HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
Board of Appeals Minutes March 9, 2005 Page 1 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MARCH 9, 2005 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Cheryl Hentz, Larry Lang, Edward Wilusz EXCUSED: Meredith
Scheuermann STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; Patty LaCombe, Clerical Assistant; Darlene Brandt, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Hentz. Roll call
was taken and a quorum declared present. A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of February 23, 2005 as distributed. Motion approved by voice vote. HEARING CONTINUANCE:
2822 OREGON STREET – LuVern Kienast, owner Mr. Tucker noted the applicant is requesting approval to permit an off-street parking area with a 0 ft. front yard setback and a 0 ft. rear
yard setback to serve as a display area for automobile sales. Mt. Tucker distributed photos showing the site and a map illustrating the Oregon St./County Rd. I right-of-way (on file
at the Planning Services Division office). This item was laid over from the February 23, 2005 meeting. Mr. LuVern Kienast, 765 N. Washburn St., stated he has an interested party who
wants to use the property as a used car lot. This is an odd shaped lot that is hard to find uses for. He felt a car lot would be a good use for the lot due to the commercial and industrial
nature of the area. Mr. Wilusz inquired how the parking plan would work. Mr. Kienast replied the traffic pattern could be from two directions. Mr. Tucker stated staff had prepared an
alternate parking plan that he believed would work for this site. There was discussion on whether to hear the alternate parking plan. It was felt the Board should vote on the request
as submitted. Motion by Lang to move approval of an off-street parking area with a 0 ft. front yard setback and a 0 ft. rear yard setback. Seconded by Cornell. Motion denied 0-5. Mr.
Tucker noted he had met with the City’s GIS mapping specialist to see if there is an alternate parking plan that could work on this property. Mr. Tucker distributed an alternate parking
plan (on file at the Planning Services Division office) illustrating a 5 ft. setback from the Oregon St. right-of-way, which setback is consistent with other M-2 sites that provide a
setback where none is required. Mr. Tucker indicated this site was developed without a setback at some point in the past. Ms. Hentz inquired of Mr. Kienast if the parking plan proposed
by staff was acceptable? Mr. Kienast believed so; he indicated he is willing to work with staff on this issue. Mr. Lang stated the Board previously had discussion on how many driveways
are allowed. How many are permitted?
Board of Appeals Minutes March 9, 2005 Page 2 Mr. Tucker stated that under the alternate parking plan, it is proposed to allow 2 curb cuts: ingress/egress on the south side of the lot
and egress (exit) only on the north side of the lot. Mr. Tucker also indicated curb stops are required adjacent to the right-of-way to prevent people from driving off the curb. The curb
stops would be at the 5 ft. setback and parallel to Oregon Street, to allow for snow removal, etc. Mr. Lang felt larger cars will extend over the curb cut if the stops are placed at
5 feet. Perhaps an additional 3 ft. back from the curb should be considered. Mr. Tucker concurred that vehicles tend to extend into the setback, but since angle parking is proposed,
only the front-left corner of the vehicles would project past the paving. Motion by Carpenter to move approval of the revised off-street parking area as presented by staff with the following
conditions: 1) Ingress/egress be permitted on the south side of the lot. 2) Egress (exit only) be be permitted on the north side of the lot. 3) Curb stops be setback 3 ft. from the proposed
5 ft. setback area. Mr. Tucker pointed out that placing the curb stops an additional 3 ft. back might push a vehicle into the maneuvering area and create a traffic hazard. Perhaps a
6 ft. setback from the curb should be considered. Ms. Hentz stated she would rather see a vehicle overhang into a green space versus creating a possible maneuvering hazard within the
parking lot. It was the consensus that the placement of the curb stops should be approved by the Planning Services Division staff. Mr. Tucker also noted conditions of approval should
include landscaping within the 5 ft. setback area and closing the middle curb cut in accordance with City standards. Conditions of approval were amended as follows: 1) Ingress/egress
be permitted on the south side of the lot. 2) Egress (exit only) be permitted on the north side of the lot. 3) Curb stops be installed along Oregon St. frontage with placement of the
curb stops being being approved by the Planning Services Division. 4) A landscape plan be submitted to and approved by the Planning Services Division. 5) The excess curb cuts be closed
in accordance with Dept. of Public Works standards. Seconded by Wilusz. Mr. Lang stated that when this item was previously heard, the Board had requested a detailed site plan. The Board
requires people to submit their information as appropriate in advance. He felt the original request has been modified and this should be laid over for two weeks. He felt the Board is
trying to accommodate this applicant. He believed approving the revised site plan would be violating the spirit of how the Board operates. Ms. Hentz stated we, as a Board, have routinely
made changes and modifications to plans. If the Board is going to hold everyone to the letter of the law, no one would be granted a variance. She believed what staff did was acceptable
and she supports it. Mr. Carpenter stated he also supports staff’s proposal and commended staff for working with Mr. Kienast, who is a long time businessman of the city. He believed
the alternate parking plan presented by staff will look better than what exists.
Board of Appeals Minutes March 9, 2005 Page 3 Ms. Hentz wished to clarify that this property was probably developed in the 1920’s and there were no setbacks at that time. Roll call was
taken. Motion carried 4-1. (Aye: Carpenter, Cornell, Wilusz, Hentz. Nay: Lang) Regarding the findings of fact, Ms. Hentz stated the property pre-dates the existing Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed setback will be the least required to make a functional parking lot. There will be no impact on adjacent properties. I. MARVEL DRIVE & W. 34TH AVENUE, VACANT LOT – Robert
& Janet Dahl, applicants Mr. Tucker stated the applicants are proposing to construct a new factory, warehouse and office building for a manufacturing operation on one of the last vacant
parcels in the Aviation Industrial Park at the corner of Marvel Dr. and W. 34th Avenue. A variance is being requested for a vehicle access drive with a 3 ft. side yard setback from the
south property line. The lot is unique in that it abuts a former landfill which has presented several obstacles for the applicants in developing this property. There is an easement through
the northern portion of the lot for existing monitoring wells. Mr. Tucker believed the proposed development is the most effective use of the property. Mr. Doug Pearson, Executive Director
of Chamco, Inc., stated they have been working with the applicants to find a suitable site in this area, as they wish to maintain a presence in the Aviation Industrial Park. Mr. Pearson
noted several of the obstacles that have been faced in developing this site and asked for the Board’s careful consideration of this request. Mr. Bob Puck, design consultant with Jim
Panko Inc., 15 Greenbriar Ct., Fond du Lac, displayed a color rendering of the proposed site (not on file) illustrating the proposed layout, location of monitoring wells, etc. Mr. Puck
noted landscaping will be of a columnar variety and will be 25 ft. on center, which will increase the amount of landscaping beyond what the minimum requirement is. Unless his client
can work with the plan before the Board, this site may not be developed. Mr. Wilusz inquired if the building could be reduced in size? Mr. Bob Dahl, 5553 S. US Hwy. 45, Oshkosh, stated
this is a proposed warehousing operation and a smaller building would not be workable. Motion by Lang to approve a 3 ft. side yard setback from the south property line for construction
of a vehicle access drive. Seconded by Cornell. Motion carried 5-0 Regarding the findings of fact, Ms. Hentz felt this is a unique property. Development without approval of this variance
would be restricted. There is no adverse impact on adjacent properties. Mr. Wilusz stated this is in the best interest of the public. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted, MATT TUCKER Associate Planner