HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
Board of Appeals Minutes 1 November 22, 2006 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 2006 PRESENT: Robert Cornell, Cheryl Hentz, Larry Lang, Dan Carpenter, Moss Ruedinger EXCUSED: Edward
Wilusz, Dennis Penney STAFF: David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary;
David Patek, Director of Public Works The meeting was called to order at 3:30 pm by Chairperson Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Mr. Cornell made a motion that
the minutes of November 8, 2006 be tabled until names could be added to determine who cast the aye and nay votes. Ms. Hentz seconded. Motion carried 5-0. They will be presented again
at the next meeting for approval. I. 3285 SOUTH WASHBURN STREET Reinhold Sign Service-applicant, Bergstrom Automotive-owner, request a variance to install a 152.5 square ft. per side
(305 square ft. total) electronic message center sign. Section 30-37 (F)(2)(f) of the Oshkosh Municipal Municipal Code: Message center signs in any Commercial or Industrial Districts
(within the USH 41 Corridor Overlay District) cannot exceed one hundred (100) square ft. of area on one side nor two hundred (200) square ft. for all sides for any one premises. Mr.
Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site for review. Robert Ott, Reinhold Sign Service, 2070 Holmgren Way, Green Bay, representing Bergstrom Automotive,
stated that Wisconsin Public Service Corp. approached the owner in regards to changing the sign in an effort to reduce energy consumption. Ms. Hentz inquired as to when the original
sign was installed and why the owner was changing to a different manufacturer? Mr. Ott replied that he did not have a specific date the original sign was installed, but the change in
manufacturer was due to technology differences. Mr. Muehrer responded that he believes the original sign was approved as part of a planned development in 1995. Mr. Buck added that since
the original sign, although larger than code allows, was approved as part of a planned development, the owner could replace it with another noncompliant sign of the same size. The variance
request is necessary because they want to now replace the existing approved sign with an even larger one. Mr. Cornell inquired as to why an even larger sign was necessary? Mr. Carpenter
asked if a sign was available that would comply dimensionally with the code?
Board of Appeals Minutes 2 November 22, 2006 Mr. Ott responded that although a smaller sign was available, Bergstrom’s wanted a sign that would accommodate larger letters that would
increase the viewing distance of the sign. Mr. Lang inquired as to the cost differential between the two signs? Mr. Ott replied he did not have those figures available. A discussion
ensued regarding the differences between the existing and proposed signs. Motion by Lang to approve the request for a variance to permit a 152.5 square ft. per side (305 square ft. total)
electronic message center sign. Seconded by Cornell. Motion denied 0-5. Ayes-none. Nays-Carpenter/Cornell/Lang/Ruedinger/Hentz II. 3650 JACKSON STREET Reinhold Sign Service-applicant,
Bergstrom Automotive-owner, request a variance to install a 66.5 square ft. per side (133 square ft. total) message center sign. Section 30-37 (F)(2)(f) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code:
Message center signs in any Commercial or Industrial Districts shall not exceed fifty (50) square ft. on one side or one hundred (100) square ft. on all sides. Mr. Muehrer presented
the item and distributed photos of the subject site for review. Ms. Hentz inquired if this sign was also allowed as part of a planned development? Mr. Buck responded that it was not
the same situation as the first item, however, he did not know how the existing sign was approved. Under the circumstances, if the existing sign would be removed and a new one installed,
it would have to meet code. If the same box structure would be used with new electronics installed, the work could be qualified as maintenance, in which case the sign would have to be
allowed to remain. Ms. Hentz asked if the sign could be gutted and the electronics in it replaced? Mr. Ott replied that was not possible. Mr. Lang inquired how many manufacturers make
these signs? Mt. Ott responded that he did not know how many there were, but they are all pretty similar in sizes. A brief discussion followed by the board members regarding the various
sizes of electronic signs. Motion by Cornell to approve the request for a variance to permit a 66.5 square ft. per side (133 square ft. total) message center sign. Seconded by Lang.
Motion denied 0-5. Ayes-none. Nays-Carpenter/Cornell/Lang/Ruedinger/Hentz III. 66 EAST WAUKAU AVENUE Andrew Smith, Stuart’s Landscaping-applicant, Barbara & Timothy Mulloy-owners, request
a variance to permit the development of an attached patio that will have a 10 foot rear yard setback. Section 30-17 (B)(3)(d) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: R-1 Single Family Residence
District requires a 25-foot rear yard setback.
