there. They also want to take into account that this is the nature of a crossroads. She did not want to stop all development from that lot. Mr. Lamine stated if it can't be developed, can it be developed into anything with- out a variance. One of the issues the courts has established on whether a variance should be granted is if it can't be used for anything. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 1, 198b Page Nine Mr. Ames stated that the lot size might qualify for a fruit stand. Ms. Hintz stated that they will always run into a parking problem. Even Burger King has less drive in than Kentucky Fried Chicken. You always have a number of parking stalls for any business. There is no problem here because of their expecting 60~ drive-in business. Mr. Ames stated that there is no on street parking in that area. Ms. Hintz stated that to make them adhere to 28 spaces when 60% of the business will be drive in seems like an unnecessary requirement. Kentucky Fried Chicken is better than any other restaurant. If they are thinking about any other possible development of the lot, it would be better to give the variance to Kentucky Fried Chicken. Mr. McGee stated that they can only provide 10 spaces. If they could provide 20 spaces he might consider this a somewhat more reasonable appeal. In referencing parking in the setback, Ms. Hintz stated that there is parking in the setbacks at almost every business all over the place. A few years ago some- one in the Planning Department wanted to check into the violations of the people parking into the setback throughout the City. After 20 years what they were talking about is in all commercial areas.. Should they start applying it here if it is feasible? Appealing this was never brought up. She thought that three-quarters of the businesses in town would be in violation. Mr. Lamine urged the Board to take into account that the basis of this decision is whether a hardship exists. If the enforcement of the Ordinance was arbitrary, that would be an argument if at one point it was not enforced. It has to be consistently enforced. These are valid reasons fora hardship--whether it can be developed in any other way. In 1983 part of the property was purchased by the City to improve that intersection; therefore the lot size was reduced. He stated_ that he had failed to bring that up in the staff report. He thought he had a hardship. In the other direction you have to take into consideration the negative impact on the neighborhood. It's pretty hard to deny it when McDonalds has parking up to the property line. Wendy's has parking up to the lot line on the side yard. The gas stations have a 0 ft. setback or a few feet. Ms. Hintz stated that Piggly Wiggly has parking up to the lot line. Mr. Lamine replied that they could be legal non-conforming. Ms. Hintz stated that he was there to compromise on a sign. Mr. Larson stated that they have posts to keep the required setback on Murdock and they have landscaping instead of providing additional parking. Kentucky Fried Chicken is satisfied with what is there and would like to have landscaping on the front side. They could have pushed the building further to the east out on the Jackson Drive setback. They feel that this is more important than to have a few more feet of parking on Jackson, from a traffic standpoint. That is the second lane that he is talking about, Discussion ensued on this matter. Mr. Larson stated that the land taken by the City, maybe three to four feet, was not very much. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 1, 1986 Page Ten Gary Elmer, Elmers Realty and Willard Eichstadt, 940 Florida Avenue, were present to address the item. Mr. Eichstadt stated that he had owned this property for 35 years. He confirmed that the City had taken 7 ft. from the property. That is a high volume traffic corner with a lot of snow. He stated that they put a lot of snow on that corner and it blocks that drive and the view off. They also had a problem with snow removal. The City was always complaining that they should not park cars on the corner because they were blocking the view from the west. He just wanted to warn him that this is a high volume corner, and with the snow in the winter and parking up to the sidewalk on the east and south, they will have some visibility blockage. Mr. McGee questicned where they could store the snow? Mr. Eichstadt stated that Zillges would be hauling the snow away. Mr. Eichstadt stated that there was one time in 35 years that they took the snow from the corner. Mr. Larson asked if they pushed it out to the corner. Mr. Eichstadt replied no. tow they have a sidewalk and it goesright on top of the sidewalk. Mr. Elmer stated that he was anxious to see them come out tt~re.and that some of their concerns had been answered. Their main concern is the parking. They have sufficient parking for their unit, but they would not have it due to the size volume if it overran into their parking lot. He asked if they had arranged for any other parking. Mr. Twohig replied no. Ms. Hintz asked how many seats there would be. Mr. Twohig replied 74. Mr. Elmer replied that they only have 54 and they presently fill it. Mr. Twohig replied that they are making some headway with the Knights of Columbus in terms of acquiring property for additional parking. They do have a commitment for employee parking in the back of the lot. Ms. Hintz stated that if they need entrance and exit signs, wouldn't they need a variance? Mr. Lamine replied no. They had originally asked for a 5 ft. variance, however, they have reduced them down to 3 ft. and they can be located up to the property line. Ms. Hintz stated that the building is entirely within the setback area. The only infringement is for the parking spaces and the sign. There are three others that have signs in the same place. Discussion ensued on the signage in the area, and particularly at the Jackson and Murdock intersection. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 1, 1986 Page Eleven Mr. Twohig replied that his sign would be 8 ft. high. The only thing below would be the two posts. People can see at 4 ft. off the ground from their cars. Mr. Lamine stated that he thought that it was a valid concern for a corner lot. He asked how big the pilings were. If they are one foot there would be no problem with having the sign moved to the front of the building. He has indicated his objections to the front of the building. He was in favor of this location for the sign. Ms. Hintz asked why they would mind having the identification on the building since it is very visible from all approaches? Mr. Twohig replied that Kentucky Fried Chicken only has four buildings at this time and they have to stick with the design. Mr. Lamine replied that this was his preference over the old building where the _ old building was the sign. Aesthetically it is more pleasing to have a nice building and a sign away from the building. Mr. Twohig stated that the sign on the corner would give them much more exposure. Mr. Larson stated that he did not have the specifications for the pylons, but that they would probably be 6, 8, or 10 ft. Mr. Lamine stated that 8 ft. from the bottom of the sign would provide a desired amount of height. Ms. Hintz stated that this is no different than the others on this service corner. However, there is some control on those corners. Mr. Kimberly asked if a variance is required for those two signs? Ms. Hintz replied yes. After all all kinds of other things have gone up on those corners. This may be simple with the two posts; it will be seen by both the east/west and north/south traffic. Mr. Elmer asked if the Code requirement is from the bottom of the sign to the ground? Mr. Lamine replied that there is no Code addressing that, just the 25 ft. setback. Mr. Elmer asked if that had been changed. Mr. McGee stated that they were addressing the height and square footage of the sign. They are taking so much sign and moving it high or low if they want. Ms. Hintz stated that it is not likely that it could be a gas station with two service stations on the other corners. She thought that any of the other structures would have only ten legal parking spaces. Mr. McGee replied with that size structure and drfi~ve through space? Ms. Hintz stated that she was considering the drive space and the setbacks. Mr. McGee stated that there are two properties to the west which are smaller, and one has parking in the side yard setback. It is not clear to him that this property could not be developed. It cannot be developed as a restaurant without any variances. There are many types of businesses that grace our city. To state that we are preventing any development is a very strong statement. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes October 1, 1986 Page Twelve Mr. Kimberly moved approval of a 2 1/2 ft. front yard setback and 20 off-street parking spaces. Motion seconded by Ms. Hintz. Motion carried 4-1. Mr. Kimberly moved approval of a 3 ft, front yard setback fora sign. Motion seconded by Ms. Hintz. Motion denied 2-3. With regard to findings of fact for the setback and the parking variances, Mr. Kimberly stated that he is improving a very run-down piece of property. They are utilizing this property as efficiently as possib le. Ms. Hintz stated that most businesses would need a variance for parking. In any case a majority of the parking is in the setback area. No special privileges are being granted. With regard to the negative, Mr. McGee stated that he did not see a hardship. This is a small piece of property which is being over developed. This over developed site is created by the appellant. There is a request for variances that would not be necessary fora smaller development which would be more appro- priate. Therefore, the development could be done without any variances. Ms. Hintz stated that this same privilege was granted to the three other businesses at this four corner crossway. It would be difficult to deny this privilege which has been extended to three other businesses. The sign they are requesting is 8 ft. high and will not interfere with any traffic flow. There is a problem with getting a franchise to alter designs which are affected by the Zoning Ordinance. This same request was granted to the three other property owners at this four corner crossway. Mr. Kimberly stated that they did not prove a hardship for the sign. There is space on the south side for a ground ID sign. Mr. Ames stated that the snow removed added to the problem on the corner with visibility. VI. 2220 VINLAND STREET - Richard Fink N1r. Laraine explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a single family home on a 5940 sq. ft. lot which is 45 ft. in width. The R-16 Single Family Residence District requires a minimum lot size of 7,200 sq. ft. and a minimum lot width of 60 ft. All other setback requirements are being met. This property is owned by the City of Oshkosh and was approved for disposition by the Plan Commission at its meeting on April 28, 1986. Sid Herschberg, Heritage Realty, representative for Mr. Fink, stated that Mr. Fink is going to buy this lot. It is the end lot on the block which does not meet the requirements of 7,200 sq. ft. He asked the Board to take a look at the map which shows Vinland and Walnut Streets, and Alden Avenue. There is a possibility that the lots were s61d going from the south part of the block north. Some of the lots are of similar size or they show more than the platted size. This piece of property is 45 ft. x 135 ft, rather than 60 ft, x 135 ft. They are asking for a variance to build a house facing Smith and they will be adhering to all of the setbacks. Mr. McGee asked Mr. Herschberg if he knew when this was platted? Mr. Laraine replied prior to the Ordinance. He didn't remember what year. Mr. Herschberg stated that there is a house on the corner property at Smith and Walnut. It may be that that l.ot was divided up and is the difference as they went from south to north. This is an odd piece left over.