HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
Board of Appeals Minutes 1 November 8, 2006 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 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;
Steve Gohde, Assistant 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. The minutes of October
25, 2006 were approved as distributed. I. 20 WEST SMITH AVENUE Steve Lichtwald-applicant, David & Roxanne Nelson-owners, request variances to permit the creation of an attached garage
with a 7’2” side yard setback and a 23’ rear yard setback. Section 30-17 (B)(4)(a) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: R-1 Single Family Residence District requires a 7’6” side yard setback
and a 25’ rear yard setback. Mr. Buck presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site for review. Steve Lichtwald, 1123 Kansas Street, representing the Nelsons, stated
that the creation of an attached garage involved an area approximately 10 by 14 feet and he was aware of the side and rear yard setback restrictions. The request is due to health reasons
of the owners and although moving the garage would allow the property to meet the setbacks, it is an economic issue as this would be significantly more costly. He further stated that
the house is on a corner lot which is more restrictive in setback requirements and that there are other homes in the neighborhood that are non-conforming and the variance, if granted,
would not make this home inconsistent with others in the neighborhood. Ms. Hentz inquired if the garage connection was to be heated and Mr. Lang questioned if the garage is currently
heated? Mr. Lichtwald responded that the garage connection was to be placed over a frost foundation that would give the owners the ability to heat this area if desired, but at this time
the owners have not requested such. He also stated that he did not believe the garage was currently heated. Mr. Carpenter inquired as to the age of the garage and if moving the location
of the garage would resolve the issue of granting a variance? Mr. Lichtwald replied that the garage was built in the 1970’s. Mr. Buck responded that moving the garage would resolve the
issue of the side and rear yard setbacks and provide for more garage space on the side.
Board of Appeals Minutes 2 November 8, 2006 Mr. Lang commented that he did not feel that changing a currently conforming structure to a nonconforming structure is a good idea. Motion
by Lang to approve the request for a variance to permit an attached garage with a 7’2” side yard setback and a 23’ rear yard setback. Seconded by Cornell. Motion denied 1-4. II. 2201
JACKSON STREET Choice Bank-applicant, Tom Rusch-owner, request a variance to permit a sign with a setback of 12’ on Jackson Street. Section 30-25 (B)(2) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code:
C-2 General Commercial District of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ front yard setback. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site for
review. Keith Pollnow, 2250 Spencer Court, president of Choice Bank, stated that they would have no problem complying with the staff’s condition to have the base of the sign landscaped
with low-level plantings. Mr. Lang inquired if the building was designed specifically for the bank and and if construction was completed? He also asked if the sign was part of the construction
plan? Mr. Pollnow replied that the building was designed for the bank and that it was 80% complete at this time. It was not their intention to place the sign within the setback area,
however, the apartment building in the vicinity was more of an obstruction than planned. To place the sign with a 25’ setback would obstruct the drive-through lanes for the bank. Mr.
Buck added that the general contractors who would have developed the site plan do not usually handle sign permits. Mr. Carpenter inquired if the drive through lanes could be reduced
from three lanes to two lanes? Mr. Buck responded that the drive through lanes had already been constructed. Mr. Cornell stated that he was concerned with safety issues relating to the
height of the sign as this intersection has considerable pedestrian traffic of school children. A brief discussion followed regarding the utility box located on the site and other types
of signs that that could be used. Motion by Cornell to approve the request for a variance to permit a sign with a setback of 12’ with the following condition: (a) The sign base shall
be landscaped with low-level plantings. Seconded by Lang. Motion denied 2-3. III. 556 WEST FIFTH AVENUE William Aubrey, AEC Architects-applicant, Carl Sosnoski-owner, request a variance
to permit an offstreet parking area that is located within the required front yard and transitional side yard setbacks. Section 30-26 (B)(3) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Central Commercial
District requires that lots sharing block frontage with residential districts provide a 25 foot front yard setback and Section 30-35
Board of Appeals Minutes 3 November 8, 2006 (B)(1)(c) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Additional Standards & Exceptions requires lots adjacent to a residential use/district to provide
transitional side yard setbacks. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief from Section 30-36(C)(a)(3)(ii), which requires parking areas to not have a negative surface water impact. Mr.
Buck presented this item and distributed photos of the subject site for review. William Aubrey, AEC Architects, stated that the additional landscaping and reduced curb cuts should reduce
any drainage issues on the site. This will also reduce the number of stalls in the lot to 31 spaces. He questioned if with the expansion of Ohio Street forthcoming, the street parking
would also be eliminated. Steve Gohde, Department of Public Works, responded that street parking would be eliminated on Ohio Street only, but Fourth and Fifth Avenues would still allow
parking. Mr. Lang inquired if the house located on the site was being rehabilitated? Carl Sosnoski, 2475 Knapp Street, owner, replied that it was not and was currently not occupied.
Mr. Lang inquired as to how negative surface water impact was recognized? Mr. Gohde responded that the concerns are in winter when melting snow runs off the parking lot onto the sidewalk
and creates a pedestrian hazard. Drainage plans would create a slope to one side or the center of the lot to prevent this situation. He further stated that this was a standard requirement
for all parking lots in the City. Mr. Sosnoski contested this issue and stated that other parking lots in the City have been constructed without these restrictions and that the subject
site is in a blighted area of the City and any improvements made to this parcel would be beneficial. A brief discussion followed regarding the reconstruction of the parking lot that
was brought before the Board of Appeals previously. Mr. Cornell stated that he did not feel he could support the request for variances in regards to the setbacks if the drainage requirements
were not approved by the Department of Public Works. Mr. Lang and Ms. Hentz agreed and recommended that the variance request be split into two votes-one to approve the setback variances
and another to approve the exemption from the on-site drainage requirements. Motion by Lang to approve the exemption from the on-site drainage requirements. Seconded by Cornell. Motion
denied 2-3. Mr. Lang stated that he visited the site and he felt that the setbacks could be met if the owner drew up a new plan using angle parking and a one-way access to the lot. He
also stated that he felt the owner should construct his own fence rather than rely on the neighbors fencing which is already in place. A discussion followed relating to how many additional
parking stalls may be lost by re-configuring the lot using angle parking, the loss of street parking on Ohio Street due to the expansion of the road, and safety issues concerning street
parking rather than parking in a private lot. Motion by Ruedinger to approve the setback variances with the following conditions: 1. Greenspace and landscaping, as proposed, be maintained.
Board of Appeals Minutes 4 November 8, 2006 2. If the neighbor’s fences are removed, fall into disrepair, or are altered as to be no longer solid that the applicant place a minimum of
a 5’ tall solid fence along the inside of the proposed transitional yard setback. 3. Curb cuts are reduced as proposed. Seconded by Cornell. Mr. Lang made a motion to amend the conditions
to remove condition number two and require the owner to construct his own fence parallel to the existing fence with the required landscaping in between the two fences. There was not
a second to this motion and Mr. Lang withdrew his motion to amend the conditions. Motion carried 4-1. Findings of Facts: Eight more parking stalls have been created by approval of plan.
Reduces the number of curb cuts on site. Improves safety by reducing on street parking. Minority Findings of Facts: Space situation does not warrant variance. Other alternatives exist.
Negative impact on neighbors. Zoning codes have been compromised. OTHER BUSINESS-DISCUSSION OF PROCEDURES Mr. Buck distributed the Board of Appeals procedures, a schedule of petitions
by date, and the change in wording that would be inserted into the Board of Appeals procedures if the board would decide to change to one meeting per month instead of two meetings. The
issue was briefly discussed among the board members and it was decided that it should be added to the agenda for the next meeting so the item could be voted on. It was agreed that the
reservation for Room 404 should remain intact in the event that a second meeting would need to be held. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:15 pm. Respectfully
submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator