Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Cheryl Hentz, Larry Lang, Donald Pressley, and Meredith Scheuermann EXCUSED: Edward Wilusz STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; and Debra Berger, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Minutes of the September 8, 2004 meeting were approved as mailed. Lang/Cornell. Unanimous. I: 443 ALGOMA BLVD. Charles Cheney, applicant, for First Church of Christ Scientist Church, owner, is requesting a variance to permit a ground sign that will have a 17 foot front yard setback from Dawes Street, whereas, Section 30-35(B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25 foot transitional yard setback for a sign. Mr. Tucker introduced the item and circulated photos of the proposed sign. Charles Cheney, applicant for First Church of Christ Scientist Church, 443 Algoma Blvd., stated that in their request, the proposed sign would be 6 ft. in height from the top of the sign to the ground. At that height the sign would be visible for the people going south on Dawes St.. In the staff report, it was stated 4 ft. above grade. Mr. Cheney stated the ‘Christian Science Reading Room’ is an integral part of the Christian Science Church. It has had several different locations through the years. He noted difficulty in finding the entrance due to the building setback from Dawes Street which is why the church is requesting to place the sign closer to the sidewalk than the Zoning Ordinance permits. Mr. Cheney further noted the proposed sign is the same colors as the sign on Algoma Blvd. Board discussion: Mr. Cornell asked Mr. Tucker if the size of the sign was permitted in this case. Mr. Tucker replied, that the property is zoned commercial and is allowed a maximum of 400 total sq. ft. for all ground signs and they would be well within that allowance with the two signs they would have on site. Motion by Lang for approval of the variance request to permit a ground sign that will have a 17 foot front yard setback from Dawes Street. Seconded by Cornell. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of the Fact: Mr. Cornell stated the proposed sign would not be disruptive to the neighborhood. It serves the purpose of fulfilling their need to be able to have people locate the Christian Science Reading Room and it is not a hindrance of any kind. Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -September 22, 2004 II: 1020-1142 S. KOELLER ST. Bonnie M. Livesey, owner, Alex J. Weis, applicant are requesting a variance to permit the reconstruction of the existing off-street parking and loading areas at current substandard setbacks, whereas, Section 30-34(D)(4)(a), (b), and (c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires 25 foot front yard setbacks, 15 foot side yard setbacks, and 5 foot rear yard setbacks for an off-street parking and loading area, and Section 30-35(B)(1)(c) requires a 25 foot transitional yard setback from the residential properties to the east. Mr. Tucker introduced the item and circulated a large-scale drawing and photos of the subject site. Alex Weiss, applicant, 1020-1140 S. Koeller St. Shopping Center, stated the parking lot is 25+ years old and needs reconstruction. Their intent is replace the lot while not reducing the number of parking stalls provided for the tenants. He further stated that they intended to add 4-5 green space areas, where drive aisle widths are excessive and in areas currently not used for parking. Mr. Lang questioned Mr. Weiss about his response to question #4 on his variance application, “If money must be spent on conforming, not enough funds will exist to perform the original projects”. Mr. Weiss replied, with the existing easements of the adjacent property owners, if they had to comply with setback requirements, adding the required landscaping would be very costly and would eliminate some parking spaces. Mr. Lang stated requests for variances should be specific in nature and that, in his opinion, there has not been enough detailed setback and landscape plan information provided for him to approve this variance request. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Weiss if the landscape plan was in the works? Mr. Weiss replied that the discussion about landscape plan was started with staff after the variance request was submitted. Mr. Lang suggested that perhaps the board should hold off on the voting of this variance until Mr. Weiss completes and submits the landscape plan with the areas to be returned to green space. Mr. Weiss replied that if this is held off until the 10/13/04 Board of Appeals meeting, the paving would not be able to be done until 2005, as the asphalt plants shut down for the year just before Thanksgiving. This delay would be beneficial for the owner, as they could postpone the improvement until 2005, but would be unfortunate for the tenants. Mr. Carpenter inquired of staff if all of the existing entrances to the shopping center would continue to be open, noting a traffic congestion problem on S. Koeller Street. Mr. Tucker replied, yes, the entrances would remain open. Closing entrances is a very challenging process, usually occurring at a function of redevelopment. Mr. Weiss pointed out the proposed landscaping areas. Chairperson Hentz inquired as to the type of landscaping they intend to put in. Mr. Weiss replied they would not be planting anything to hamper visibility to motorists, and they would work with staff. Mr. Pressley stated he thinks that once Mr. Tucker has defined the areas the landscaping is to be placed that the board does not need to see the landscaping plan. Mr. Pressley further stated he would like to see a third condition, that a landscaping plan be submitted and approved by staff before there is an issuance of a building permit. Mr. Carpenter asked how is the board sure that the landscaping has been completed. Mr. Tucker replied shortly after the parking lot and associated landscaping is installed, staff goes out and inspects. Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -September 22, 2004 Board discussion followed with there being some confusion as to how they will handle motions, making amendments to compose a motion for a vote. It was concluded that they first move to approve the variance request, as proposed by petitioner. If the motion is seconded, the chairperson opens the table for further discussion. At that point, amendments to the original motion may be proposed. A simple majority is required to approve the amendment to the original motion. Motion by Carpenter for approval of the variance request to permit the reconstruction of the existing off-street parking and loading areas at current substandard setbacks, as requested by the petitioner. Seconded by Lang. Motion by Cornell to amend the original motion, to include the two conditions as stated in the staff report and adding a third condition, as follows: 1. The paving plan be modified to eliminate or reduce paving in areas not used for parking or drive aisle, or where drive aisle widths are excessive, specifically described as areas along S. Koeller Street and in the area behind the building, before a building permit is issued for reconstruction. 2. An updated parking plan be submitted showing locations of all designated off-street parking spaces on site, before a building permit is issued for reconstruction. 3. A landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to an issuance of a building permit. Second by Pressley. Voice vote on amendment carried by majority. Those opposing: Lang. Roll call on original motion, as amended. Carried 4-1. Nay Lang. Finding of the Fact: Chairperson Hentz stated granting this variance would not cause an adverse impact on the neighboring properties. It will improve the overall appearance and functionality of the parking lot. It will hopefully make things a little more safe. Mr. Lang stated the minority’s position is that the variance as presented was inadequately documented, not sufficient description of what was to be done, planned to be done, or could be done. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Chairperson Hentz introduced and welcomed new member, Meredith Scheuermann to the board. Ms. Scheuermann stated she is looking forward to working with this committee and is becoming more active and involved in the community. Board of Appeals Minutes -4 -September 22, 2004 2. Mr. Carpenter inquired to Mr. Tucker regarding follow-up on items approved with conditions. Mr. Tucker replied that conditions are generally followed up on, as projects progress or are completed. Any board member should contact him if they see anything in question or have inquires in regard to status. 3. The Board once again discussed the method of how the board will handle motions, making amendments, and approvals of requested variances. Mr. Lang made a motion that the procedure for calling for a vote on an item before the board be handled as follows: The chairperson asks for a motion to approve the variance request, as originally requested by the petitioner. If that motion is seconded, the chair will open up the floor for discussion. At this time, a board member may propose to modify the original motion on the table. A simple majority is required to pass an amendment to the original motion. When all amendments have either passed or failed, a vote is taken taken on the main motion, with any amendments. Carpenter seconded this motion. Motion carried 5-1. Nay Pressley. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m. Cornell /Lang. Unanimous. Respectfully Submitted, MATT TUCKER Associate Planner MWT/djb