Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES March 10, 2010 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Jane Cryan, Dennis Penney, Ed Wilusz EXCUSED: Mark Nielson, Cheryl Hentz STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator; Deborah Foland, 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 February 10, 2010 were approved with the following correction: Mr. Carpenter requested that the following verbiage be added to paragraph 14, page 2. A neighborhood meeting was held at Jacob Shapiro School. The principal was present and left early. Penney /Carpenter 5 -0. ITEM L• 760 W. 6 TH AVENUE Chet Wesenberg Architect LLC- applicant, David L. Lyons- owner, request variances to permit a commercial tavern development to establish a 15' front yard (south) setback and a 10' transitional yard (east) setback. Additionally, variances are requested to not install 6 inch high curbing around the proposed off - street parking area and to reduce the minimum number of required off - street parking stalls to 11. Section 30 -24 (B)(3)(c) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: C -1 Neighborhood Business District requires a 20' front yard setback, Section 30 -35 (B)(1)(c): Additional Standards and Exceptions requires a 19'2" transitional yard (east) setback, Section 30- 36(E)(4): Off - Street Parking Facilities requires 6 inch high curbing around all off - street parking areas, and Section 30- 36(F)(2): Off - Street Parking Facilities requires 14 off - street parking stalls. Mr. Muehrer distributed photos of the subject site and reviewed the staff report on the item. He explained that the subject property previously featured a mixed use (i.e. commercial tavern on the lower level with two family dwelling on the upper level) structure with associated site improvements. However the principal structure was severely damaged by fire and subsequently razed in April 2009. The owner is currently proposing to construct a new wood -framed 1,455 s.f commercial tavern with associated site improvements. Chet Wesenberg, 3265 Casey Trail, petitioner for the request, stated that he was supportive of the staff recommendation and that the request was generated due to the previous structure being destroyed due to fire. He further stated that the owner had operated the tavern on site for the past 14 years and had developed a new plan to reconstruct the site with a significantly reduced scale of the building and eliminating the two apartments that previously existed above the business use on the lower level. He was also proposing to maximize the parking on the site creating 11 stalls in place of the 5 stalls that previously existed and increasing the setbacks with the addition of landscaping elements. He was proposing to reuse the existing fence which would be reinforced with hedges to offer more acoustical privacy. He commented that the proposed plan would reduce the impact of the site on the residential uses in the surrounding area. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the tavern would be serving food as well. Mr. Wesenberg responded that it would be a tavern use only with no food sales. Mr. Wilusz questioned the necessity to request a variance to not install the 6 inch high curbing around the off - street parking area. Board of Appeals Minutes 1 March 10, 2010 Mr. Wesenberg replied that the main reason was the grading on the site. Current code requires that all stormwater runoff must be collected and conveyed from the site and the curbing would impede this process. Erich Wenzel, 751 W. 5th Avenue, read a letter composed by Scott and Lisa Schettle, 802 W. 6 th Avenue, voicing their concerns with the lack of parking in the area, particularly on W. 6 th Avenue. They felt that parking on Idaho Street was also congested and that the new business would create more problems with parking issues on the street. They felt it was a safety issue and wanted on- street parking restricted in the area surrounding the proposed tavern. Mr. Wenzel questioned what the occupancy rating was for the tavern. Mr. Wesenberg stated that those figures had not yet been calculated. Mr. Wenzel also voiced his concerns with what he felt was harm to the public interest and listed the various taverns that existed in the neighborhood and stated that he did not feel another tavern was desirable at this location. He felt that re- establishing this use on the site was exposing children to bad influences such as drinking and smoking as there is a park located across the street from the proposed site. Mr. Cornell stated that moral issues cannot be considered when reviewing a variance request and that only issues relating to items such as setbacks or other matters relative to the variance request can be taken into consideration. Mr. Wenzel stated that he was concerned with patrons of the tavern being closer to their property and was also concerned with the existing elevations of the site being modified. He further stated that excessive stormwater runoff flows towards his property and without the required curbing; he is anticipating the situation to be intensified. He also commented about a boat trailer previously being left in the parking lot which patrons were tying their animals to while in the tavern. He is not in favor of the variances being granted. Jeanne Kairis, 748 W. 6 th Avenue, stated that she has lived in her home for the past 35 years and has not experienced problems with the tavern establishment in the past which has always been a nice quiet neighborhood bar. She further stated that they had a fence on their property and was concerned that the tavern would be utilizing their fence and also had concerns with the grading and drainage of the parking lot as flooding issues have occurred in the neighborhood in the past. Mr. Cornell inquired if her home was directly east of the subject site. Ms. Kairis responded affirmatively. She also commented that she and her husband had concerns with the reduced setback from their property for the trash enclosure as they have a pool and patio in the backyard and the dumpster could create issues with bugs and odors on their property. James Kairis, 748 W. 6 th Avenue, added that he would like to see the trash enclosure relocated to the northeast corner of the property as it would be farther away from their backyard. Mr. Carpenter questioned if drainage plans had been reviewed for the site. Mr. Muehrer responded that if the variance requests were approved, the proposal will go through the site plan review process which involves various departments within the City, including the Department of Public Works, who would be required to review and approve the grading and drainage plans to ensure that they meet local and state regulations. He further stated that a catch basin would be required in the parking lot to collect and convey stormwater runoff to the storm sewer. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 March 10, 2010 Mr. Kairis inquired how close the hedge would be to his fence. Mr. Muehrer replied that a detailed landscaping plan has not yet been submitted, but the location of the hedges would be dictated by the type of species proposed. Mr. Cornell asked if the off - street parking was being increased or decreased from what previously existed on the site. Mr. Muehrer responded that it was being increased as there were only 5 stalls previously and this proposed plan would increase the number of stalls to 11. Mr. Penney commented that the property owner should have the ability to re- establish the use on the site and suggested that moving the trash enclosure to a different area should be considered. Mr. Muehrer stated that the alternatives for the trash enclosure would be to leave it in the location as proposed, to relocate it which would further reduce the number of parking stalls and encroach into the rear yard setback, or have the owner handle all refuse internally which would eliminate the need for the dumpster on the site altogether. Board members discussed various scenarios for the relocation of the trash enclosure, how often the trash would be picked up, possibly reducing the size of the enclosure, and altering the layout of the parking lot to accommodate the enclosure in a different area. It was determined that the relocation of the dumpster or altering the parking lot would more or less be trading one variance for another. Mr. Wesenberg stated that the proposed dumpster was 12 feet by 12 feet and could be reduced to 12 feet by 6 feet which would allow the trash enclosure to be moved by four to six feet to the north without reducing the number of parking stalls or altering the layout of the parking lot. It would also require the trash to be picked up more frequently which would reduce the concerns of bugs and odors. He further stated that they were not proposing to do anything to the existing fence mentioned earlier and that they would only be adding a hedge along the fencing. Mr. Wenzel commented that moving the trash enclosure further north would be moving it closer to his property. Mr. Kairis reiterated that their main concern was bugs and odors from the dumpster by their deck and pool area. Mr. Carpenter inquired about the setbacks of the former site prior to the fire. Mr. Muehrer responded that the former tavern use was a nonconforming building and parking lot which required patrons to exit the site in a backward motion. The proposed plan would move the structure out of the vision triangle, would improve the grading and drainage on the site, and would improve the parking area as patrons would be entering and exiting the site in a forward motion. It would be substantially improved from what formerly existed on the site. Board members had further discussion on the trash enclosure and setbacks for the site. It was determined that reducing the size of the enclosure would allow it to be moved four feet thus increasing the transitional yard (east) setback from 10 feet to 14 feet. Traffic issues were also discussed and it was determined that the Traffic Review Board would handle any issues regarding this matter. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 March 10, 2010 Motion by Penney to alter the variance request to establish a 10' transitional yard (east) setback to a 14' transitional yard (east) setback. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5 -0. Motion by Penney to approve the request for a variance to permit a commercial tavern development to establish a I5' front yard (south) setback, a 14' transitional yard (east) setback, to not install 6 inch high curbing around the proposed off - street parking area, and to reduce the minimum number of off - street parking stalls to IL Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5 -0. Finding of Facts: Least variance necessary No harm to public interest Improved parking lot area DISCUSSION OF BOA PROCEDURES Mr. Carpenter stated that he was wondering if the variance granted to the City to construct a chain link fence surrounding Quarry Park could be brought back to the Board for reconsideration as he had concerns with the safety of the children at Jacob Shapiro School. He felt that an additional crossing guard should be posted on the corner of W. 17 Avenue and Knapp Street for the 18 month period the fence would be on site. He went into details of his conversation with the school's principal, who apparently did not attend the meeting with the Department of Public Works regarding this issue. The meeting notice process was discussed and it was determined that the school's administration was properly notified of the meeting to consider the variance request; however they failed to forward it to the appropriate schools in the area. He also discussed the matter with various departments of the City; however there is no money budgeted to cover the additional costs of another crossing guard at this intersection. The Department of Public Works did agree to move the fence as far from the sidewalk as possible and contacted the principals of both area schools regarding the matter. The City Attorney informed him that to bring the item back to the Board for reconsideration would require a lawsuit being brought forward first. Mr. Cornell stated that he wished to clarify the proper procedure involving contact with an applicant for a variance prior to the meeting. If an applicant calls any Board member or if contact is made during a site visit prior to the meeting, the item cannot be discussed and it is the Board member's responsibility to inform the applicant of that fact. This should be disclosed at the meeting, but only if contact is made. If the applicant just leaves a message to contact him and the call is not returned, it is not necessary to disclose this at the meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m. (Carpenter/Wilusz). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 4 March 10, 2010