HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MARCH 8, 2006 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Edward Wilusz, and Chairman Cheryl Hentz EXCUSED: Larry Lang, Dennis Penney, and Moss Ruedinger STAFF:
David Buck, Associate Planner, and Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Motion by Cornell
for approval of the February 22, 2006 meeting minutes, seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 3-0-1. I: 1212 NORTH MAIN STREET (FORMERLY 1205 HARRISON STREET) David Cihlar-applicant,
KDC Properties, LLC-owners, request a variance to permit an off-street parking area that will have a 0 foot front yard setback. Section 30-26 (B)(3) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: C-3
Central Commercial District requires lots sharing frontage with a residential district to provide a 25 foot front yard setback. Mr. Buck read a correspondence from the owner stating
he could not be present at today’s meeting. Mr. Buck introduced the item and passed around colored pictures. Ms. Hentz asked to see the pictures once again to locate the sign post. Mr.
Buck pointed out that a 200 square foot sign would be allowed on the post that would most likely block the traffic light. He also stated any colored lights on the sign could also cause
confusion with the traffic light located on the corner. Mr. Cornell questioned what kind of office would be located on that corner where they weren’t expecting many visitors or much
use of the parking lot. Mr. Buck stated a private investigator was planning to utilize the site. He stated the applicant didn’t expect to be at the office most of the time, and customer
visits to the office would be infrequent. Mr. Buck stated it was mainly being used as a base for operations. Mr. Wilusz questioned if there would be any fencing on the site. Mr. Buck
stated there would be no fencing. He stated the site would be quite open, and noted the sidewalk would be used as part of the accessible isle for the handicap stall, which is allowed
by code. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the sign post could be replaced once it had been removed. Mr. Buck stated the sign could not be replaced without a variance, but that the applicant
was planning on having a wall sign. Mr. Cornell questioned if the shrubs would remain on the site and if there was a height restriction for them. Mr. Buck stated the shrubs would remain
and couldn’t be higher than 4’ tall according to code.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2-March 8, 2006 Motion by Carpenter for approval of a variance to permit an off-street parking area that will have a 0 foot front yard setback on North Main
and Harrison Streets with staff’s recommendation: 1) The signpost located at the corner of the site is removed. Seconded by Wilusz. Motion carried 4-0 Finding of Facts: Mr. Wilusz stated
the unique shape of the property creates a hardship. Ms. Hentz stated hazards related to the property will be reduced and Mr. Carpenter stated to comply with setbacks would be unreasonable.
OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Hentz questioned if the signage was in compliance at100 N. Main Street. Mr. Buck stated he would look into it. Mr. Cornell stated he understood that revisions to the
Zoning Ordinance were going to be looked at regarding this issue. Mr. Buck explained some conflicts with the code in regards to signage and mentioned that real estate signage is exempt.
He also stated there are different rules for temporary signage vs. permanent signage. Mr. Buck went on to discuss some of the revisions being looked at by Planning Services staff at
this time, such as parking and murals, and that the Zoning Ordinance was going to be reviewed section by section for revisions and would be reprinted in the near future. Mr. Wilusz questioned
if staff would be able to make a 5-10 minute presentation on changes made to the code. Mr. Buck stated that would be a great idea. Discussion followed regarding which section of the
code to present and when. Consensus was made to review the Zoning Ordinance according to the table of contents in a workshop format after adjournment of the regular meeting. DISCUSSION
OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS PROCEDURES No discussion was held at this time. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 3:57 p.m. (Cornell/Wilusz) Unanimous.
Respectfully Submitted, David Buck Associate Planner DB/vlr