HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
Board of Appeals Minutes 1 October 10, 2007 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2007 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Edward Wilusz, Mark Nielsen, Moss Ruedinger,
Cheryl Hentz 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 August 8, 2007 and August 22, 2007 were approved as submitted. 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 require a driveway
to be a minimum of 6” from a side lot line. Mr. Muehrer presented the item. He began by reading a memo into the record received by the applicant stating he would not be able to attend
the meeting. Board members proceeded with discussion. Mr. Penney asked for verification that no other changes were being made other than the paving. Mr. Muehrer confirmed that was correct.
Mr. Carpenter asked if the sidewalk was included in the dimensions of the beginning driveway section. Mr. Penney, referring to page 11 of the staff report, said the sidewalk does not
look to be part of the 10’x36’ section of the driveway. Mr. Muehrer concurred and said the sidewalk looked to be about 2’ wide. Mr. Carpenter asked if the sidewalk would stay intact
and the blacktop would come up to the sidewalk. Mr. Muehrer said that was correct. Mr. Cornell referred to the staff report and the mention that the variance would not be detrimental
to the neighborhood. He questioned if the smaller lot size was common in that neighborhood. Mr. Muehrer said looking at the aerial photo it was determined that it is typical for the
area. . Motion by Mr. Cornell to approve the item as recommended. Seconded by Wilusz Motion carried 5-0. Ayes-Penney/Wilusz/Carpenter/Cornell/Hentz. Nays-None.
Board of Appeals Minutes 2 October 10, 2007 Finding of Facts: The substandard lot presents a hardship. The property will be improved. There will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood.
The lot presents a unique situation. 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)) Proposed I) 25’ front yard setback (west) 11’6” front yard setback (parking) II) 25’ front yard setback
(north) 12’ front yard setback (parking) Required (30-35 (B)(1)(c) Proposed III) 19’2” transitional yard setback (east) 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 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 (referred 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 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 3 October 10, 2007 .Mr. Frueh said the difference is that plan “C” has a setback is 9-1/2’ 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. Frueh presents a compelling argument for plan “C,” the applicant would need to go through the Plan Commission
if he wanted approval for it. Corner clearance less than 40’ would require a variance of the 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’ corner 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 their parking 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’ corner clearance that meets the access control ordinance. Mr. Muehrer was not aware of the request for plan “C” until Mr. Frueh presented
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 understanding
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 St entrance on the original layout.
Board of Appeals Minutes 4 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 commented that if the neighbors were opposed to the project they probably would 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 5 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 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. 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. Mr. Steven Thoma, 1219 Algoma Blvd. Oshkosh and Darrell Thoma, 5254 Samers Bay Rd., Omroapplicants were present to answer questions. Ms. Hentz referred to page 7 of the staff
report and asked if the applicants could clarify a word missing from their application in the second paragraph. Mr. Darrell Thoma said it should read, “We feel that it is unnecessary
to slat the entire fence in area….” Mr. Steven Thoma shared with the board that the site was previously contaminated and the applicants have been working to get it cleaned up. He went
on to say that they are willing to slat the fence area to a height of 8’ to address concerns by the neighbors regarding the visual appearance of the property. He said they had agreed
to do the landscaping and the paving of the access entrance. He voiced concerns that he could lose the current tenant if more than that was required to be slatted. The slatting of 30’
should completely isolate the view of the storage area by the neighbors. Ms. Hentz asked what sections would be slatted.
Board of Appeals Minutes 6 October 10, 2007 Mr. Steven Thoma said the entire east facing front, and 30’ along the north and south sides that will come up to the storage units will be
slatted. Ms. Hentz questioned why the applicant thought they would lose the current tenant. Mr. Darryl Thoma said the cost of slatting the fence is $85 per 10 ft. for the slat material
plus $3 per linear ft. for installation. It will cost $5000 for the 1/3 of the fence being considered. The total fence would cost $15,000.00. With taxes, improvements and upkeep on the
property they are not anywhere near receiving the income needed. He shared that Oshkosh Truck is the tenant and agreed to take care of part of slatting the fence. Current rent is $700.00/month.
He said they consider Oshkosh Truck a temporary renter since they do not have a formal contract with them. Mr. Steven Thoma added that the cost for fencing the property is being taken
care of by the tenant and in exchange they agreed to dress up the west end of the property. property. Mr. Darryl Thoma commented that both neighbors have done a nice job with the appearance
of their property and they wanted to bring their property up to meet the standards that the neighbors have set. Mr. Steven Thoma said they have paid $70,000 already towards cleaning
up the site and further expenses are now being felt as a hardship. Ms. Jeannie Klinker, 2407 Harrison St. then came forward to comment on the property. Ms. Klinker lives directly across
from the property and said it was not being used for parking semi-trailers but was being used as storage for chassis that Oshkosh Truck was working on. She indicated she had no problem
with the fencing or slatted amount requested. Her concern had more to do with what was being stored on the property. She commented that both the Klinger and Anderson properties were
well taken care of. She felt the fence slatted as requested would hide what was being stored and she was agreeable to the variance requested. Mr. Carpenter asked staff if this was the
item discussed at the Common Council meeting. Mr. Muehrer said it was. The applicants needed to have a Conditional Use Permit approved through the Plan Commission and then went before
the Common Council for approval. Mr. Carpenter questioned why approval was contingent upon the final plan for the fence to be reviewed by the Department of Community Development. Mr.
Muehrer explained that the final materials for the fence and the slat was not known and it was mandatory that the materials used created a solid barrier. Mr. Carpenter commented that
he had seen slatted fencing that became an eyesore after awhile. Mr. Muehrer said the ordinance reads that there needs to be “solid fencing.” They cannot use slat material that is transparent.
The condition insures that the slat material will meet the requirement. Mr. Penney asked if staff was comfortable with only 30’ being slatted on the north and south ends. Mr. Muehrer
stated he was more than comfortable with it and had viewed the site to be sure the visual barrier would block the view from passers by.
Board of Appeals Minutes 7 October 10, 2007 Motion by Mr. Cornell to approve the item as recommended Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Ayes-Penney/Wilusz/Carpenter/Cornell/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. IV. 207 E. IRVING AVE. 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 ½’. Corey Godina, 2137 Pheasant Run, Appleton-petitioner was present to answer questions. He explained that AT&T has a signal box now on the corner of Jefferson and Irving St. but
would like to add to the capacity with larger cabinet boxes. Total size of the box is 10’ x 4’. His only concern is that the boxes will be on cement slabs that measure 60” x 26” which
will encroach on the 6’ setback line. Ms. Hentz asked if Mr. Godina had anything in writing from AT&T that states the increased size of the boxes is necessary in order for people to
have proper service. Mr. Godina said the larger equipment is necessary to accommodate the increased service for internet use. He did not have anything to present in writing from AT&T.
Ms. Hentz asked staff if he had received anything from the phone company. Mr. Muehrer explained this is part of a larger project called “lightspeed.” He said city staff met with AT&T
and this is one project that AT&T is doing throughout the city to increase services to different neighborhoods. Mr. Wilusz asked if staff was concerned about the concrete slab extending
into the setback. Mr. Muehrer said he was unaware of the cement slab until now and that it would need to be out of the setback. Mr. Godina said the slabs are premolded but he could check
to see if they can can make it to fit the boxes that are 4’ wide. Mr. Muehrer said the other option would require the board to approve reducing the setback by 2.5’ to accommodate the
cement slab if the boxes were to sit side by side as originally designed. Mr. Godina commented that the boxes could be set one behind the other instead of side-by-side and then they
would fit within the setback.
Board of Appeals Minutes 8 October 10, 2007 Mr. Wilusz verified the cement slabs are 60” by 26” (5’ x 2’2”) each and there are two boxes measuring 3.62’w x 1.733’d. each. Mr. Godina
said he did not see a problem with turning the boxes to stay within the 10’ setback originally requested. Ms. Hentz asked if the recommendations in the staff report needed to be a condition
of the Board Approval. Mr. Muehrer said it is already a condition that evergreen plantings be installed on the east lot line because the chain link fence only has ivy covering it which
will not provide a visual barrier in winter. Mr. Carpenter asked if the boxes will make noise as he has noticed this at other sites when out walking. Mr. Godina said there are two fans
in the boxes to cool the units and when they run they do make a humming noise. However, he felt the landscaping on the east side will help to muffle the sound and the apartment building
on the property is 100’ away so he did not see a problem with it. Ms. Hentz asked if the fans shut on and off as the units heat up and cool down. Mr. Godina said that was correct. Ms.
Hentz asked Mr. Godina what his relationship is with AT&T. She questioned why a representative from AT&T didn’t send a representative. Mr. Godina said the company he works for, Mitech,
is the subcontractor hired to install the boxes. Mr. Wilusz commented that he thought the request should be left as is since the boxes can be set to fit without additional setback requirements.
Motion by Mr. Wilusz to approve the item as recommended. Seconded by Cornell. Motion carried 5-0. Ayes-Penney/Wilusz/Carpenter/Cornell/Hentz Nays-None. Finding of Facts: It is the least
variance necessary. There is enough buffering to take care of any adverse impact. There are no safety issues. There were no other appeals or applications to be considered. There being
no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Cornell/Carpenter 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator
Board of Appeals Minutes 9 October 10, 2007