Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Board of Appeals Minutes 1 August 23, 2006 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES AUGUST 23, 2006 PRESENT: Robert Cornell, Cheryl Hentz, Larry Lang, Edward Wilusz, Moss Ruedinger EXCUSED: Dan Carpenter, Dennis Penney STAFF: David Buck, Associate Planner; Darlene Brandt, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order at 3:30 pm by Chairperson Hentz. Roll call as taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of July 26, 2006 were approved as distributed (4-0-1 Abstain: Cornell) I. 2708 Stoney Beach Street Tom Williams-applicant, Debi Rolfing-owner, request a variance to erect an 80-foot tall flagpole. Section 30-17 (B)(2): R-1 Single Family Residence District of the Oshkosh Municipal Code allows a maximum height for principal non-residential structures of 35 feet. Mr. Buck noted the applicant and owner are unable to attend the meeting. Mr. and Mrs. John Nicks, 2712 Stoney Beach St., noted there used to be a flagpole on the lot with a line on the outside that clanked a lot and were wondering if that noise would continue? Also, usually with this high of a pole lighting is used, and will there be lighting associated with this pole? The Nick’s are also concerned this will be like a Perkins Restaurant flagpole? Mr. Buck stated he could not answer these questions. Ms. Hentz inquired if the Board could place conditions to address concerns on the request? Mr. Buck replied the Board can add any conditions it deems appropriate. Since the applicant/owner is not present, the Board can approve it, approve with conditions, lay over the item or deny it. Mrs. Nicks stated she spoke with the owner last week about the flag. The Nicks do not have a problem with the flag, they just don't want it to look like Perkins flag and lighting. Mr. Lang inquired of Mr. Nicks how far the flag would be from his lot? Mr. Nicks replied about 60-70 feet. Mr. Cornell stated this is not a heavily wooded lot. Why do they need an 80 ft. high flag? Mrs. Nicks stated there are trees in this area that are at least 50 ft. tall and the last flag they had did hit the trees. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 August 23, 2006 Ms. Hentz felt, given the issues, she did not feel comfortable taking any action until the owner is available. Mr. Wilusz stated he did not have a problem laying the item over, but noted this is not a self-created hardship. Any additional discussion on this item should include why a 35 ft. flagpole is not adequate. Mr. Lang stated there is no tree coverage in this area. If the owner wants people on the other side of the Lake to see the flag, then they need to come up with a hardship. Mr. Lang noted he cannot support this request. Mr. Cornell stated he does not have a problem laying over the item but also could not support the request.Motion by Lang to approve the request for an 80 ft. tall flagpole. Seconded by Cornell. Motion denied 0-5. II. 556 W. 5th Avenue Carl Sosnoski, representing Players Pizza and Pub, LLP, owner, is requesting an appeal to the Zoning Administrator’s determination and interpretation of Sections 30-4(B)(1)(a), 30-4(B)(1)(c), and 30-4(C). The The petitioner disputes staff determination that the parking lot at 556 West 5th Avenue was removed and reconstructed and contends that the improvements to the parking lot are of a maintenance nature only and therefore are not required to be constructed in accordance with Municipal Code regulations. Ms. Hentz noted that when there was a possibility this item would come before the Board last summer, Mr. Sosnoski called her and she took a look at the situation. Ms. Hentz noted, however, that she did not make any determination at that time. Mr. Wilusz stated these type of appeals do not come before the Board that often. Are there any specific decision making criteria to follow on this? Referring to the Zoning Ordinance and the powers of the Board, Mr. Buck stated "To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is an error in any order, ruling, requirement, decision or determination made by the Director of Community Development or designee." Mr. Lang noted he has also visited this site in the past. Mr. Ruedinger stated he would be abstaining from voting due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Hentz noted that due to the nature of this appeal, anyone speaking today would be sworn in. Mr. Bill Aubrey, AEC Architecture, was sworn in. He noted Mr. Sosnoski had asked him to look at this from an architectural standpoint. He felt the City's ordinances regarding parking lots, structures and non-conforming uses and improvements are very confusing. Mr. Aubrey stated the existing parking lot dimensions have not changed. He checked the definition of structure in Webster's dictionary and the zoning ordinance, and they both agree on what a structure is. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 August 23, 2006 Mr. Aubrey continued stating there are several layers to a parking lot. In this case, the existing stone base was not removed except when a pothole was hit. The base was ground up and reused. He felt the analogy by Mr. Buck in the staff report of a parking lot being like a structure and a foundation is a little out of character. It's a known fact that property values increase over time, but the Assessor’s office dropped the value in this case and he wondered why. Mr. Buck replied that is how the City Assessor's office has it assessed. Mr. Aubrey stated they did look at the value of a new parking lot. Based on a quote from Badger Highways, a new parking lot is $54,000. Mr. Wilusz felt it’s a he said/she said situation. Mr. Wilusz inquired if there is any way the Board could objectively deal with what happened to the base? Mr. Aubrey believed that Susan Kepplinger from the City took pictures. From his discussion with Darryn Burich, there was a picture taken by the City. Mr. Wilusz stated that would be part of staff's discovery. There is no way to resolve he said/she said situations. Ms. Hentz inquired of Mr. Aubrey if he was involved in any of what happened? Mr. Aubrey replied no he was not involved originally. This testimony is his professional opinion of what happened and based on his discussion with Ed Strey at Badger Highways. Mr. Aubrey indicated Mr. Strey would not lie to him. Mr. Joe Hildebrand, 309 High Ave., was sworn in. Mr. Hildebrand stated he is here not as an attorney but as an advocate for Mr. Sosnoski. Mr. Sosnoski came to Mr. Hildebrand when he went to apply for his permit, and apparently was informed a permit is not needed if you are resurfacing. Per the Ordinance, items of a maintenance nature are allowed. Mr. Sosnoski spoke with a blacktop company and he improved his parking lot for the City and the people who come to this place. The Ordinance is confusing – Mr. Hildebrand could not see, as a citizen, what he is expected to do. If you have a leaky roof and fix it, the structure is not changed or modified. Mr. Hildebrand asked that the Board take a look at the Ordinance and what kind of burden the City is putting on the people of Oshkosh to improve their property. As noted in the staff report, Ms. Hentz stated work had begun prior to a permit being taken out. She felt the former Zoning Administrator, Matt Tucker, did discuss the possibility of a variance with Mr. Sosnoski because Mr. Sosnoski spoke with her about this issue well before applying for the variance. She questioned why he would do that unless he thought he would need a variance. Mr. Wilusz stated there are laws that are viewed differently – does that mean you don't obey them? He felt staff made a reasonable interpretation of the code and attempted to convey that to the applicant. Mr. Wilusz supported staff's opinion on this issue. Referring to Exhibit B in the staff report, Mr. Lang noted in the middle of the diagram it states "footing to be removed". It's uncertain who made that notation. But it indicates that the footing is being removed; changes were made and they appear to be major, significant changes. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 August 23, 2006 Mr. Cornell noted the Board does not write or approve the Ordinance, only looks at a unique circumstance to a property when a variance is requested. He did not see a unique or unusual hardship presented and supported staff's position. Mr. Aubrey stated the amount of area is about 19% of the footprint. The foundation footing removal notation could have been from an old building and not related to the parking lot. Mr. Carl Sosnoski, 2475 Knapp St., was sworn in. Mr. Sosnoski stated that if he would have been told he needed a variance he would not have done the project. He was not going to put in storm sewers in his parking lot. City staff asked him about a change of footprint and Mr. Sosnoski stated it was only an overlay. The parking lot has been there for 50-60 years and he just wants to maintain what is there. Ms. Hentz stated the building permit issued in June, 2005 states "….. owner understands that portions of this may be required to be removed at the owners expense to comply with board of zoning appeals decision and applicable storm water regulations.". She asked if Mr. Sosnoski was aware of that. Mr. Sosnoski stated when he spoke with Susan Kepplinger he told her he was not going to do the project. He noted he was told it could not be left gravel and would have to meet setbacks, which would remove 4 or so spaces. Mr. Sosnoski stated he also asked about storm sewers and no one could answer that question. He left with a temporary permit. After that he was informed he would have to comply with storm water regulations because there were storm sewers on 4th Ave. and 5th Ave.; if they weren't there, he would not have had to comply. Mr. Lang inquired about the notation about removing the footing? Mr. Sosnoski replied that was probably from the old hardware/fishing store from the 50's that needed to be removed. They were blacktopped over at one time. Ms. Hentz inquired if a Board member votes an affirmative vote, would they be in favor of Mr. Sosnoski or uphold the City's interpretation? Mr. Buck stated an affirmative vote would be in the applicant's favor. A no vote would support staff's position. Motion by Lang that the Board supports the applicant's position that this was not a reconstruction project. Seconded by Wilusz. Motion denied 0-4-1 (abstain: Ruedinger) Ms. Hentz stated the City Attorney's office has requested that the Board do a findings of fact. Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. Wilusz stated the Board does have decision criteria in interpretation requests. Staff's determination that the parking lot was completely removed is reasonable and supported by evidence and testimony provided. Board of Appeals Minutes 5 August 23, 2006 Ms. Hentz stated the entire parking lot was milled and redone and in her opinion and the City's opinion, the lot was redone. The work was done prior to a permit being taken out and the applicant was aware that something was required from the Board of Appeals and that is why he phoned her. She felt if that were not an issue, Mr. Sosnoski would not have phoned her. Mr. Lang stated Section 30-4(B)(1)(c) clearly states alterations cannot exceed 50% of the current assessed value of the structure for the life of the structure. Documentation from Badger Highways appears to note that the work is significantly more than 50%. When you have to remove foundations from a parking lot, to me that is a major reconstruction project. Ms. Hentz stated her appreciation of Mr. Aubrey appearing before the Board, but would have preferred someone from Badger Highways being present. She felt it's hearsay as to what Mr. Aubrey testified to. Badger Highways did the work and were paid for it. it. Not to suggest there is any lying going on, this is just an observation on her part. Other Business – Discussion of Procedures Mr. Buck distributed a table showing the number of Board meetings from 2005 to present. Based on these numbers and possible budget constraints, staff would like the Board to consider reducing the number of Board meetings to one per month. Mr. Buck noted the Board has apparently looked at this in the past as well. Mr. Wilusz inquired if the Board could change its procedures to require at least 2 items to hold a meeting? Mr. Buck replied that is possible. Mr. Cornell inquired if other Boards/Commissions will be affected as well? Mr. Buck was not sure. At this time staff is looking at keeping budget costs down. He asked the Board to consider any impact on the applicant's as well. Mr. Lang stated he would not like to sit in on an 8 item agenda; it would be difficult to give applicants a fair hearing. He would rather set a maximum number of applications per meeting, say 4-5 items per per agenda. Ms. Hentz felt the meeting time would also have to be moved so the Board isn't here until 7 pm or 8 pm. Mr. Buck stated he would check on the legalities of the Board's suggestions with the State Statutes and with the City Attorney's office to see what can be done. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:42 pm. Respectfully submitted, David L. Buck Zoning Administrator