Board of Appeals Minutes 3 November 22, 2006 Mr. Nau presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site for review. He also shared an email he received from M. A. Rouf who
resides at 70 E. Waukau Avenue. Mr. Rouf had no objection to the patio, but he was concerned with the removal of two mature trees on the site. Mr. Nau stated that he discussed this matter
with the owners and they do not wish to save the trees as they are walnut trees and are extremely messy. The owners stated that they did intend to plant new trees after the patio was
constructed. Mr. Nau also stated that the board might wish to place a condition on the variance, if granted, that the deck could not be covered or enclosed. This could result in making
the patio into potential living space in the future. Mr. Carpenter inquired if the walnut trees could be saved? Andrew Smith, Stuart’s Landscaping, 2957 Brooks Road, Oshkosh, stated
that the trees would have to be removed as the patio could not be safely constructed with the trees in place. Timothy Mulloy, 66 E. Waukau Avenue, commented that they have no intention
of enclosing the patio area in the future. He also commented that his neighbors have nonconforming decks on their properties. Mr. Lang inquired if any neighbors in either direction have
had a variance granted for this same purpose? Mr. Nau responded that one of the neighbors has a legal nonconforming deck on his property and another neighbor had a variance granted to
allow his deck to be constructed. Mr. Nau pointed out on the photos he distributed the aforementioned decks. Mr. Lang asked where the cut off was along the shore that the owner had title
to with his land? Mr. Buck responded that the high water mark was the determining factor. Mr. Smith commented that the patio would be located above the high water mark. Mr. Cornell inquired
if the replacement of the walnut trees should be added as an additional condition? Mr. Buck responded that the board could add another condition if they felt it was necessary. Mr. Lang
commented that a condition is usually applied to a variance when landscaping issues are involved. Ms. Hentz and Mr. Cornell agreed. Motion by Lang to approve the request to permit the
development of an attached patio that will have a 10-foot rear yard setback with the following conditions: 1) The deck could not be covered or enclosed. 2) Similar or suitable landscaping
to be installed upon completion of the deck. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Ayes-Carpenter/Ruedinger/Cornell/Lang/Hentz. Nays-none. Finding of Facts: Special nature of the
property. No adverse impact on neighborhood. No safety hazard. No harm to general public.
Board of Appeals Minutes 4 November 22, 2006 IV. 725 NORTH WASHBURN STREET Richard Naslund-applicant, Richard & Virginia Naslund Joint Revocable Living Trust-owners, request a variance
to permit the relocation of a structure with a 6 foot front yard setback on North Washburn Street. Section 30-98 (B)(2)(c) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: C-2 ETZ General Commercial Extraterritorial
District requires a 25’ front yard setback and Section 30-104: Extraterritorial Highway 41 Corridor Overlay District requires a 50’ building setback from the right-of-way. Mr. Buck presented
the item and distributed photos of the subject site. Mr. Buck noted that although the applicant had submitted copies of minutes from the Town of Algoma Plan Commission, Town Board Meeting,
and the Winnebago County Board of Adjustment in regards to this issue, their decision on the matter was not necessary for approval. The Board of Appeals for the City of Oshkosh governs
the variance in this matter. Richard Naslund, 729 N. Washburn Street, presented a large aerial photo of the site displaying the buildings and many trees on the property. He also distributed
photos of neighboring properties owned by Pommerening Chevrolet and Bergstrom Automotive to display the cars parked in the right-of-way as well as a retention pond. He stated that he
was not aware that the other boards that previously reviewed this variance did not have jurisdiction in this area. He commented that he felt that the City would not want to lose a 150-year-old
landmark and the taxes that go along with the property. He further stated that the house couldn’t be moved to another area on the site due to the location of the creek and the flood
plain and flood way. Mr. Lang questioned if the house could not be moved across the creek? Mr. Naslund responded that it would not be possible and would disturb the flavor of the entire
site. Eric Naslund, Richard’s son, commented that the house was old and unique and he felt it was important to preserve something from the past. A brief discussion discussion followed
regarding other locations on the site where the house could potentially be relocated. Due to the fact that the Wisconsin Department of Transportation would be acquiring part of this
property that is within the right-of-way of the Highway 41 expansion, Mr. Lang asked for clarification of this process. David Patek, Director of Public Works, stated that the usual DOT
process would be to purchase the home and land required for the highway expansion and any necessary easements and provide relocation costs to the owner. Most lots do not usually have
more than one home on the site. Mr. Lang asked if the DOT would move the house for the owner? Mr. Patek replied that the DOT could purchase the home and then sell it back to the owner
if they desired to move the structure elsewhere. Mr. Lang asked if sidewalks were to be installed in this area? Mr. Patek responded yes. Mr. Lang commented that the variance, if granted,
would place the house only six feet from the sidewalk. Mr. Carpenter commented that other variances of a similar nature have been denied for safety reasons. Mr. Cornell also commented
that it would be a traffic hazard so close to the right-of-way and
Board of Appeals Minutes 5 November 22, 2006 that if the DOT would be compensating the owner for the home he could not understand the reason to allow it to remain there. Mr. Lang stated
that he did not see any indication that this home is on the historic register and if it is so unique, it could be moved to another location to preserve it. Mr. Lang further stated that
allowing this variance would set a precedence for future variances. The relocation of the home is no different than allowing a new structure to be built in the right-of-way. Ms. Hentz
commented that she would support the variance as it appears that it would be difficult to move the home to a different location on the property and that the confusion surrounding who
governs this area in relation to granting a variance has made for a difficult situation for the owner. Motion by Carpenter to approve the variance to permit the relocation of a structure
with a 6-foot front yard setback. Seconded by Cornell. Motion denied 1-4. Ayes-Hentz. Nays-Lang/Carpenter/Cornell/Ruedinger OTHER BUSINESS-DISCUSSION OF PROCEDURES Mr. Lang requested
that the pages be numbered in future staff reports for easier reference. The Board briefly discussed the issue of changing the meetings for 2007 to once a month rather than twice a month.
It was decided that the Board of Appeals meetings would now be held once per month on the second Wednesday of each month. The Board members concurred that a cap of five items should
be placed on the meetings. If more than five items should be submitted for review, the remaining items would be heard at a special meeting held on the fourth Wednesday of the month.
This procedure change will be reviewed in nine months to evaluate its impact. Motion by Lang to approve the change in meeting schedule. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Ayes-Carpenter/Corne
ll/Lang/Ruedinger/Hentz. Nays-none. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:17 pm. Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator