Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JUNE 14, 2006 PRESENT: Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney and Moss Ruedinger and Chairperson Cheryl Hentz EXCUSED: Dan Carpenter, Vice Chairman Larry Lang, and Edward Wilusz STAFF: David Buck, Associate Planner, and Patty LaCombe, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Motion by Mr. Cornell for approval of the May 24, 2006 meeting minutes, seconded by Mr. Penney. Motion carried 4-0. I: 1944 WEST FERNAU AVENUE Jim’s Repair & Towing LLC-applicant, Automotive Leasing LLC-owners, request a variance to permit an off-street parking area that will have a 10 foot rear yard setback. Section 30-30(B)(3) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: M-3 General Industrial District requires lots with rear yards adjacent to a residential use/district to provide a 50 foot rear yard setback. Mr. Buck introduced the item and passed around color pictures. Mr. Buck stated the applicant needed a new parking lot due to a substantial increase in business. Mr. Buck read an e-mail from Mark Huddleston, Director of Transportation, regarding the City’s intent to ban parking on W. Fernau Ave. in the future. Ms. Hentz questioned the e-mail from Mr. Huddleston; Ms. Hentz wanted to know if the concerns addressed by Mr. Huddleston would be met if the board approved this. Mr. Buck explained if the parking were removed from the street, there would be greater pressure for the business in regard to parking or lack thereof. Don Herman, 1944 W. Fernau Ave., Owner of Jim’s Repair & Towing Mr. Herman stated they are getting into bigger truck repair and 18’ parking spaces are not big enough for a 20’ truck, some of them are even larger than that. Right now they do park on the road but they are trying to eliminate but have no place to park the bigger trucks before or after they do work on them. His back storage lot is completely full and when they add on to the building they will loose even more parking. Ms. Hentz asked how would he be impacted if they were to to approve this requiring a 45’ setback. Mr. Herman stated he didn’t think he could get the trucks in there, there is a drainage ditch and he doesn’t know if he could fill that in. Mr. Penney asked if a 10’ setback would be enough to get the big trucks in safely. Mr. Herman stated he wanted to keep the aisle large to make sure there is enough room for the trucks and sometimes they will have to tow big trucks in. Mr. Herman stated the neighbors are interested in selling the property to the north but they are unsure if they are going to sell it because the State DOT may take it. Board of Appeals Minutes -2-June 14, 2006 There was general discussion on the amount of space needed. Mr. Buck explained the code requirements, and also that the parking of vehicles must be for licensed and operable vehicles and could not be used as generic outdoor storage associated with the towing or repair business. Mr. Herman stated they can’t be licensed until the time of purchase but they are operable. Motion by Mr. Penney for approval of a variance to permit an off-street parking area that will have a 10 foot rear yard setback. Seconded by Ruedinger. Motion carried 4-0. Finding of Facts: Mr. Ruedinger stated that due to the nature of the business and general industrial district they are located in, the future development of the area and the potential hardships that may ensue in going with the staff’s recommendations, the original request is the most advantageous. Ms. Hentz added there is a question of hardship and practicality in being able to develop this site, it is unique and the variance presents presents no harm to the public interest. II: 1763 TAFT AVENUE Dr. Ronald Dudley representing Dudley Enterprises LLC -applicant and owner, requests a variance to construct a ground sign with an eleven (11) foot front yard setback, whereas Section 30-25(B)(2)(c): General Commercial District of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback. Mr. Buck introduced the item and passed around color pictures. Mr. Buck stated this property was built in the early 1980s and the building was setback at the minimum setbacks. Mr. Buck stated he feels the sign should be considered a “way finder” over an “attention grabber”. Dr. Dudley, 1763 Taft Ave, Owner Dr. Dudley stated it is a classy sign and it doesn’t obstruct anything, it would fit in with the other signs in the area. Mr. Cornell asked what is currently used now for identification. Dr. Dudley stated they have a sign on the door. Mr. Cornell stated if the sign is put in the setback it would be seen from both directions. Dr. Dudley replied that it would. Ms. Hentz stated, for the record, that while comparisons have been made to the neighboring properties the Board is not really permitted to say precedence has been set elsewhere, they have to consider each individual request as it stands on its own. She then stated that in this case she will support this. Mr. Cornell stated that the Board has discussed similar