Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES APRIL 13, 2005 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Meredith Scheuermann, Edward Wilusz and Cheryl Hentz, Chairperson EXCUSED: Larry Lang STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; Allyn Dannhoff, Director of Inspections Services Division; Patty LaCombe, Clerical Assistant; Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Motion by Cornell for approval of the March 23, 2005 minutes as mailed, seconded by Carpenter. Unanimous. I: 1022 WASHINGTON AVENUE Walter and Lynn Scott, owners, are requesting a variance to the City’s Building Code. This appeal is to allow the installation of guardrails shorter than the minimum height as specified in Comm 21.04(3)(c)2. as adopted by Municipal Code Section 7-34(A). Matt Tucker invited Allyn Dannhoff to introduce this item. Allyn Dannhoff, Director of Inspection Services, introduced the item. Chairperson Hentz asked if he had gotten input from any other City Departments such as the Fire Department. Mr. Dannhoff stated he had not contacted the Fire Department. Chairperson Hentz asked where the question on page 2 of the Staff Report for the Board to consider came from. Mr. Dannhoff stated it was taken from the State of Wisconsin Uniform Dwelling Code as this is a standard criterion to be considered. He stated 36” was the minimum height for guardrails adopted from the building code. He stated in this case the guardrail is proposed to be located 14’ back from 2 edges of the roof line, providing a border for greater safety, therefore a 36” high guardrail would not provide any greater degree of safety than a shorter one due to fact that someone would have to purposely cross over the guardrail and approach the roof edge to fall. Mr. Carpenter questioned if there was a door to the balcony. Mr. Dannhoff referred to page 8 of the Staff Report which showed the access door. Terry Laib, 502 N. Main Street, general contractor, stated improvements to the rest of this particular house have always been governed by the Wisconsin Historical Society in keeping with the historical nature of the house. He also noted the platform was located in the middle of the roof, making the height of the guardrail not as much of a safety factor as it would have been if located near the roof line. Motion by Hentz for approval of a variance to the City’s Building Code to allow the installation of guardrails shorter than the minimum height as specified in Comm 21.04(3)(c)2. as adopted by Municipal Code Section 7-34(A). Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Board of Appeals Minutes -2-April 13, 2005 Finding of the Fact: Mr. Wilusz stated when considering the distance from the roof a shorter guardrail would provide the same degree of safety that a higher guardrail would, and believed the balcony would have limited use, which significantly decreases any safety concerns. II: 3000 OREGON STREET Loren Rangeloff, applicant and owner, requests a variance to permit an off-street parking lot with a zero (0) foot side yard setback and an open materials storage area with a ten (10) foot side yard setback, whereas Section 30-30(B)(2) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a fifty (50) foot side yard setback for an off-street parking area or open storage area. Mr. Tucker introduced the item and passed around photos of the site. Chairperson Hentz questioned if the current Zoning Ordinance contained setback requirements and also questioned when the Ordinance was adopted. Mr. Tucker stated the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1996 and has similar requirements for setbacks of that which was adopted before the property was developed in 1992. Loren Rangeloff, 3000 Oregon Street, stated he was the owner of the property adjacent to the subject site, therefore, if wouldn’t create a burden or adversely affect any other party. He stated he was using the parcels basically as one site. Mr. Rangeloff also stated it was difficult for trucks to maneuver in and out of the site. He stated this variance will make it easier for large trucks to get in and out and they would also be able to stay out of the driveway entrance. He stated that other sites in the area have pavement and parking to the lot line. Mr. Rangeloff stated if different owners resided in the house adjacent to the storage site it would be more of an issue, however, he has owned all three parcels since the early 1990’s. Mrs. Scheuermann questioned if it would be impossible or just difficult to maneuver in. Mr. Rangeloff stated it was impossible for large trucks to make the loop, to enter one driveway and exit the other driveway. Mr. Wilusz asked Mr. Rangeloff to point out on the map displayed the area of the hardship. Mr. Rangeloff used the site plan displayed to show the loop, and pointed out where parked cars could be relocated to allow for better maneuvering. Mr. Wilusz noted there was quite a large blacktop area and questioned if the fence could be moved to allow the required setback. Mr. Rangeloff stated the fence blocks off the shop and storage areas and didn’t want to move the fence into a position where it would obstruct the visibility of cars for sale. Mr. Tucker stated a Conditional Use Permit had been approved in January of 2004 to allow automobile and truck sales and service, among other uses. He stated the Conditional Use Permit identified an approved setback of 20’. He stated the 6’ tall fence could be moved, however, the 20’ setback would need to be maintained. Board of Appeals Minutes -3-April 13, 2005 Mr. Carpenter questioned where Mr. Wilusz was proposing to move the fence to. Mr. Tucker stated the storage yard may not be big enough at this time for Mr. Rangeloff’s needs, and questioned if the issue was to provide enough area for semi’s to maneuver into the site. Mr. Carpenter questioned what type of vehicles entered the site. Mr. Tucker stated a variety of vehicles including semis and tow trucks. Mr. Rangeloff stated his big wrecker was a 35’ long semi. Discussion followed regarding the residential and commercial properties abutting each other, and what would happen if the house were sold. Mr. Rangeloff stated he has been there since ’91 and has no plans of moving. He questioned if a condition could be made for the house to be occupied by the same owner as the adjacent property. The board noted that variances couldn’t be conditioned in this manner. Discussion ensued regarding the current zoning in the Town of Algoma that allows the current use and not a residential use, and the zoning that would be designated upon annexation of the parcels to the City of Oshkosh. Mr. Tucker stated the residential property would probably be legal non-conforming upon annexation since the area is identified for future industrial use. Mr. Wilusz stated it appears the 4 parking spaces are creating the problem, and questioned if the driveway was moved to the north to eliminate 1 parking space along the road frontage, if that would be the least possible variance necessary to eliminate the hardship. Mr. Tucker stated the adjacent road (CYH “I”) and driveway opening was under the County’s jurisdiction, which requires a certain distance between driveways, whereas an access control variance might be needed to relocate a driveway. He was unsure if the desired maneuverability would be achieved. He further explained this is partly an enforcement issue. Mrs. Scheuermann stated she was concerned about several issues including the landscaping, the neatness of the site and the traffic pattern on the site. Mr. Carpenter stated the area appears to be in transition and he would like to see a plan for the future of the site. Mr. Rangeloff noted a property to the north of this site that recently received a setback variance. Chairperson Hentz stated that each case needs to be looked at individually. Mr. Cornell stated he would not support this request, as he would like to see a plan for the future of this development. Mr. Wilusz questioned if this item could be tabled indefinitely to give the applicant a chance to apply for an Access Control Variance. Chairperson Hentz stated she would not support that and explained the steps the applicant is allowed to take in the next 12 months. She stated there are no plans for the future at this time and there is no guarantee that Mr. Rangeloff will own the residential property in the future. Motion by Cornell to approve a variance to permit an off-street parking lot with a zero (0) foot side yard setback and an open materials storage area with a ten (10) foot side yard setback. Seconded by Scheuermann. Motion denied 0-5. Board of Appeals Minutes -4-April 13, 2005 III: 800 FREDERICK STREET Jerry Charapata, applicant and owner, request a variance to construct an off-street parking area with a zero (0) foot rear yard setback, whereas Section 30-36(C)(5)(a) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback for an off-street parking area. Mr. Tucker introduced the item and passed around photos of the proposed off-street parking area. Chairperson Hentz stated she owns property in this area and is very familiar with the site but this fact wouldn’t affect her vote. Mr. Carpenter noted for the record that he has known Mr. Charapata for many years, but this fact wouldn’t affect his vote. Jerry Charapata, 1635 Maricopa Drive, stated this is a 4-bedroom home and has rented it as a 3-bedroom home to college students because of the parking situation. He stated it has been brought to his attention that the current parking situation next to the driveway is not compliant with the Zoning Ordinance. Chairperson Hentz questioned if he had any problem with the condition for screening the parking area. Mr. Charapata stated that wouldn’t be a problem. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the gas meter would create a problem in the parking area. Mr. Charapata stated he would be putting a barrier around the meter to avoid any damage. Mr. Cornell questioned if the driveway abutted the neighboring driveway, and noted there was no green space. Mr. Charapata stated the driveway did abut the neighboring driveway. Mr. Cornell stated that this proposal would enhance the property by eliminating an eyesore in the neighborhood, especially when the weather creates a muddy mess. Motion by Cornell for approval of the variance request to construct an off-street parking area with a zero (0) foot rear yard setback subject to the following condition: 1. The off-street parking area be screened from the residential property to the east by a 5 foot tall solid fence or four-seasons hedge. The Department of Community Development shall approve a screening plan before a building permit is issued for the project. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of the Fact: Chairperson Hentz stated that there would be no adverse impact to the neighborhood as this is actually an improvement to the property, and is also the least variance necessary to remove the hardship. Board of Appeals Minutes -5-April 13, 2005 IV: 177 N. WASHBURN STREET Robert D. Tollefson, Harris & Associates Inc., applicant, Henry Charles Mills, owner, request the following variances to update the existing open storage facilities at the site: 􀁸 A one (1) foot five (5) inch front yard setback for an accessory racking and storage structure, whereas Section 30-25(B)(3)(b)(iii) and Section 30-34(D)(4)(a) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance require a 50 foot front yard setback for an accessory racking and storage structure. 􀁸 An accessory racking and storage structure designed with wood wall panels, whereas Section 30-34(D)(1)(b) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires architectural enhancements to walls facing a street. 􀁸 A building designed with a metal mansard wall/roof system, whereas Section 30-34(D)(1)(b) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires architectural enhancements to walls facing a street. Ms. Hentz asked the Commission if they wished to vote on each variance request separately or vote on them as one. Consensus was to vote on each variance separately. Mr. Tucker displayed a map to assist in explaining the first variance request. He referred to the map on the 3rd page of the Staff Report and pointed out the area that has been paved to store materials in the yard. He stated they have proposed a 19’ tall shelter structure to rack and store materials and to protect materials from weather damage. Mr. Tucker pointed out the ANR highpressure gas line easement that bisects the site, restricting the placement of structures on site. Mr. Tucker also discussed the grade change between the elevation of the adjacent road grade and the grade at the corner of the proposed yard. He stated the proposed front yard setback for the 19’ tall structure was not appropriate and discussed the need for a greater setback area to provide landscaping to effectively break up the expansion of the long and tall solid wall. Mr. Tucker explained that when Fleet Farm first was first developed, structures were not permitted within 25’ of the front property line, however, paving was allowed to the lot line as long as vehicles were not parked to the lot line. He noted that the current code requires accessory structures to be setback at minimum 50’ from the front property line. He further offered that the historic use of the area where the racking structures are proposed was used for palette-type materials storage, and the petitioners will be greatly increasing their storage capacity by building a three-level racking system. Mr. Tucker stated the staff is looking to find the most appropriate setback, recognizing the traffic, grade change and reconstruction of the overpass in the future. He stated it was staff’s opinion the applicant has not submitted sufficient facts justifying the need for the minimum front yard setback. Mr. Wilusz questioned if the existing fence was located at the proposed setback. Mr. Tucker replied the fence is located at the proposed setback. Chairperson Hentz questioned what alternatives staff was recommending. Mr. Tucker stated he is looking for a reasonable setback for an accessory structure with room to include a landscape buffer, considering the future canopy growth of trees would need to be taken into account since the racking structure will be 19 feet tall. Board of Appeals Minutes -6-April 13, 2005 Mr. Tucker passed around photos of the site and a photo that showed an alternative which would provide a 25’ setback. (On file in the Dept. of Community Development.) Mr. Tucker stated the City truly wants to assist Fleet Farm to be able to make site improvements, which will greatly benefit both parties. However, both parties need to find the least possible variance necessary. Hugh Leasum, Brad Couillard, and Charlie Mills, 1300 S. Lynndale, Appleton, and Robert Tollefson, 2718 N. Meade St., Appleton, introduced