Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Board of Appeals Minutes 1 November 14, 2007 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 2007 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Mark Nielsen, Cheryl Hentz EXCUSED: Moss Ruedinger, Edward Wilusz STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Karin Gehrke, Recording Secretary Chairperson Hentz called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of October 10, 2007 were approved as submitted. I. 556 W. 5TH AVENUE Carl Sosnoski-applicant, Dean T. Sosnoski et al.-owners, request the following variances to permit the creation of a new off-street parking area: Required (Section 30-26 (B)(3)) Proposed I) 25’ front yard setback (north) 0’ front yard setback (parking) II) 25’ front yard setback (south) 0’ front yard setback (parking) Required (30-35 (B)(1)(c)) Proposed III) 19’2” trans. yard east setback (north ½ of lot) 6’trans. yard east setback (parking) IV) 19’2” trans. yard west setback (north ½ of lot) 0’ trans.yard west setback (parking) V) 19’2” trans. yard east setback (south ½ of lot) 4’ trans.yard east setback (parking) Required (30-35 (I)(2)) Proposed VI) Solid fence, wall or hedge min. 5’ high Existing fences not on subject property & new landscaping/shrubs Mr. Muehrer presented the item. Mr. Carl Sosnoski, 2475 Knapp St. Rd., Oshkosh, petitioner and Charles D. Koehler, Herrling Clark Law Office, 800 N. Lynndale Ave., Appleton, attorney for the petitioner were present to provide further information and answer any questions. Atty. Koehler, legal representative for the petitioner began by stating that the owner/petitioner still contends that the previous work done on the parking lot is not new construction as it was only the top surface layer that was removed and resurfaced. No new parking stalls were created. The number of stalls is actually reduced to meet code. He went on to say that as of result of the mediation hearing the petitioner is willing to be compliant with City’s requirement to install drainage basins as that seemed seemed to be the central issue. If Mr. Sosnoski were to win his lawsuit he would not be required to put in any of the new zoning requirements. After several hours of negotiations Mr. Sosnoski agreed to put in the drainage basins. The petitioner does however request that the 6’ and 4’ transitional yard setbacks on the north and south ends of the parking lot as requested be approved. Atty. Koehler also said the petitioner is asking that the entrance not be reduced to Board of Appeals Minutes 2 November 14, 2007 24’ but remain the current 25’. Delivery trucks driving in can use the extra room to prevent possibly driving over a curb. The additional 1’ on the north would provide additional safety for cars turning out. Atty. Koehler then went on to say that after mediation all parties met for a workshop and the City had suggested that perhaps concrete bumpers on the north and south ends of the parking lot could be installed in lieu of the green-space and plantings. Carl indicates the current parking stalls are 9’ wide. The architect said he did not make the drawings based on actual physical on site measurements but from the data provided on the City computer system. The architect said there could be field variations from the information provided by the City. Atty. Koehler went on to share that the plan proposed in the application is the one they were hoping would be approved without any modification. They feel that for what they are willing to do they are not asking for a lot. They are putting in the complete drainage system, moving the handicapped parking stalls, widening the green-space area on the north and south by 6’ and 4’ respectively rather then the wider green-space as the city is asking for. They are asking for the additional 1’ on the green space. They do not feel it will make a big difference to the neighbors on 4th Street or on 5th Street. Atty. Koehler. then went on to explain that there is a guardrail and walkway along the building by the entrance that acts as a safety buffer for customers. The measurement from the fence to the building is not 29-1/2’. Once the space for the sidewalk that runs along the building is considered and the 4’ for greenspace is subtracted the space is reduced to 24’. Board member Nielsen arrived at this point and Ms. Hentz asked Atty. Koehler if he would clarify for Mr. Nielsen which item he is addressing in reference to the list on page 3 of the staff report. Atty. Koehler said he is discussing item #3 (eastern transitional yard setback). He went on to say they are pleading with the board to leave the transitional yard setback on the east to 6’ on the north end of the lot and 4’ on the south end of the lot. They feel the added safety provided is more important then the loss of 1’ of green-space. Atty. Koehler then asked Mr. Sosnoski to explain the measurements he took in regard to the parking stalls on the north and south ends of the parking lot. Mr. Sosnoski said the measurements on the drawing are incorrect. The first parking space on the north and south ends of the lot are not right next to the sidewalk. They start 3’ to 3-1/2’ in from the sidewalk. This allows for people to open their car doors. He went on to say this is why the concrete curb could be installed as a barrier for pedestrians. The curb would also act as a channel to direct water runoff to the catch basins. Mr. Sosnoski said the number of parking stalls has already been reduced. The handicapped stalls that were located next to the railing by the back entrance were moved in order to meet the current code. Atty. Koehler mentioned again that the 25’ entrance is better for trucks entering the parking lot. The additional foot would make it easier for trucks to get in and out. This was the recommendation of the architect. Mr. Sosnoski added that he would be losing 8 parking stalls when Ohio Street is redone. Atty. Koehler summarized that the previous proposal was similar other than the drainage basin and sloping. He also said Mr. Sosnoski felt that foregoing the green-space in exchange for the drainage basins was a reasonable compromise. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 November 14, 2007 Mr. Cornell asked where the handicapped spaces were now located. Atty. Koehler located them on the map. One is in the northeast corner of the building and the other one is on the north, closer to Ohio St. Mr. Carpenter commented that they had reviewed other parking lots that had angle parking. He owns a van and knows the difficulty involved in pulling out of a parking stalls and questioned if Mr. Sosnoski had considered angle parking instead. Mr. Sosnoski said they would lose even more stalls with angle parking according to his architect. He then referred to the measurements of the parking lot again. He said there is 28’3” from the building to the fence on the south end of the lot. If he were required to have a 9-1/2’ setback he would lose the 10 spaces directly across from the building even with a 24’ entrance. Atty. Koehler then commented that repair of the fence in the future would be the owners’ responsibility as it is on private property. There is already green space and shrubs planned for that area and therefore he would like the fence recommendation to be eliminated. He commented that there has never been an issue with the neighbors. Mr. Sosnoski said he once owned the house on the northeast corner and considered removing the house to make a parking lot but he would have only had 3 stalls there because of it being a new parking lot and falling under the current zoning laws. He sold it to the current owner about 1-1/2 years ago. He talked with the northeast neighbor who owns the fence and it was recently installed. He said the neighbor had dropped off a letter indicating he was agreeable to the plan Mr. Sosnoski was proposing. He mentioned that he did not bring the letter with him. At this time Ms. Hentz asked Atty. Koehler if he would review items 1 through 7 beginning on page 3 to clarify which items they were still in disagreement about. Atty. Koehler gave the following information: Items #1 and #2. Install concrete curb instead of having a 3’ setback with plantings; #3. Keep the setback at 6’ as requested (this results in an increase of 4’ from the previous plan and plantings could still be installed); #4. The safety rail and sidewalk decreases the depth of the lot from what city staff indicates and therefore they would like the setback to be 4’ instead of 9.5 ‘ (this increases the setback by 2’ from the previous plan). #5. Acceptable as is. #6. The fence needs to be maintained by the owner and there is a plan for plantings on the parking lot side. Therefore item #6 could be eliminated. #7. Would like the 25’ entrance approved instead of reducing it to 24’. Mr. Sosnoski commented that because the dumpster area is located so close to the end of the building, dump trucks need all the room possible to turn around. He then went on to say that the 3’ of grass with plantings on each end would be okay with him instead of the concrete curbs (items #1&2). The dump trucks would probably prefer this option, as running up against a concrete curb is likely to cause damage. Mr. Cornell questioned why there was reluctance to reduce the curb cut to 24’ from the east since there would still be a 2’grassy area by the entrance. Atty. Koehler stated that the turning radius of a truck is such that the additional 1’ would make a difference for ease of entering the parking lot. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 November 14, 2007 Mr. Nielsen voiced his understanding that Atty. Koehler was stating that the 25’ wide curb cut would eliminate the problem of someone driving over the edge but a 24’ would cause a problem. Atty. Koehler said yes. Mr. Nielsen said since it is human nature to take the shortest possible route it’s likely that trucks would still drive over the grass or curb whether the entrance was 24’ or 25’wide. With a truck if they start their turn too short they’ll be driving over either grass or a curb. Repairing a damaged curb would be much more expensive. He did not see that it was a big difference between 24’ and 25’. Atty. Koehler said he felt the same way and that is why he contacted the architect. Mr. Sosnoski said he was okay with the grass but had concerns with bushes being planted up to the edge of the entrance. It would be expensive for him to continually replace bushes that are damaged by trucks entering and leaving. He could see that grass would be less expensive to repair than a cement curb but would want the bushes to be further back from the entrance. Ms. Hentz asked staff to comment on Mr. Sosnoski’s concern. Mr. Muehrer stated that the plantings would not need to be right up to the entrance. Mr. Carpenter commented that the bushes would cause a problem with opening car doors so having the bushes back further from the end would eliminate that problem. Mr. Cornell then asked staff (in regard to item #7) if the access control ordinance of 24’ would come into play if the corners of 4th and 5th Streets were redone as part of the Ohio St. project. Mr. Muehrer said yes. Mr. Penney then asked if the recent application with changes would not lose parking spaces what is stopping the applicant from agreeing with staff recommendations. Mr. Sosnoski said the 9-1/2 ft. setback (#4) would eliminate half of the parking, which would be 10-12 spaces. Mr. Penney then confirmed that items #1&#2 could be worked out, whether they agreed on grass or concrete. The big issue was #4. He then asked staff why they are claiming that no parking stalls will be lost. Mr. Muehrer commented that the 9-1/2 ft. setback recommendation is the minimum setback based on the site plan submitted. He went on to say they this is off the architect submitted plan. Because it is considered a new parking lot the minimum setbacks are 7’ on the north and 9-1/2’ on the south with the additional 1’ reduction of the entrance as well. He went on to say that the minimum required depth of a parking stall is 18’. Mr. Sosnoski has chosen to make his stalls 19’ deep. So there is additional loss that goes with this as well. Mr. Sosnoski said the architect went off of the city’s plan. The architect did not measure the parking lot. When Mr. Sosnoski measured the lot it was 48’3” from the edge of the fence to the entrance of the building. Mr. Sosnoski said his measurement is different from what the architect shows on his plan and from what the city is indicating. Board of Appeals Minutes 5 November 14, 2007 Mr. Muehrer stated that it is Mr. Sosnoski’s responsibility to provide an accurate site plan of the property. Then an accurate determination can be made regarding the setbacks. Mr. Nielsen commented that setbacks could only be determined based on the plan submitted, not on a “probable” measurement being provided now. Mr. David Buck, 215 Church St. Oshkosh, City Planner then came forward, explaining that he was the hearing officer in November 2006 when Mr. Sosnoski first came to the Board of Appeals with his request. He explained that the only plan the city had was the one submitted in the past and if the architect took the plan from a plat book or an aerial photo that it could easily be inaccurate. All maps provided through the city have a disclaimer that they are not accurate. Aerial photos are taken on an angle so are not accurate either. In a case where 2 to 6 inches is critical, it is essential that an accurate plan is provided. Mr. Buck went on to say that he did not know where the architect got his site plan. Ms. Hentz commented that item #4 seems to be the major stumbling block. She commented that she would move to lay the item over for the December BOA meeting so that Mr. Sosnoski could provide an accurate plan for staff review. Mr. Sosnoski then questioned why 9-1/2 feet is required. If only 4’ is approved he could still put in plantings and this could be a “done deal.” Mr. Buck commented that Mr. Sosnoski is using 48’ as his measure but the plan shows 54’+. The standard setback is 19’2” and the least needed (minimum) is 9’5”. If the site plan is incorrect then the staff recommendation cannot be accurate. Ms. Hentz said to be fair and hopefully save Mr. Sosnoski money, he needs to provide an accurate plan. She again asked Mr. Sosnoski if he was willing to work with them and allow a lay over of the item to December. Mr. Sosnoski asked what the end game would be with a new map. If the measurement is 50’or 48-1/2 ‘ (for instance) what will happen? Ms. Hentz said staff would be able to determine the least variance required. Mr. Carpenter asked if only #4 was an issue. Ms. Hentz stated she thought all the other items were issues that could be resolved. Mr. Carpenter then asked if item #7 was okay. Ms. Hentz said yes. Mr. Sosnoski again asked why they could not approve the item at the current meeting. Ms. Hentz explained again that it is because measurements on the plan are in dispute. Mr. Penney commented that the least variance required needed to be determined based on an accurate map. Mr. Koehler then asked if the east boundary was the only issue. Board of Appeals Minutes 6 November 14, 2007 Mr. Nielsen said the petitioner might want to have the entire lot checked to be sure everything else is accurate. Atty. Koehler said he thought the rest was “close enough” to comply and didn’t feel it needed to be surveyed, specifically the west boundary. Ms. Hentz suggested that they survey all areas in question. Mr. Buck said the 9’5” setback recommendation is the minimum needed based on the current plan. Mr. Muehrer said if the lot size is reduced when an accurate survey is done staff could recommend a shorter setback. Atty. Koehler said there are all kinds of surveys. He felt that field measurements would be the most accurate. Ms. Hentz said that would be fine as long as it was certified. Mr. Sosnoski said he was agreeable to the plan. Ms. Hentz asked staff if there was anything that needed to be done regarding the approval given on November 8, 2006. Mr. Muehrer said no. The approval is null and void since it was not acted on within the time limit. Mr. Carpenter asked how the lay over would impact the litigation. Atty. Koehler said it is on hold until the courts hear the decision of the Board of Appeals. Ms. Connie Schuetz, 533 W. 5th Avenue then approached explaining that she is the Personal Representative for the owner of 542 W. 5th Ave., the abutting property on the southeast corner of the parking lot and owner of the fence in question. She saw no problem with the plans for the lot except in regard to the fence. If/when the property is sold to someone else, who would be responsible for repair of the fence if it became damaged – the owner or Mr. Sosnoski. She commented that the parking lot is much improved. The issue of the parking lot is a big deal to the neighborhood. Lost parking stalls in the lot would impact the neighbors. It is already a mess on Friday fish fry night and during packer games. Mr. Muehrer stated that if the neighbors’ fence fell into disrepair that Mr. Sosnoski would need to put up a fence on his lot. He would not be responsible for repairing the neighbor’s fence. Atty. Koehler clarified that Mr. Sosnoski would be liable to repair any damage to the fence if the damage was caused by a customer/employee of the restaurant. . Motion by Ms. Hentz to lay the item over for December 12, 2007 meeting. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Ayes-Carpenter/Cornell/Nielsen/Penney/Hentz. Nays-None. Board of Appeals Minutes 7 November 14, 2007 Atty. Koehler then questioned if it was necessary for Mr. Sosnoski to be at the meeting. Ms. Hentz said yes it would be preferable. Atty. Koehler then asked if they could lay the item over to the January meeting instead. Motion by Ms. Hentz to lay the item over for the January 9, 2008 meeting. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Ayes-Carpenter/Cornell/Nielsen/Penney/Hentz. Nays-None. II. 904 BROOKWOOD CT. Luanne Pupeter-applicant, James M. & Paula A. Pupeter-Troiber-owners, request a variance to permit the creation of 1,016 sq. ft. attached garage with a 12’ front yard setback. Section 30-17 (B)(4)(a) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Single Family Residence District requires a 25’ minimum front yard setback for an attached garage. Mr. Muehrer presented the item. Ms. Luanne Pupeter, 610 W. 4th Avenue, petitioner, and Jim Pupeter-Troiber, 904 Brookwood Ct., owner were present to provide information and answer questions. Ms. Pupeter wanted emphasize that there would be no adverse affect on the neighbors since no views would be blocked for the neighbors. She pointed out that there is a tall hedge between 904 Brookwood Ct. and 905 Hawk St. She also explained that the property is a corner lot so the garage would not be blocking neighbor views on two sides. Also there is a large terrace on the Coolidge St. end of the property. She then went on to comment on staff report remarks that “petitioner’s statement that other properties in the neighborhood have similar circumstances is not justification for the variance…” Her intention was not to imply that the other properties were justification but that the added garage would not make the property look any differently in the neighborhood as other garages on corner lots had shorter setbacks. Ms. Pupeter then went on to explain that there is a large tree in the back of the garage along with a deck area. These are located in the hatched area that staff indicates could be used for the garage. She went on to say that the tree is one of the reasons her sister and brother-in-law purchased the house. Although there are other trees on the property, the large tree is the only “useable” tree on the lot. Ms. Pupeter also said she talked with the neighbors and all of them except two (she could not contact), were okay with the proposed location of the garage. She said they were not happy with the cities proposal for location of the garage because it would require removal of the large tree. Several other neighbors benefit from the shade the tree gives them as well because of its size. Her feeling was that this large tree created a hardship unique to the property. Ms. Hentz asked where the garage is currently. Ms. Pupeter said it is at 920 W. 6th Ave. Ms. Hentz asked why they want to relocate the garage. Ms. Pupeter explained that her uncle built the garage and it is the “heart” of the family. She has spent many hours in the garage with her uncle and it holds many memories. She does not know when he built it. It has Board of Appeals Minutes 8 November 14, 2007 always been a part of her life. She explained that the garage is a fully functional workshop. It is very well built. Mr. Cornell asked if the garage is currently being used. Ms. Pupeter said it has not been used since her uncle died. Her aunt will be moving and the house will be for sale. Mr. Carpenter said he has to consider if there is a hardship. He does not see that losing the tree or the deck would justify a hardship. Mr. Penney asked when they moved into the house. Mr. Pupeter-Troiber said they purchased the house six months ago. He went on to explain the aunt had not made the decision to move at that point. Mr. Cornell asked staff if variances would be required if the garage was placed in the area indicated by the hatch marks Mr. Muehrer explained that he did not intend for the hatched area to be considered as a space for the workshop/garage. He was indicating that if the property owner needed to expand the existing garage that he could do so into that area. He did not know if the uncle’s garage could fit into the same space. Mr. Muehrer then referred to a conversation Ms. Pupeter had with Mr. Buck in regard to another location for the garage. He asked Ms. Pupeter if she had determined if moving it to 502 Bismarck was still a possibility. Ms. Pupeter replied she is waiting on information from the movers. The garage would need to be moved with a crane and lifted over the house on that property in order to be placed and the movers have not looked at the site yet. She did not know if it was financially feasible. Ms. Hentz asked staff if the garage would fit in the hatched area shown on the map. Mr. Muehrer made the measurement and determined that the space is 23’ x 27’ and the garage is 23’ x 24’ so it could fit there. Mr. Nielsen asked if it would be attached. Mr. Muehrer stated that the buildings would be so close to each other to be considered attached. Ms. Pupeter brought up the tree and said they would have to cut the tree down to put it there and did not want to do that. She again stated that the owners purchased the lot because of the tree and the deck. She felt that having to remove the tree constituted a hardship. Ms. Hentz questioned if the deck would also have to be removed. Mr. Nielsen said he thought part of the deck would be affected. Mr. Cornell commented that it looked like there was enough space on the north side of the lot for the garage. Board of Appeals Minutes 9 November 14, 2007 Mr. Nielsen commented that since it was actually a workshop it would not need a driveway. He agreed with Mr. Cornell. Ms. Pupeter agreed but went on to say that the owners had plans to put up a privacy fence. She added that the owners have five children and a dog. If they put the garage there it would eliminate play space for the children and dog. Mr. Cornell commented that it would be a compromise. They may have to decide to have it there or not at all. Ms. Pupeter stated again that that was the only yard there was for the children. Mr. Penney explained that the board needed to meet certain criteria in order to grant a variance and this situation did not meet it. Mr. Carpenter voiced his agreement with Mr. Penney. Mr. Cornell stated that if there were no other options he would be inclined to take a harder look at the request but there are. Ms. Hentz sympathized with the petitioner but agreed with her colleagues. Motion by Mr. Penney to approve the item as requested. Seconded by Nielsen. Motion denied 0-5. Ayes-None. Nayes-Carpenter/Cornell/Nielsen/Penney/Hentz. III. 934 N. MAIN ST. Brian Malchow-applicant, John E. Landolt Jr. owner, request the following variances to permit the creation of a new automotive commercial service center building with an off-street parking area: Required (Section 30-26 (B)(3)) Proposed I) 5’ front yard setback (north) 8’ front yard setback (parking) Required (30-35 (B)(1)(c)) Proposed II) 25’ transitional yard setback (west) 5’ front yard setback (parking & bldg) III) 19’2” transitional yard setback (south) 10’ transitional yard setback (parking) IV) 19’2” transitional yard setback (east) 10’ transitional yard setback (parking) V) 19’2” transitional yard setback (east) 5’ transitional yard setback (storage) Required (30-36 ©(3)(e)) Proposed VI) 18’ deep parking space depth 16’ deep parking space depth Mr. Muehrer presented the item. Brian Malchow, 4614 Red Fox Rd. Oshkosh, petitioner and John Landolt, 264 S. Clay Rd. Van Dyne, owner, were present to provide information and answer questions. Mr. Landolt began by saying he was fine with the staff recommendation to extend the fence for the storage enclosure along the south perimeter so that the area was completely enclosed. Board of Appeals Minutes 10 November 14, 2007 Mr. Carpenter asked if there are plans to have car sales taking place on the lot. Mr. Landolt said he’s been at that location for 19 years and has never sold a car. Mr. Penney referred to the map on page 7 of the staff report and asked where the cars will be while they are waiting to be serviced. Mr. Landolt explained that there will be four bays inside and there are five (including 1 handicapped) spaces for cars outside. Mr. Steve Sosnoski, 625 Maricopa Dr. came forward. Mr. Sosnoski is the owner of Cinder’s Charcoal Grill located across the street from John’s Automotive. He questioned what the measurements of the corner sign would be. His concern was that it would block vision to his restaurant. Mr. Landolt stated the sign was not changing. Mr. Sosnoski then referred to the limited number of spaces being provided for cars and questioned if there would be parking on Melvin St. Mr. Landolt explained because of the lack of curbs on Melvin St. there is no parking available. He said he will be able to service more cars at one time and therefore have a shorter turn around time so cars will not have to sit out as long. Mr. Sosnoski said he was fine with the project and glad it was being done. His main concern was if his restaurant would be blocked from view. Mr. Carpenter asked staff if the existing sign was okay. Mr. Muehrer said it is legal, non-conforming. If Mr. Landolt wanted to erect a different sign he would have to meet the current code. Motion by Mr. Cornell to approve the item as recommended Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Ayes-Carpenter/Cornell/Nielsen/Penney/Hentz. Nays-None. Finding of Facts: There is no harm to the public. It will enhance the property and the neighborhood. It is the least variance necessary. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Penney/Cornell 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator