Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES APRIL 26, 2006 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Vice Chairman Larry Lang, Dennis Penney and Chairperson Cheryl Hentz EXCUSED: Edward Wilusz, and Moss Ruedinger 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. Lang for approval of the April 12, 2006 meeting minutes with some changes, seconded by Mr. Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. I: 204 CHURCH AVENUE Lyle Conrad representing Labor of Love, Inc. -applicant and owner, requests a variance to construct a ground sign with a three (3) foot front yard setback, whereas Section 30-26(B)(3)(c): Central 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 mentioned other signage along the block have 3-6’ setbacks. The sign proposed is small, low to the ground, nonilluminated. It is really designed to be an identification or way finder sign rather than an advertising or attention grabber sign. Virginia Anderson, 204 Church Ave., Executive Director of Labor of Love. Ms. Anderson stated the sign is designed for identity purposes; the current sign located on the house is not identifying the property very well. Ms. Anderson also stated planting low-level plants around the base of the sign is a wonderful idea and they would be willing to do so. Ms. Hentz commented that there has been some consideration of them moving to another location; since they are looking at installing a permanent structure, are they remaining in that location. Ms. Anderson stated that it is presently their plan. Mr. Lang asked if they considered shifting the sign more into the empty side yard and achieving a greater setback. Ms. Anderson said that if they set it back further people going east on Church Ave. would not be able to see it, since the house would be in the way. Mr. Lang suggested taking it it to the right so they still have a 25’ setback to the side street and he stated that he feels a larger setback could be achieved. Ms. Anderson stated they thought about having it in a different location prior. She stated she didn’t have a problem with moving the sign to the north and east more, as long as it is visible from both sides going up and down Church Ave. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Lang what he would suggest for a setback. Mr. Lang stated he feels they could get the sign back 9 ft. Ms. Hentz asked staff what his thoughts were about what Mr. Lang is proposing. Mr. Buck stated he feels 9 ft. might be too far to be consistent with the other signs down the block, and in turn staff probably wouldn’t recommend anything more than 6 ft. Board of Appeals Minutes -2-April 26, 2006 Mr. Cornell asked staff what are the setbacks of the other signs in the area. Mr. Buck stated they range from 3-6 ft. Mr. Lang stated he is not swayed by issues that have taken place down the street, if someone placed a sign with a 3-6 ft. setback, he feels no need to repeat that. If the signs are 3-6 ft. right now, surely going at least 6 ft. is not a big deal. Motion by Mr. Cornell for approval of a variance to construct a ground sign with a three (3) foot front yard setback as proposed with the following condition. a) The base of the sign is landscaped with low-level vegetation. Seconded by Carpenter. Mr. Lang added an amendment that the setback would be at least 6 ft. and the sign be moved closer to Central Street. Motion failed due to lack of Second. Motion for the original request carried 4-1, Nay Mr. Lang. Finding of Facts: Mr. Cornell stated he feels there is no adverse impact in the neighborhood, it is being consistent with what is in the area as far as signage is concerned. Ms. Hentz stated the property is very unique in shape and size. The Minority states they are currently setting the sign at the very minimum of the neighborhood, not at an average, and not at the most setback in the neighborhood. The structure is quite unique and by its uniqueness it would very easily lend its self to better placement of the sign with less variance from the city requirements, which he believes where put there for a reason. Someone decided 25 ft. setbacks were in fact visible signs, therefore 3 ft setbacks with issues of readability were not part of the original zoning conditions. Ms. Hentz stated they have the City’s position on record. II: 606 EAST MURDOCK AVENUE Tom Muza representing Muza Metal Products -applicant & owner, requests a variance to permit the development of a refuse disposal area without screening it from view. Section 30-35 (I)(4) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Additional Standards and Exceptions requires all refuse disposal areas to be screened on all four sides. Mr. Buck introduced the item and passed around color pictures. Mr. Buck stated the storm sewer easement is an element outside of the petitioner’s control and if it were not present, would remove the need of the requested variance. Mr. Buck also stated the petitioner has screened their other storage areas and also this specific area to the north, through the use of landscaping and to the south through the use of fencing but they can not screen it to the west. Tom Karrels, Engineer working on the facility, 1934 Algoma Blvd. Mr. Karrels stated Muza used to own the property the easement is located on and they sold it to the City of Oshkosh for $1.00. Board of Appeals Minutes -3-April 26, 2006 Mr. Cornell asked what kind of refuse is going to be placed there and what is going to be screened. Mr. Karrels stated dumpsters are going to be placed there and they will be screening trucks emptying the dumpsters. Motion by Mr. Lang for approval of a variance to permit the development of a refuse disposal area without screening it from view as proposed. Seconded by Cornell. Ms. Hentz added she appreciated the letter from Doug Pearson at Chamco, very thorough and complete job as far as why this is important. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: Mr. Carpenter stated the City of Oshkosh created the hardship. Mr. Lang stated nature of the neighborhood and what is in the immediate proximity to the unscreened side are railroad tracks. Ms. Hentz added Muza have gone out of their way in the past to abide by the rules and regulations. III: 906 EVANS STREET Jacquelynn Voss, applicant & owner -requests a variance to widen the driveway to a greater extent than the width of the garage to permit parking to be located in front of the home. Section 30-36 (C)(5) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Off-Street Parking & Loading Facilities limits driveway widths to that of the garage width. Mr. Buck introduced the item and passed around color pictures. Mr. Buck stated the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance allows residential parking in very specific areas of a lot: garages; 1 open space adjacent a garage; screened open parking in the side and rear of the home; and on driveways leading to the aforementioned legal parking spaces. Jacquelynn Voss, Owner and Applicant, 906 Evans St. Ms. Voss stated in her neighborhood there are only a few properties that have two car garages. In those cases the garages are setback from the house and the driveway runs between lot line and the home its self. Ms. Voss also stated the uniqueness of their property is that they can expand the driveway uniformly. Ms. Voss also stated they understand the City of Oshkosh doesn’t want people to install a slab of concrete in their their front yard; the change would be uniform and look nice. The other thing she wanted to state was the neighbor next to their property has a very wide driveway and they can fit three cars across. Ms. Hentz commented from the colored pictures there are tire ruts located on the lawn and asked if that is where they were parking their vehicle. Ms. Voss stated on occasion; they weren’t aware that parking wasn’t allowed on the grass next to the driveway. Mr. Lang asked if the light post was going to remain in that parking space. Ms. Voss stated that is a 6ft 6 inch area where the light post is they are proposing to put concrete there in addition to the other portion for the flow of it. The other plan would be to install landscaping 11/2 ft around the light post. Board of Appeals Minutes -4-April 26, 2006 Mr. Penney stated he sees many people in the community parking cars along the side of their garages and asked if they are doing that illegally. Mr. Buck stated the driveway is going to be permitted the width of the garage not to exceed 24 ft at the property line and 29 ft at the curb line. What you are allowed is one space next to the garage or you could do parking space in the rear yard, providing you are not within the setbacks and are screened. Mr. Penney asked if there is a reason that one could install another parking space 9 ft. to the exterior of the house but not to the interior of the house. Mr. Buck stated he believes the ordinance was put into place so that in a single family residence area the front yard would not become a parking lot. Mr. Lang stated having watched what goes on around the University area with parking; if this is opened up there will be no end, parking will go right along the front of houses. Ms. Hentz stated she sees the point that was was made and agrees to a point. However, she states it has been done in other places. The two she is thinking of in particular have much longer driveways than the applicant. Ms. Hentz doesn’t believe it distracts as much as one might think. Mr. Carpenter stated people continue to park on lawns and questioned whether it was better to see ruts or concrete. Mr. Cornell stated he believes this is a determination between what is a need or want; he believes it’s more of a want and doesn’t see it as a need. You could park three vehicles, one in a garage and the other two in the driveway; you would have to move two of the vehicles to get to the one that is in the garage. Mr. Cornell states that he doesn’t believe that creates a hardship; that’s not the only place in the city that is done and it certainly is not a precedent either. Mr. Carpenter asked what ever happened to parking permits in the street. Ms. LaCombe stated the City of Oshkosh does still sell parking permits for certain streets. Ms. Hentz stated providing the street allows parking on both sides of the street. John Reinders, 448 Church St. Mr. Reinders stated permits are only sold certain days of the month. Motion by Mr. Lang for approval of a variance to widen the driveway to a greater extent than the width of the garage to permit parking to be located in front of the home. Seconded by Cornell. Motion denied 2-3, Nay Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Cornell and Mr. Lang. IV. 448 CHURCH AVENUE John & Mary Reinders -applicants and owners, request a variance to reconstruct an uncovered parking area that will have a 6” side yard setback and not be screened, whereas Section 30-36(C)(5)(a) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance: Off-Street parking and Loading Facilities requires a 7’ 6” side yard setback for screened uncovered parking spaces. Mr. Buck introduced the item and passed around color pictures. Mr. Buck stated the lot was created in 1893 it is unique and it is relatively small at with a large structure on it. The parking situation on the site has been address through two driveways from Union Ave., one on the east side of the building and the other on the west side of the building, which provide nonconforming driveway parking. Board of Appeals Minutes -5-April 26, 2006 John Reinders, Owner and Applicant, 448 Church Ave. Mr. Reinders stated in the late 1800s this was one of the only lots available to build upon. The two lots east of the property were being developed at the time and the houses were built on the lot lines; no setbacks. Mr. Reinders also stated they had to give 12 ft. of property to the property next door; building the house so it would face Church St. also made it more difficult to fit on that property. Ms. Hentz asked if they were in agreement with the condition that staff suggested. Mr. Reinders stated he was fine with it. Mr. Lang asked if the garage was located on his property. Mr. Reinders stated yes that was on his property and the tenants of one of the two units used it. Mr. Lang stated he is going to offer an amendment of: the rebuild pavement is identical in area to the footprint of the current driveway. Motion by Mr. Lang for approval of a variance to reconstruct an uncovered parking area that will have a 6” side yard setback and not be screened with the following conditions: a) Screening, at least 5’ tall and 100% solid, is established to the south of the parking area. b) The reconstruction of the driveway be exactly correspond to the footprint of the current driveway. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: Mr. Carpenter stated it is a unique situation. Ms. Hentz added there is no adverse impact on neighboring property, it will probably enhance them. Mr. Lang stated there would not be any added parking load to the street parking and it is updating the existing situation. Ms. Hentz stated for the record that she thought Mr. Lang’s additional condition was very wise. V. 2035 – 2185 SOUTH KOELLER STREET Nancy Saylor representing US Properties Group -applicants and owners, request variances for 0’ side yard setbacks for parking and structures on-site. Section 30-25(B)(2)(b) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance: General Commercial District requires a 10’ side yard setback. Mr. Buck introduced the item and passed around color pictures. Mr. Buck stated it is currently developed with a commercial center containing 3 large retail structures including such users as J.C. Penney, Miles Kimball, Rogan’s Shoes, and numerous smaller retail operations. The center used to contain Piggly Wiggly (closed) and Wal-Mart (moved to N. Washburn Street). It is important to note that J.C. Penney and Miles Kimball are under separate ownership on separate parcels. Board of Appeals Minutes -6-April 26, 2006 Nancy Saylor, US Properties, 310 Hamilton Rd, Gahanna Ohio 43219 Ms. Saylor stated they have had a lot of difficulty filling their occupancy in this area. They share the same concerns about the lack of landscaping and its current condition as a big asphaltparking field. However, they are in a position where they need to balance the cost of doing that work and how it would impact of loss of parking. The National Retailers key component to where they select to go is how much parking they have available. Ms. Saylor stated the split of lot 2 from the rest of the property is their first step in redeveloping the land. To add additional landscaping along the entryway at this stage will cost around $30,000.00-$40,000.00 and will limit them on redeveloping the area with outlots in the future. Mr. Lang asked if the old Piggly Wiggly store is the only thing that is going to be on lot 2. Ms. Saylor stated that is correct, they have a party that is interested in that parcel. Mr. Lang again asked if the whole parcel is going to be divided into 4 parcels. Ms. Saylor stated when creating that lot they are creating the others also. Mr. Lang asked roughly how many square feet are currently occupied verses how many are vacant in the whole complex. Ms. Saylor replied that about 70% are vacant. Mr. Cornell asked if the maintenance of the parking lot is shared with the cross parking agreement. Ms. Saylor replied yes it is. Their ultimate goal is to eventually improve everything. Mr. Carpenter asked staff if this was approved at what point do they start talking about when they come back for the landscaping. Mr. Buck stated when they came back to redevelop the site and start pulling up the pavement to repave the area, they would have to meet the current regulations. Mr. Cornell asked staff what the procedure would be if they were to grant the variance for the 0 foot setback. Mr. Buck stated it all depends on how they redevelop it. If they develop it within the C-2 and Hwy 41 regulations, they would retain the side yard setback variance and not provide the setback in the parking lot. If they reconstruct the parking lot and can not follow the C-2 and Hwy 41 regulations with the proposed variance, then they would have to come back to this body or go to the Council to do a rezone to a district that has different regulations or planned development. Motion by Mr. Penney for approval of a variance for 0’ side yard setbacks for parking and structures on-site with the following condition: a) Approval by the Department of Community Development of a cross access agreement between all lots in the CSM. Seconded by Cornell. Ms. Hentz stated for the record that she feels it’s high time something gets done with this property, anything that they can do from a positive standpoint to move that forward she is proud to be part of Mr. Lang stated he is disappointed that he didn’t see the minutes from the Plan Commission meeting earlier, and is somewhat reluctant to vote on this item as it may have given him a different view of what is happening. Board of Appeals Minutes -7-April 26, 2006 Motion carried 4-1, Nay Mr. Lang. Finding of Facts: Mr. Penney stated anything to help develop what has certainly become an eyesore and a blight to the City of Oshkosh in that part of town, they have a duty to do what they can to start the process in revitalizing that part of the city. Ms. Hentz stated she feels it is a reasonable request and there is no adverse impact on the neighboring property. The minority states allowing 0 ft. setbacks is not the proper thing to do. In his opinion, this development has far bigger problems than 0 ft. setbacks and it is not going to correct the problems. Ms. Hentz states the owners of the property feel that this will help to facilitate them to be able to sell and/or appropriately market this property. VI. NORTHWEST CORNER OF CONGRESS AVENUE AND ELMWOOD AVENUE Aaron Sherer representing the Paine Art and Garden Center -applicants and owners, request variances for 7’ front yard setback on Congress Ave. and a 3’ setback on Elmwood Ave. for the installation of a 6’ high solid fence and various plantings. Section 30-35(E)(2) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance: Additional Standards and Exceptions prohibits fences and hedges greater than 4’ high and greater than 50% solid in the front yard setback. Mr. Buck introduced the item and passed around color pictures. Mr. Buck commented that the applicant has stated the Paine has suffered from persistent vandalism. Apparently, the vandals have used the unsecured hedgerow to gain access to the formal gardens. Paul Mankini, Neighbor, 1408 Elmwood Ave. Mr. Mankini stated that he has spoken to the other neighbors and this is something that needs to be done, it will make it look a lot better and be a lot safer. Aaron Sherer, Applicant/Paine Art Center and Arboretum, 1214 New York Ave. Mr. Sherer stated he walks to work and approaches from that corner and he always thinks that corner doesn’t look as good as it could; it’s not attractive and it isn’t in the condition that they would like to present to the neighbors and community. One can not have a very enjoyable experience in the garden due to the street noise from the intersection, it is very high maintenance, security is bad and it doesn’t look good. Mr. Cornell asked if the variance is granted what will happen to the hedgerow. Mr. Sherer stated that the hedgerow would be removed. Mr. Penney asked why are they proposing a 6 ft. fence and not a 4 ft. fence. Mr. Sherer replied as a visual factor a 4 ft. fence will allow one to see the cars going by while in the garden Board of Appeals Minutes -8-April 26, 2006 whereas, a 6 ft. fence will block them from view and the existing fence is 6 ft. so it will tie together. Mr. Carpenter asked if they have ever had problems with graffiti. Mr. Sherer stated they have not had any problems with graffiti. Mr. Mankini stated they do need a 6 ft. fence because the children in the area are stealing flowers, and breaking stuff at night and he is always going over there chasing them out. Jeff Mankini, neighbor, 1408 Elmwood Ave. Mr. Jeff Mankini asked why they would remove the hedges because there are bird nesting in there. Mr. Sherer stated they did consider installing the fence on the outside of the hedgerow. Motion by Mr. Cornell for approval of a variance for 7’ front yard setback on Congress Ave. and a 3’ setback on Elmwood Ave. for the installation of a 6’ high solid fence and various plantings. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: Mr. Cornell stated it actually enhances the property to a much higher degree than the privacy that they now have in stopping the vandalism. Mr. Lang stated the fence is consistent with what is currently there. OTHER BUSINESS No discussion was held at this time. DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS PROCEDURES No discussion was held at this time. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:23 p.m. (Cornell/Lang) Unanimous. Respectfully Submitted, David Buck Associate Planner DB/pal