themselves as representatives for Fleet Farm. Mr. Leasum, stated a 25’ setback into the yard would make it impossible to go forward with the project. He stated the proposed setback would maximize the potential storage space. Mr. Leasum passed around photos of the screening structure. (On file in the Dept. of Community Development.) Mr. Carpenter questioned where they would go with the snow. Mr. Tollefson stated the snow would either be hauled away or piled on the lot. Mr. Tollefson stated a 25’ setback would make it difficult for trucks and customers to maneuver in the yard and would limit where they could place the racking. He stated the proposed setback would alleviate the sharp turning radius and make the site more customer friendly. He also stated there was a significant grade change from Witzel Avenue to Washburn Street and he believed the structure wouldn’t be as noticeable on the property line as it would be if it were set back 25 feet. Mr. Tollefson also noted the county and city right-of-way and how it represented a 58-foot vision triangle where they would meet or exceed the setback requirements. He also stated the intent of a setback was to block the neighboring views of the property, and the highway is on one side and the ANR gas line is on the other side, therefore not blocking anyone’s view. Chairperson Hentz summarized that they felt they would be losing valuable storage space with a 25’ setback. Mr. Leasum stated the storage rack also reduces the weather damage of materials and allows for three stories of storage, which is very valuable since they are limited to vertical expansion on this site. Chairperson Hentz questioned if there was a height restriction or if they would be able to build even higher. Mr. Tucker stated there might be a building code restriction but he wasn’t aware of a height restriction above and beyond the requirements in the C-2 Zoning District. Mr. Tollefson stated it wouldn’t be safe to build the structure any higher. Mr. Carpenter questioned the landscaping of the right-of-way. Mr. Tucker stated the City generally installs landscaping in the right-of-way, but the right-of-way of Witzel Avenue is under Winnebago County Highway Department Jurisdiction. Board of Appeals Minutes -7-April 13, 2005 Mr. Tucker replied in this case, where reconstruction is planned for Highway 41 and a new overpass will be built, it may be quite some time before any landscaping would be placed in the County right-of-way. Mr. Leasum stated the street improvements in the area keep encroaching on their property. Chairperson Hentz questioned how they felt about meeting a 25’ setback. Mr. Mills stated they wouldn’t be able to expand with a 25’ setback. He questioned who would see the landscaping or yard from the road, since there is a substantial grade change between the elevation of the adjacent road grade and the grade at the corner of the proposed yard. He stated they are looking for the proposed setback. Chairperson Hentz reiterated that the petitioners would not be willing to make a compromise, it was all-or-nothing. Mr. Wilusz asked what the current square footage of the yard was. Mr. Tucker stated the entire yard was approximately 3.9 acres. Mr. Wilusz stated he was struggling struggling with the least possible setback necessary to remove a hardship. Mr. Tollefson showed the Board a picture of the proposed racking structure, which highlighted the racks that would be eliminated with a 25’ setback. Mr. Wilusz questioned if the issue was a desire for covered storage or was providing more storage was the issue. Mr. Leasum stated they could only expand vertically but covered storage was a factor for protection of their materials. Chairperson Hentz asked how many storage racks they would be able to gain with a one (1) foot (5) inch setback. Mr. Leasum stated they would lose what was currently there. Mr. Tucker stated he had figured there would be 270 linear feet of racks on Witzel Avenue and 115 linear feet of racks along N. Washburn Street, time’s three (3) stories high. Mr. Wilusz initiated discussion again regarding the range of grade from the street to the storage area. Mr. Leasum questioned where sidewalks would be constructed, at the bottom or top of the grade. Mr. Tucker replied replied the sidewalks would most likely be constructed closer to the road than to the bottom of the grade. Mr. Wilusz questioned a need for a site triangle. Mr. Tucker stated there was no need for a site triangle there because of the controlled intersection. Mrs. Scheuermann questioned what type of landscaping was being sought. Mr. Tucker stated landscaping that would mature in 10-12 years was desired to break up the expansive wall of the structure. Mr. Carpenter stated because of the grade, if shrubs were planted, it would have the same effect of taller trees. Mr. Tucker replied the solid expanse of wall is the main issue, along with the fact the petitioners want to place the burden of landscape installation