signage issues many times and he hopes that with the revision to the zoning code, some of these will no longer be an issue. Board of Appeals Minutes -3-June 14, 2006 Motion by Mr. Cornell for approval of a variance to construct a ground sign with an eleven (11) foot front yard setback. Mr. Ruedinger made an amendment to add landscaping requirements. Ms. Hentz asked Dr. Dudley if that would be a problem. Dr. Dudley stated it has already been done. Mr. Ruedinger stated he would go ahead and remove his recommendation. Mr. Buck stated if Dr. Dudley would sell the property down the line the landscaping could be removed and the sign could still stay, if it’s made a condition then if the landscaping is removed then the sign variance would be invalidated also. Ms. Hentz changed the condition to be as follows: 1. Present landscaping be maintained. Seconded by Penney. Motion carried 4-0. Finding of Facts: The sign is a “way finder” and not an “attention grabber” as it is not illuminated, only 6’ tall and only 16’ small in area. Other signs in the area are setback in similar distances, landscaping will soften the effects. There is no harm to the public interest. This is a transition area between multifamily and businesses. II: 1103 BISMARCK AVENUE Mark Majewski-applicant & owner, requests a variance to permit the placement of a pool that will have a two and one half (2.5) foot rear yard setback. Section 30-35(B)(2)(f) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Additional Standards and Exceptions requires recreational equipment, including pools, to have a five (5) foot rear yard setback. Mr. Buck introduced the item and passed around color pictures. Mark Majewski and Sally Robl, 1102 Bismarck Ave., Owners Mr. Majewski stated he would rather not have to take down the pool during the winter months. With the fence in place, it has no impact on the neighboring property and he presented a letter from the neighbors stating it was ok with them. Mr. Cornell asked if there is any other option. Mr. Majewski stated they can go with a smaller pool however, that is not a desired option since there is less quality filtration system and they would have to purchase another pool. Mr. Majewski also stated they learned about needing the permit last year from the Oshkosh Northwestern, so this year they tried doing the right thing by obtaining a permit and they were told they couldn’t meet the code requirements. Ms. Hentz stated she wanted to thank the applicants for doing the right thing by obtaining a permit, she wishes more property owners were like them. Board of Appeals Minutes -4-June 14, 2006 Motion by Mr. Cornell for approval of a variance permit the placement of a pool that will have a two and one half (2.5) foot rear yard setback with the following conditions: 1. Fence along the west property line remain in place. 2. The pool is removed off-season (October-March). Seconded by Hentz. Motion carried 4-0. Finding of Facts: Mr. Cornell stated this is the least hardship to the owner rather than the expense of purchasing a smaller pool. Removing it during the off season balances out the request for the variance. Ms. Hentz stated there is no harm to the public interest and it is the least variance necessary. IV: 3815 OREGON STREET Miron Construction Co., Inc.-applicant, Pow’r Gard Generator Corp.-owners, request a variance to permit the placement of a driveway within the required side yard setback, to reduce the amount of landscaping required on-site, and to eliminate screening of roof top mechanical equipment. Section 30-30(B)(2) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: M-3 General Industrial District requires a minimum 20 foot side yard setback, Section 30-35(H)(3) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Additional Standards and Exceptions requires a certain levels of landscaping for development and Section 30-35(I)(5) requires all mechanical equipment to be screened from view of any street. Mr. Buck introduced the item and passed around color pictures. Mr. Buck stated that Baldor Generators plans to expand their existing operations and to do this they are requesting three different variances. Mr. Buck continued he would break down the three individual items, make three individual recommendations. A. Placement of a driveway within the required side yard setback Mr. Buck introduced the variance request. Mr. Buck stated the applicant states they cannot meet the required side yard setback because the location of a utility pole has forced the driveway to shift to the west. Jack Michler, Miron Construction Co. Inc, 1471 McMahon Dr Neenah WI Tom Jenkins, Baldor Generators, 3815 Oregon St., Oshkosh WI Jeff Quast, Excell Engineering, 100 Caelot Dr., Fond du Lac WI Doug Pearson, CHAMCO Inc., 2345 STH 44 Suite C, Oshkosh WI Mark Salzer, Baldor Generator, 3518 Oregon St., Oshkosh WI Mr. Michler stated they are the design builders for the project and they have been working with Baldor on this design for a number of months. They have also collaborated