HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MAY 26, 2004 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Thomas Feavel, Cheryl Hentz, Larry Lang, Edward Wilusz, and John Schorse; Chairman STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate
Planner; Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary and Debra Berger, Clerical Assistant. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schorse. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present.
Minutes of the May 12, 2004 meeting were approved as mailed. Hentz/Feavel. Unanimous. City Attorney Warren Kraft gave a presentation to the Board of Appeals regarding recent changes
in the Wisconsin Land Use Law per the recent decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, followed by a question and answer period. Attorney Kraft used a diagram to interpret the history
of court cases that have determined the rules for the Board of Appeal to follow in granting or denying variances. “Unnecessary Hardship versus No Reasonable Use” and “Area versus Use”
was discussed along with four reviewing principals: 1) Presumption of correctness; 2) Focus on Ordinance purpose; 3) Analysis of facts in light of purpose; and 4) the flexibility for
the Board of Appeals to exercise discretion. I: 2301 UNIVERSAL STREET R.J. Albright, Inc., petitioner, Mike Grunsted, Multicircuits, owner, requests a variance to construct an off-street
parking area that will have a 14’6” front yard setback to Badger Avenue and a fire lane/access drive that will have an 11’10” rear yard setback whereas, Section 30-30 (B) (1) of the
City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 30’ front yard setback to Badger Avenue for an off-street parking area and Section 30-30 (B)(3) requires a 25’ rear yard setback for a fire
lane/access drive. Mr. Tucker passed around pictures of the site. Mr. Tucker explained the situation with the site being a corner lot with two front yards. Mike Grunsted, President of
Multicircuits, 2301 Universal Street, introduced himself along with Richard Fisher, Architect, and Robert Sellers, representing Oshkosh Architectural Door, 2501 Universal Street. Mr.
Grunsted thanked the Board for hearing this request and thanked the staff for working with Bob Albright on this project, who would not be attending due to illness. Mr. Grunsted stated
his business has grown in the last two years after seeing a decline in 2001. He stated he has 75 employees and the company has been in the City for 15 years, relocating from central
Illinois. He discussed the nature of the business and contracting done with other companies to deliver their product. He stated the business is growing internally and noted parking has
been a concern for a few years with no on-street parking available.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -May 26, 2004 Mr. Grunsted also discussed the warehouse located off site and how they currently have a disjointed assembly and would like the room to have
the full assembly process and chemicals in one location. He stated efficiency is also a factor, and with the competitiveness of the market, they try to ship product out in less than
one week. He stated there would be three phases of expansion; the addition and parking lot expansion, offices, and a new manufacturing building addition to the west. Mr. Grunsted stated
this expansion would address the drainage, the recent code change requiring a 20 foot fire lane, which would also be used as the truck delivery route, and the detention area requirements
that were not in place in 1989 when they first relocated the company to the site. He stated they would like to get the infrastructure in place at this time, and noted they would possibly
be locating the offices in a new addition along Universal Street. Chairman Schorse questioned if phase I, which the Board would be making their decision on today, would consist of the
addition to the south and the expansion of the parking lot. Mr. Grunsted replied that was correct. Rick Fisher, Fisher and Associates, 642 Thelosen Drive, Kimberly, stated there had
been major code changes since the building was constructed. He stated the nature of the business has also changed from general manufacturing to hazardous manufacturing and they wish
to bring the building into compliance, which would reduce risks to the current facility. He stated without the revision to the building code requiring a 20’ fire lane, a variance for
this project would not be needed. He stated when they reviewed the master plan for the company they found that with an addition to the south a fire lane is required. He stated the fire
lane would be in the setback, not the building. He also stated they would be removing the current front yard non-compliant parking area in the setback to Universal Street, and updating
the landscaping plan for the entire property. Mr. Wilusz questioned the safety factor in the storage of chemicals. Mr. Grunsted stated the chemicals would be stored near the manufacturing
area separated by a concrete wall. He stated employees would have a more convenient but safer access to the chemicals with the construction of this addition. Mr. Lang questioned if the
fire lane and truck route would be the same, and if it would have a hard surface. Mr. Fisher stated the fire lane and truck deliveries would use the same route and would have an asphalt
surface. Mr. Lang also questioned if the landscaping for the area would meet Ordinance requirements and also provide clearance for the semi-trailers. Mr. Grunsted stated it might not
be practical to install the landscaping as drawn, but the variety of trees in the plan should be 3-5 feet above the driving level. He stated the landscape plan shows they want to and
are willing to increase the landscaping on site. Ms. Hentz thanked Mr. Grunsted for being very articulate in explaining plans for the site, and questioned if he was agreeable with the
conditions made in the Staff Report. Mr. Grunsted replied he had no problem with condition number one regarding the landscaping, however, he was not comfortable with condition number
2 regarding the no-build easement. He stated there is plenty of space between properties and he would prefer that condition be removed. Ms. Hentz questioned if Mr. Grunsted understood
the staff’s reasoning for condition number 2. Mr. Grunsted stated he understood the requirement of providing a 45’ setback of green space between the two developments.
Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -May 26, 2004 Mr. Wilusz questioned if he had any discussions with anyone regarding the no-build easement. Bob Sellers, General Manager for Oshkosh Architectural
Door Company, 2501 Universal Street, stated he has discussed the expansion project with Mr. Grunsted and has no objection to the condition. He stated he didn’t see his company encroaching
on 2301 Universal Street at any point. He noted how they would be able to provide adequate green space and possibly have shared landscaping to provide adequate clearance for the fire
lane/truck route. Ms. Hentz questioned if Mr. Sellers had any problem giving Mr. Grunsted the no-build easement. Mr. Sellers stated he didn’t have any problem granting the no-build easement.
Mr. Tucker made reference to the comment Mr. Seller’s made regarding shared green space, explaining how they needed to each have their own landscaping on their own property unless they
would get an easement showing joint landscaping area approved by the City. Mr. Grunsted questioned if there was a requirement for the type of trees planted. Mr. Tucker stated the Zoning
Ordinance has requirements for the variety of trees planted and also the maintenance of the landscaping. Mr. Grunsted questioned if the fire lane was considered parking lot perimeter.
Mr. Tucker confirmed it was. Mr. Lang made reference to page 2 of the Staff Report which states that Chamco has reviewed this request and has recommended approval of the variances as
requested and questioned the role Chamco plays in this site. Mr. Tucker explained the role of Chamco in relationship to the industrial parks, the continuing development of new and existing
properties, and as the overseeing body, Chamco handles the enforcement of industrial park covenants to ensure consistency in the City’s Industrial Parks. Mr. Feavel stated he would support
the variances with or without the conditions as noted in the staff report. Mr. Lang questioned the definition of “intensive” landscaping, as he hasn’t found a definition in the Zoning
Ordinance and also questioned who has the authority to decide what intensive may be. Mr. Tucker quoted Section 30-35(H)(3)(h) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which relates to modifications
to landscaping requirements. He also gave an example of how a 50% reduction in setback would be comparable to a 50% increase in landscaping. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variances
as requested subject to the following conditions as noted in the Staff Report: 1. A landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to issuance
of a building permit. Landscape plan is to include a refuse disposal area detail and more intensive landscaping in areas where setbacks have been reduced by the variance.
Board of Appeals Minutes -4 -May 26, 2004 2. A “no build” easement be obtained from the adjacent property owner to the south, encompassing 34’2” of the south property abutting the subject
site. Seconded by Wilusz. Motion carried 4-1. Nay: Lang Finding of the Fact: Ms. Hentz stated there is no harm to the public interest. Mr. Wilusz stated the public interest is enhanced
from the issue of public safety. Mr. Schorse stated it was the minimum required to correct the parking situation, especially with no off-street parking available. Mr. Hentz stated the
property was limited as to where improvements could be made. In representing the minority of the vote, Mr. Lang noted that there was no special situation that raises an unnecessary hardship
in his opinion. He stated the site was too small for this use and not suitable for the intention of the original zoning. Mr. Wilusz stated in his opinion it was in compliance with the
letter of the Zoning Ordinance, as it appeared to be a reasonable use of the site according according to the zoning. He stated changes made to the Zoning Ordinance and building codes
required the facility to be brought up to code in regards to the fire lane, which was by no fault of the owner. Ms. Hentz stated literally, the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance results
in an unnecessary hardship that renders conformity that is unnecessarily burdensome on the applicant. Mr. Feavel stated he was familiar with this property before Universal Street and
Badger Avenue was constructed and he has no problem with what they have approved today, being located on a corner lot. He stated it is a good fit with the surrounding properties. OTHER
BUSINESS No Other Business was brought up for discussion. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:47 p.m. Hentz/Feavel. Unanimous. Respectfully Submitted MATT TUCKER
Associate Planner MWT/vlr