and perpetual maintenance upon the City. Chairperson Hentz stated she has a problem with the petitioner asking for all-or-nothing and not being able or willing to agree on a compromise. Mr. Tucker stated with a 19’ structure proposed the City would like to see a 25’ setback. Board of Appeals Minutes -8-April 13, 2005 Mrs. Scheuermann stated it was a unique corner. Mr. Tucker stated it was also an arterial, and questioned what the hardship was. He stated a screened structure vs. a 16’ wall was an issue, and pointed out that landscaping would help the aesthetic qualities of the site. He stated they would be able to expand vertically; therefore they would be gaining storage, even with a 25’ setback. Mr. tucker stated forcing the right-of-way to provide the landscaping buffer area is not appropriate, and could be a future problem. Mr. Mills stated the yard in Oshkosh is not very large. Mr. Tucker compared the size of the site to the Menards site and again questioned the hardship. Mr. Leasum stated the pipeline restricts the expansion to the west and Witzel Avenue restricts the expansion to the south. He stated if they can’t build up, they wouldn’t be able to expand. He stated the product is currently stored up to the fence at the zero foot setback. Mr. Carpenter stated the Menards store is much bigger which allows them to store more inside, although the size of their yard is comparable to Fleet Farm. Mr. Wilusz questioned the architectural design of the accessory facility and if they have considered a design to break up the solid wall. Mr. Leasum stated they have considered adjusting the wall by a couple of feet in several areas, however that would prove to be a hardship for the forklift and for customer traffic, and were trying to keep in square. Mr. Tollefson stated they could make some jogs to the exterior wall and maintain the inside rack line. Mr. Tucker stated that design could make it possible to install some landscaping. Mr. Wilusz questioned if the stories of racks could decrease as the grade reduced. He stated that way they could still expand and have covered storage. Mr. Tucker stated the Zoning Ordinance requires fencing to be tall enough to screen the material behind it, and the City would like to see the yard screened as effectively as possible. Mr. Carpenter stated he felt the wall was better than the current fence. Mr. Tucker stated staff would like to see the wall set back with landscaping installed to help visually break up the expanse of the wall. He stated that a wall would be better than a chain link fence or visible stacks of storage, however, he questioned if this was the least possible variance necessary to remove a hardship. This is an older site and it wasn’t easy to apply architectural standards to break up the wall. He questioned if the Board wanted to move along to discuss the gate structure, which involves architectural standards. Mr. Mills stated that physically breaking up the wall would create safety problems with employees and customers, and they focused on safety when designing this plan, and they’ve had a remarkable safety record in the past years, which they desire to maintain. Chairperson Hentz questioned if the Board wanted to vote at this time on the first and second variance request or move along to the third variance request. Consensus was to vote on the first two items before moving along to the third request. Board of Appeals Minutes -9-April 13, 2005 Chairperson Hentz called for any further discussion on the setbacks or architectural enhancements. Mr. Carpenter stated if the issue was having a wall or nothing, he felt a wall was better. From a competition factor he stated the site was unique and confined and although it may be nice to have landscaping there didn’t appear to be room. He stated landscaping would be more of an issue at the bottom of the grade. He also stated their plan seemed to make the best of the situation. Chairperson Hentz stated she was still hoping for a compromise to allow effective landscaping of the large wall. Mr. Wilusz stated this was a unique situation and questioned what the least possible variance would be to remove the hardship. He stated a setback of 2’ or less is not substantial enough when considering the whole picture. He stated the petitioner has offered to contribute dollars towards the landscaping considering the size of the wall that needs to be broken up. Mrs. Scheuermann Scheuermann stated she would be voting in favor of the applicant’s request. She stated they have been honest about the hardship and there has been adequate discussion of this item. Mr. Carpenter stated there was more of a need to screen the wall along Witzel Avenue to the pipeline, because the wall on frontage road would appear to be only 4’ high because of the grading. Mr. Cornell agreed that screening was needed at the lowest point of the grade along Witzel Avenue.Motion by Carpenter for approval of a one (1) foot five (5) inch front yard setback for an accessory racking and storage structure. Seconded by Hentz. Motion carried 4-1. Nay: Hentz. Finding of the Fact: Mr. Wilusz stated it was a unique site with physical limitations that created a hardship. Mr. Carpenter stated the wall would appear lower in areas to offset the height. Mr. Wilusz questioned what the applicants were willing to do in regards to the landscaping. Mr. Leasum stated they would cooperate with the County and the City and be willing to to contribute towards any landscaping costs. Mr. Mills offered to pay for the cost of landscaping the right-of-way if it didn’t appear to be too excessive. Mr. Wilusz asked if painting or the use of bigger or smaller materials could be used on the wall facing Witzel Avenue. Mrs. Scheuermann stated she was not comfortable with the solid wall and would like to see a variety of construction materials used or a color scheme used to break up the wall. She stated she would like to see a condition made for the second item to have the staff work with the applicant for the exterior of the wall to be more aesthetically pleasing. Board of Appeals Minutes -10-April 13, 2005 Mr. Tucker stated a condition could be added regarding the architectural enhancements to be approved by the Department of Community Development, although they couldn’t condition any landscaping requirements in the County right-of-way. He stated he has had very good experiences working with the petitioners, and believes they will work in good faith with the city to appropriately design architectural enhancements into the wall. Motion by Wilusz to approve a racking and storage structure subject to the following condition: 1. Designed with architectural enhancements to be approved by the Department of Community Development before a building permit is issued. Seconded by Scheuermann. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of the Fact: This was the least possible variance necessary to remove the hardship. This is also a unique site that limited the applicant’s ability to expand. Chairperson Hentz called for any comments on the building designed with a metal mansard wall/roof system. Mr. Tollefson stated the roof system was designed to blend in with the existing structures on the site. Motion by Wilusz to approve a building designed with a metal mansard wall/roof system. Seconded by Cornell. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of the Fact: The improvements will match the existing structures to appear as a building addition which would not be required to meet the architectural standards of a wall facing a street, which would be unreasonable for this site. OTHER BUSINESS DISCUSSION OF BOARD OF APPEALS PROCEDURES Chairperson Hentz stated she wants the Board to consider voting according to the application or according to the Staff Report, versus the petitioners’ submittal. She stated she feels the current procedures are cumbersome for the Board and for the recording secretary and likes the old way of doing business better. Discussion followed regarding the different structures. Consensus was to work with the item as presented in the staff report, including the staff recommendation, and amend the the item if needed. Mr. Wilusz offered that Board of Appeals items are handled as public hearings, where the outcome is being figured out as discussions take place. He further explained how bills and amendments are handled at the State Government level. Board of Appeals Minutes -11-April 13, 2005 Mr. Tucker stated the Board of Appeals could be compared to a court hearing where the judge opens court and proceeds with a fact-finding process. Chairperson Hentz stated the Board of Appeals is not like the Common Council, a legislative body. However, all of these governmental bodies decisions may be overturned in a court of law. Motion by Hentz to vote on an item by considering the variance request as recommended in the Staff Report and proceed to modify from that point if needed. Seconded by Scheuermann. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Tucker noted the variance application heard at the March 23rd meeting regarding 651-653 N. Main Street, stating the applicant had called to apologize for not attending the meeting, as his schedule was confused as the result of having actions at both the Board of Appeals and the Plan Commission. Chairperson Hentz offered Congratulations to Mrs. Scheuermann for her victory in the Common Council race. She thanked her for her contributions to the Board of Appeals and wished her the best. Mrs. Scheuermann stated serving on the Board of Appeals has been a worthwhile experience and has encouraged others to apply to fill her position. Mr. Cornell noted the urgency in filling the two empty seats on the board. Mr. Tucker stated he would make sure the appropriate people were aware of this need. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:00 pm Cornell/Wilusz. Unanimous. Respectfully Submitted, MATT TUCKER Associate Planner MWT/vlr