with a number of entities at the city, trying to be supportive to the requirements. Board of Appeals Minutes -5-June 14, 2006 Mr. Pearson wanted to add a general statement of support on behalf of CHAMCO. Baldor Generators could very well expand or relocate any place they want. Mark Salzer and Tom Jenkins are committed to grow the company here but at last they don’t make the final decision. Fort Smith, Arkansas headquarters, has a pattern lately of consolidating satellite operations back at headquarters. Business is good for Baldor Generators they are expanding. This is a very significant economic development, it will add $7,000,000.00 to the real estate property tax increment financing (TIF). It will retain roughly 153 jobs and 15 professional manufacturing jobs. Also, it will send a direct signal about this community’s willingness to accommodate future expansions of Baldor Generators. Mr. Pearson also stated Mark and Tom are very committed to our local community and they are helping them make the case. They are in support of the three-variance requests although on the landscaping request they had a previous meeting and the owner and applicants are willing to make a concession. They need to work out a few things on the drainage plans; the meeting is scheduled with the Department of Public Works on Monday June 19, 2006. In hopes they will get a minor accommodation on the drainage plan. The owners and applicant are willing to make a concession on the landscape meeting to go totally with a step elevation. Mr. Michler stated that Pow’r Gard Generator Corp. is not the current owner, it is Baldor Generators. Ms. Hentz stated it is a reasonable request and she will support that. Motion by Mr. Ruedinger for approval of a variance to permit the placement of a driveway within the required side yard setback. Seconded by Cornell. Motion carried 4-0. Finding of facts: Ms. Hentz stated there is no impact on the adjacent property owners in a negative way, there is no harm to the general public. B. To reduce the amount of landscaping required on-site Mr. Buck introduced the variance request. Mr. Buck stated the zoning code requires industrial uses to provide 1 tree per 4500 sq. ft. of developed area and 1 tree per 50 linear feet of perimeter parking lot as well as 1 shrub per 4500 sq. ft. of developed area and 5 shrubs per 50 linear ft of perimeter parking lot. The petitioner has stated they proposed to install the required number of trees (125) but does not wish to install the required number of shrubs (121). Mr. Buck stated there is an easement issue that they are going to be working through. Ms. Hentz stated Mr. Pearson has already stated that a concession is willing to be made on this. Mr. Quast stated their survey doesn’t reflect that the corner of the building and the corner of Oregon St. and W. Ripple Ave., has an entire perimeter of shrubs. Those shrubs will be counted and they will subtract the number that is currently there from the total number needed. Mr. Buck stated what they do with developed area is look at the whole site, with perimeter the parking lot right now if growing very minimally because because the perimeter as exists right now is there, they are just pushing everything outward. Mr. Buck also stated any natural plantings that are located on Board of Appeals Minutes -6-June 14, 2006 the extra peninsula of land can be counted as well, but they will have to be relocated when expansion begins. Mr. Pearson stated there is a drainage easement to the west of the property, bordering Evco Plastics and Baldor Generator Company. At times they got so many conflicting signals, first of all what he wants to say about the general landscaping requirement, the current landscaping proposed as contractor and Baldor complies with Chamco’s covenants requirements for industrial park landscaping. When the city upgraded their landscape ordinance approximately 7 years ago, they knew that would prevail over the covenants since it is a higher standard. As they indicated earlier in this meeting the owners and applicants indicated they’re willingness to see to that. They are getting so much conflicting signals someone feels they have been told the landscaping should be in the western boarder of the drainage easement and another department in the city is saying nothing should go on there. We’ll need to sit down and meet with city staff and resolve what the correct signal is. Ms. Hentz asked Mr. Pearson what departments are they getting two conflicting signals. Mr. Pearson stated he was told the Zoning Administrator recommended plantings along the western border and he was told today that the Department of Public Works, in reviewing the storm water detention plan, recommended that there be no plantings in the easement. Ms. Hentz asked Mr. Pearson if it was the Zoning Administrator for the county or city. Mr. Pearson replied for the city, Mr. Buck. Mr. Buck explained the plans they received have no drainage information on them, there is no identification of an