HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JUNE 28, 2006 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Larry Lang, Edward Wilusz, Chairperson Cheryl Hentz EXCUSED: Dennis Penney, Moss Ruedinger STAFF: David
Buck, Associate Planner; Mary Lou Degner, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Mr. Cornell noted
that the Board failed to reorganize at the first meeting in June as required by the Procedures and Regulations for the City of Oshkosh Board of Appeals. After discussion on the subject,
it was decided to add the item to the next agenda. The minutes of June 14, 2006 were approved as mailed. Cornell/Hentz. Mr. Lang abstained. I: 1051 S. WASHBURN STREET Jim Stabilie-applicant,
Hudson’s Grille Int.-owners, request a variance to permit an outdoor patio area that will have a 9’ 6” front yard setback. Section 30-34 (D)(4) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Highway
41 Corridor Overlay District requires a 50’ front yard setback for buildings and a 25’ front yard setback for parking & signs. David Buck introduced the item and shared an aerial picture
of the subject property. Jim Stabilie, applicant, stated that he recently purchased the former Callahan’s Restaurant with the intent of opening a Hudson’s Grille in the City of Oshkosh.
He noted that the points in the Staff Report do make sense if one does not have the knowledge of restaurant operation and added that all Hudson Restaurants offer an outdoor dining area.
In his opinion, the redesign option, to provide a patio area towards the side or the rear of the property, utilizing the large parking lot area, would not result in a fine dining experience
for the patrons of the outside patio area due to the fact that they would be sitting in a parking lot within view of the dumpster area. Mr. Stabilie stated that per State Liquor License
Regulations there is a requirement to have an entrance and exit area through the building to access the patio area, and the design of the building does not allow for this. He added that
to structurally change the building to accomplish this would require a major sum of money. The franchise does about 10% bar and 90% food. Mr. Stabilie stated that of the 10% alcohol,
90% is sold at the table. He stated that the size of the proposed patio would only allow for 6 tables, with a capacity of 4 people each. From an operating standpoint the activity on
the patio would be minimal and unobtrusive to the area. He stated that outdoor dining is aesthetically appealing and adds to the ambiance for the guests. He explained that the area would
be landscaped to create a pleasant view. They hope to maintain a staff of 80-85 employees, which would be about 40 more jobs than the previous establishment. Mr. Stabilie also added
that he has found, through the years in the restaurant business, that most people prefer to dine in the front of the property, where there is more action versus being away from the action,
in the back of the building. Mr. Lang questioned the location and the expense of the proposed door that was mentioned by the applicant.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2-June 28, 2006 Mr. Stabilie explained that adding a door to the present reception area to access a front patio area would be of minimal cost. However, adding
a door to the suggested parking lot area would be very costly, in part due to the current raised seating area. Mr. Cornell questioned the hours of operation for the establishment and
the patio dining area. Mr. Stabilie responded that operating hours would be 11am-11pm. Chairman Hentz asked why this particular property was purchased instead of seeking an area where
there would be no issues with an outdoor dining area. She also questioned why a policy could not be instituted that would restrict serving alcohol on the patio and still locate the outdoor
seating area in an alternative location so as not to require extensive reconstruction or to jeopardize the liquor license. Mr. Stabilie explained that it was a business decision based
upon the cost of local property. He answered that the main intent of the patio is basically for food sale, and he could restrict the use of alcohol on the patio, however his main concern
was the fact that patrons would be sitting in the parking lot within view of the dumpsters. Chairman Hentz stated that proper landscaping could address the view issue and she stated
that she personally would rather observe arborvitae than the traffic along the frontage road. Mr. Stabilie said he could do that, but it would be costly. There was discussion on the
location of the driveway and other options available for the proposed patio area. Mr. Buck stated that in the future the Department of Transportation (DOT) is planning reconstruction
of the intersection. He noted that a large portion of the present green space is designated as right-of-way area. The applicant stated that since the time frame from the DOT is unknown,
he would be willing to make an adjustment at the point in time when the reconstruction occurred. Mr. Buck stated that he believed the DOT could accomplish everything without taking any
property. There There was discussion on the total capacity of the establishment and parking stalls. It was noted that the site currently has 103 parking stalls, which exceeds ordinance
requirements by approximately 50 spaces. There was further discussion on additional options available for the location of the proposed patio. Suggestions included the side or the rear
of the property. The applicant stated that an extensive reconstruction would be cost prohibitive. Mr. Cornell stated that in his personal opinion the proposed front yard patio area was
not the appropriate area to locate outside dining and he noted several possible alternate locations that had been previously mentioned. Mr. Buck commented that Staff recommended denial
of the variance based on the fact that there were alternatives available. He suggested that the item could be tabled, which would allow him the opportunity to further discuss the options
with the applicant. Mr. Buck added that there could possibly be alternatives, which would not require a variance variance request.
Board of Appeals Minutes -3-June 28, 2006 Committee members mentioned safety concerns relating to the future reconstruction of the area and the Board stated a desire to act upon the
submitted variance request. Mr. Stabilie asked the Board not to make their decision based on assumptions that include no experience in the restaurant industry. He explained that in Appleton,
WI many patios are located in the front of businesses on busy streets and the locations do not deter the majority of patrons. Mr. Stabilie stated his belief that the front location,
closest to the road, is the most profitable and most acceptable for his guests. Chairperson Hentz clarified that the Board makes their decision based upon the law not personal opinions.
She stated that financial reasons are not acceptable for granting a variance. During Board discussion Mr. Carpenter inquired about the setback restriction for The Brooklyn Grill, located
on S. Main Street. Mr. Buck explained that downtown areas do not have a setback requirement, and added that setback requirements are based upon the Zoning District. He said he was unfamiliar
with the site mentioned, but added that it also could have been grandfathered in because of the fact that at the time when the building was built the setback restriction could have been
different than present setbacks. Mr. Buck stated that the subject property in the Highway 41 Corridor Overlay District requires a 50’ front yard setback for buildings. Motion by Mr.
Lang to permit an outdoor patio area that will have a 9’6” front yard setback. Seconded by Mr. Wilusz. Chairperson Hentz stated she would not support the variance for the various reasons
that she previously mentioned and added that her own personal preference did not factor into her decision. She stated she felt there were alternatives and stated she would be happy to
reconsider other options brought forth. Mr. Stabilie questioned the possibility of an alternate location for the patio towards the hotel. Mr. Buck noted that it would require a separate
variance and he suggested that the other side might provide an option that would not require a variance. Mr. Lang stated that the original submittal was lacking information denoting
landscaping and other pertinent information relating to aesthetics. He said he could not support the variance request. Mr. Wilusz stated that the Board is not a policy making body. He
explained that they have very strict legal requirements in which they have to operate. He said, in his opinion, he agrees with staff’s determination that the hardship has been self-created.
Mr. Wilusz cited the guidelines for the decision making and noted that the facility has been operating successfully as a restaurant since 1992 so the requirement was not met. He said
he could not support the variance request. Chairperson Hentz added that the applicant would not be at an unfair disadvantage because although there are some restaurants that offer outdoor
dining there are far more restaurants in the community that do not offer outdoor dining. Motion denied 0-5.
Board of Appeals Minutes -4-June 28, 2006 OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Buck stated there would be a Workshop after adjournment. Mr. Buck introduced Mary Lou Degner as the current Recording Secretary
for the Board of Appeals. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 pm. Respectfully Submitted, David Buck Associate Planner DB/mld