Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MAY 11, 2005 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Moss Ruedinger, Dennis Penney, and Larry Lang, Vice Chairperson EXCUSED: Edward Wilusz, and Cheryl Hentz, Chairperson STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner, Susan Kepplinger, Principal Planner, Patty LaCombe, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Lang. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Motion by Cornell for approval of the April 27, 2005 minutes as mailed, seconded by Carpenter. Unanimous. I: LOT 1 CSM 4511/SOUTH KOELLER STREET PARCEL #901307440112 Robert Messerschmidt, applicant, Dennis J. Miller, owner, request a variance to construct a driveway that will have five (5) foot side yard setbacks and a ground sign that will have a one (1) foot side yard setback, whereas Section 30-34(D)(4)(b) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a fifteen (15) foot side yard setback for driveways and ground signs. Mr. Tucker introduced the item and explained this is the last vacant land on South Koeller St. between 9th Ave and West 20th Avenue. The property has a 30 ft. access easement/land strip that runs parallel to the former vacated railroad right-of-way. Robert and Lynn Messerschmidt, 1319 County Rd FF, spoke in favor of the request. Mr. Carpenter asked if having the access on the curve of the road would pose any traffic problems. Mr. Tucker stated there is an existing driveway curb cut and a gravel driveway going back to the site but it is not being utilized at this time. Mr. Carpenter asked if the 25 ft. setback would create any problems with other signs in the general area. Mr. Tucker stated no, other sites in the area have signs with the 25 ft. or less setback. Mr. Cornell asked what the reason was for the subdivider to leave a small access corridor and remnant building site as the area developed. Mr. Tucker stated there was a development and assemblage of properties, grabbing pieces here and there as needed to create building envelopes, while it was understood a 30 foot access strip remained for this site. Mr. Tucker showed two Certified Survey Maps representing parcel boundary changes in 1996 and 2000 (said maps on file in the Department of Community Development office). Mr. Lang asked the Messerschmidts details about the sign, and if the sign will be partly obscured by the development to the South. Mr. Messerschmidt described the sign and indicated the sign could be partially obscured by the building to the south. He also stated that from the North it would be effectively visible. Board of Appeals Minutes -2-May 11, 2005 Mr. Lang asked staff if the access road was because of the abandonment of the railroad. Mr. Tucker stated he couldn’t find out what that access easement was used for. The former railroad right-of-way abuts up to the 30 foot access strip, and appears to have been used as a loading area in the past. Motion by Mr. Cornell to approve a variance to construct a driveway that will have five (5) foot side yard setbacks and a ground sign that will have a one (1) foot side yard setback. Seconded by Mr. Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of facts: Mr. Cornell stated it appeared to be the least possible variance necessary to permit commercial development on site. He stated it would be no harm to the public and it enhances the area. Mr. Lang added the property is a unique shape due to past actions. II. 1500 ADAMS AVENUE Jon and Constance Warning, applicants and owner, request a variance to construct a fence that will be more than fifty (50) percent solid within fifteen (15) feet of the front lot line, whereas Section 30-35(E)(2) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires fences that are more than fifty (50) percent solid shall not be permitted within fifteen (15) feet of a front lot line. Mr. Tucker introduced the item and explained the petitioners are asking for a fence that uses the structural elements as a design feature in the front plane of the fence. The fence would be constructed with a solid rail on top, pickets beneath that, a solid rail in the middle, more pickets beneath that and a solid rail on the bottom. Jon and Constance Warning, 1500 Adams Ave. introduced themselves. Mrs. Warning stated they are trying to build a good neighbor fence by trying to create a fence design that will compliment the traditional character of their home. Mr. Warning also stated it is a high traffic area, close to the high school and close to the park. He stated this design is structurally more solid than a typical picket fence. Mr. Lang asked where they were proposing to put the fence. Mr. Warning stated a small part of the fencing would be placed in the front yard area. Mrs. Warning added they would be fencing the perimeter of their property. She also stated they would be putting the fence on an angle to the driveway, not to obstruct view of vehicles backing out of the site. Mr. Tucker explained a corner lot has two front yard areas, requiring setback and height restrictions on fences. Mr. Cornell asked staff if this fence was desirable relative to other requests because of it’s nature and if this would be the city’s preference. Mr. Tucker stated it is an attractive fence and would be a positive improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. Tucker further explained the ordinance does not provide a mechanism for the City to review fences as proposed, therefore, the only opportunity for relief is from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Motion by Mr. Carpenter to approve a variance to construct a fence that will be more than fifty (50) percent solid within fifteen (15) feet of the front lot line. Seconded by Mr. Cornell. Motion carried 5-0. Board of Appeals Minutes -3-May 11, 2005 Finding of facts: Mr. Carpenter stated there would be no adverse impact on the neighborhood, the design of the fence is aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Cornell stated the property is unique and a corner lot is more objective, since it has two front yard setbacks. Mr. Lang added the zoning ordinance doesn’t address the design issue, at times those need to be taken into consideration. III. 1501 COOLIDGE AVENUE Patrick Connelly, applicant and owner, request a variance to construct a fence that will be more than fifty (50) percent solid within fifteen (15) feet of the front lot line, whereas Section 30-35(E)(2) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires fences that are more than fifty (50) percent solid shall not be permitted within fifteen (15) feet of a front lot line. Mr. Tucker introduced the item, and stated the proposed fence is the same as is proposed in Item II on today’s agenda. He explained this item is also a bit more complicated; there is a separate section section in the municipal code that requires protective enclosures around swimming pools, requiring a fence to be built no more than two (2) inches above the surrounding grade, where the petitioners’ fence is proposed at four (4) inches above the surrounding grade. Mr. Tucker reiterated this is not a zoning ordinance requirement. Patrick Connelly, 1501 Coolidge Ave., stated this is not standard fencing; it looks attractive as you pass by. He would like to replace the old chain link fence around the swimming pool deck with this fence at the property line. Mr. Cornell asked if he would have the step effect if he tried to maintain a 2 inch space across the subject property? Mr. Connelly stated there would not be an even top level. As an alternative, the owner could level out the grade beneath the fence. Mr. Carpenter asked if the pool is currently enclosed with a chain link fence. Mr. Connelly stated yes and he would like to remove that fence and re-fence his yard with the proposed fence so the fence isn’t so close to the pool. Mr. Carpenter asked staff if the fence meets pool regulations. Mr. Tucker stated the space between grade and the bottom of the fence needs to be 2 inches rather than 4 inches. Mr. Penney asked if the fence would continue with the property at 1500 Adams Avenue and if they would also have a 4 inch grade on the bottom. Mr. Tucker replied yes, the petitioner desires the same fence as at 1500 Adams Avenue. Mr. Cornell asked staff for clarification regarding the existing fence and proposed fence. Also he asked if the board decision should relate to the city pool enclosure requirement. Mr. Tucker stated it is appropriate to identify the conflict for clarification purposes, but pool enclosure requirements are not the responsibility of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Lang stated that we can’t make specifications in regard to the pool enclosure requirement because it’s not our charge, rather just note this fact in the proceedings. Mr. Tucker stated the fence will need to be modified in some way to lower the entire fence 2 inches or make the bottom rail 2 inches thicker so it meets the pool enclosure requirements. Motion by Mr. Cornell to approve a variance to construct a fence that will be more than fifty (50) percent solid within fifteen (15) feet of the front lot line. Seconded by Mr. Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Board of Appeals Minutes -4-May 11, 2005 Finding of facts: Mr. Cornell stated it is a unique situation relative to the pool, enhances the neighboring property with no hardship to the neighbors. Mr. Carpenter stated that everyone understands the City Code requirements for pool enclosures. Mr. Lang also added it would be an improvement over the present enclosure. BOARD OF APPEALS PROCEDURES There was no discussion of BOA procedures. Announcements: Mr. Tucker announced this would be his final Board of Appeals meeting with the City of Oshkosh, as he has accepted a position with the City of Madison. He appreciates all that the board has helped him learn throughout his time in Oshkosh. He thanked the members of the board for their service and the opportunity to work with them, and announced Principal Planner Susan Kepplinger will be taking over staff responsibilities with the BOA until a replacement is hired. Mr. Lang stated he would like to make a motion that we would like to recognize all of Mr. Tucker’s services, all his hard work and all the questions we have posed to him. Mr. Lang also stated he thinks Mr. Tucker performed extremely well and would like to wish him the best in his new position, our loss is definitely Madison’s gain. Mr. Lang proposed a motion. Mr. Cornell seconded, carried 5-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:20 pm Cornell/Ruedinger. Unanimous. Respectfully Submitted, MATT TUCKER Associate Planner MWT/pal