easement for drainage. Perimeter parking lot landscaping is designed to be put at the perimeter of paved areas, all the way around, to block and defuse that parking area, and the recommendation would be best from his standpoint as the zoning administrator, to have it along that area. Swaling drainage easements require water to flow above ground and DPW doesn’t like to put trees or landscaping in there to block that flow. If it’s piped and it’s under the ground, they don’t want anything above because they would have to remove them if they have to get in there for maintenance. This is where the conflict comes in, the codes intent is to put landscaping through here, but there may be a physical limitation here that is not going to allow that. Ms. Hentz asked staff if they deny the variance, as it probably will be since they’ve conceded they are willing to conceive that point, how it gets worked out with Public Works. Mr. Buck stated the code doesn’t specifically state it has to be there, that is what the intent is. The Planning and Zoning Department will be working with the Department of Public Works, if there is any additional room next to the 25’ easement they can fit it and it will not be destroyed by truck traffic. If it is not possible in this area, then those trees and shrubs will have to be relocated somewhere else on the the site. Mr. Michler commented that the area where the new construction is going has a lot of mature trees and they will make their best effort to relocate them. One concern they have is the final planting area has not been determined and they will have to have a temporary planting area. They don’t know if the roots will survive through the winter. Mr. Jenkins stated that around the southeast corner of the lot there is an underground irrigation system and they would have to be careful where to place the trees. Motion by Mr. Ruedinger for approval of Reduce the amount of landscaping required on-site. Seconded by Penney. Motion denied 0-4. Board of Appeals Minutes -7-June 14, 2006 3. Eliminate screening of roof top mechanical equipment Mr. Buck introduced the variance request. Mr. Buck stated the existing rooftop equipment is not screened and nearby buildings also have unscreened mechanical equipment. Mr. Michler stated they did look at the structural elements and basically the custer generators require a vary elaborate exhaust system for ventilating diesel gas and LP exhaust. The newer equipment will be larger in size, upward over 15’ above the existing roof height. By putting the screen on, it would impose very insignificant structural changes to the building. That is why the are asking for eliminating the screening. Mr. Cornell asked how old the building was. Mr. Michler stated it was built in 1999. Mr. Pearson stated, from Chamco’s perspective, the additional cost to screen the mechanical equipment when looked at with the budget constraints imposed by corporate, it is so tight that Chamco asks for a variance in this case. They have already been told to cut costs. Ms. Hentz stated this is a hard one for her. She keeps hearing and understands the cost and the weight of snow, but she wants to know if they have any kind of engineering reports that would spell out what kind of problems this would cause and/or any kind of cost projections. Mr. Quast stated he did analyze it and gave it to Miron and then Miron figured out the budget number for that. Mr. Cornell stated he has been outspoken in the past on ordinances that are adopted and then are not enforced, the board know the legalities of their decisions and they understand from discussions from the City Attorney, who tells them what their perimeters are. The board looks like the bad guys, no one ever remembers who said go ahead and do it, but when it comes down to making the variances they always remember who said no. Ms. Hentz states that they have made other businesses spend thousands and thousands of dollars to screen their rooftop mechanicals. The only reason she would go along with their request is because they are in an industrial park. Motion by Mr. Cornell for approval to eliminate the screening of roof top mechanical equipment. Seconded by Ruedinger. Motion carried 4-0. Finding of Facts: Ms. Hentz stated given the nature of the business and types of rooftop mechanicals they have, it would be very difficult to do this. They are in an industrial park where harm to the general public is greatly diminished. Mr. Cornell stated he thinks it would be more of a hardship to require the screening when the surrounding manufacturing units do not have it. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Buck mentioned that Mr. Carpenter has been reappointed to another term, his new term will end 06/01/09. Board of Appeals Minutes -8-June 14, 2006 DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS PROCEDURES No discussion was held at this time. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:26 p.m. Unanimous. Respectfully Submitted, David Buck Associate Planner DB/pal