HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES APRIL 14, 2004 PRESENT: Robert Cornell, Thomas Feavel, Cheryl Hentz, Larry Lang, Edward Wilusz and John Schorse, Chairman STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner;
and Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schorse. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Minutes of the February 25, 2004 meeting
were approved as mailed. Hentz/Cornell. Unanimous. I: 151 W. FERNAU STREET Dale Nelson, Architect, Consolidated Construction Co., applicant, Walter Engler, owner, are requesting a variance
to construct an off-street parking/maneuvering area with a 0” rear yard setback, a zero foot front yard setback, a 3’5” side yard setback to the east, and a 2’10” side yard setback to
the west, whereas, Section 30-30 (B) (3) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ rear yard setback and Section 30-30 (B) (2) requires a 20’ side yard setback for an off-street
parking/maneuvering area. Mr. Tucker circulated copies of the site plan as submitted by Mr. Engler, property owner. (On file in the Department of Community Development) Dale Nelson,
Consolidated Construction Company, 4300 N. Richmond Street, Appleton, distributed a letter from Greg Piper of the Oshkosh Fire Department in support of the proposed site plan. (On file
in the Department of Community Development) Mr. Nelson discussed the master site plan for the development of the site and discussed the changes made to the Zoning Ordinance restricting
paving to the property line. He stated fire protection was a key issue as this use was considered a low hazard manufacturing use and a sprinkler system was not required, therefore, it
was important for emergency services to have access around the entire building. He noted, since the setback requirements have changed, they would not able to provide access around the
building without approval of setback variances. He stated the master plan was prepared using required setbacks from the previous zoning ordinance. Mr. Walter Engler, 151 W. Fernau Avenue,
used the map as displayed to point out the area that was paved to the lot line before the Zoning Ordinance was changed. He pointed out the proposed truck route. He stated that without
variances he wouldn’t be able to construct the addition, as there wouldn’t be room for the trucks to maneuver on site. Mr. Nelson stated the trucks would be inside the building when
unloading. He also stated the proposed plan would give the trucks and emergency service vehicles access around the entire building. He stated the business has been successful and needs
to expand.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -April 14, 2004 Ms. Hentz questioned the minimum setback necessary to pave the area and still be able to provide a safe access around the property and some
green space. Mr. Nelson stated that according to the International Fire Code, a minimum drive width of 20’ was needed, with flaring in some areas so trucks could maneuver around the
building. He stated they would be working with the Department of Community Development for landscaping around the building. Mr. Nelson stated that he constructed the current office out
of masonry material, and in his opinion, this building is one of the most attractive in the area. He stated they want to construct a quality project, and which would not be possible
considering the required setbacks. Ms. Hentz questioned if there have been any instances where emergency services has needed to respond and how they would maneuver if they had to come
with the current configuration. Mr. Engler stated there has not been a need to have emergency services on on site, and pointed out the route on the map as displayed that emergency vehicles
would have to use, requiring vehicles to back out of the property. Mr. Wilusz questioned if a variance was needed for the truck maneuvering area in the front of the building, to facilitate
backing into the loading area of the new building. Mr. Nelson stated they wanted to maximize the options for the truck drivers. Mr. Wilusz questioned if they could reduce the area necessary
for paving, to not encroach into the 30’ front yard setback area. Mr. Nelson stated he believed that would be possible. Mr. Wilusz questioned if there were 2 bays for the trucks to back
into, and if the staff’s recommendation was acceptable. Both Mr. Engler and Mr. Nelson stated the staff’s recommendation was acceptable, and there were 2 bays for the trucks to back
into. Discussion followed regarding the maneuvering into the loading areas, and if the paving into the front yard setback was necessary. Mr. Engler added that they will continue to use
split face block and would landscape the property according to the Department of Community Developments requirements. He stated the appearance of his property was important to him and
for the image of the business. Ms. Hentz stated that since the applicants have said they could make this project work according to staff’s recommendation she was willing to support the
project. Mr. Lang arrived at this time. Mr. Tucker stated he still is concerned with the amount of space available to maneuver on site. He stated this proposal uses a 65’ long truck
with 10’ of maneuvering space available on the site to back into the door. Mr. Tucker traced the route of the trucks coming into the property, and pulling out onto Fernau Avenue from
the east driveway to back into the building for unloading and questioned if the addition would have to be narrowed. Signage was also suggested to restrict truck access to the west entrance
only, and that the east entrance will be used for exiting only. The length of a standard size truck was also questioned as to 80’ vs. 65’, along with enough room allowed to make the
corners. Mr. Wilusz stated the petitioner/owner would have to prove that trucks are able to maneuver on site before a building permit is issued, and if so, it then will become an enforcement
issue when pulling out onto Fernau Avenue to back into the building to unload.
Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -April 14, 2004 Mr. Wilusz stated that if the trucks can comply, he was comfortable with the staff’s recommendation. Motion by Hentz to approve the staff’s
recommendation for a 3’ 5” side yard setback to the east, and a 2’10” side yard setback to the west and a 0’ rear yard setback for a parking/maneuvering area, and denial of the variance
to permit the parking/maneuvering area into the 30 foot front yard setback area at 151 W. Fernau Avenue subject to the following conditions: 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 more intensive landscaping in areas where setbacks have been reduced by
a variance. 2) Signs to be placed in accordance with the Department of Community Development as required for truck entrance only at west driveway. Seconded by Wilusz. Motion carried
4-1-1 Nay: Feavel, Lang Abstaining. Ms. Hentz questioned the outcome of the vote taken. Mr. Lang indicated that since he was not present for all of the discussion, facts and testimony,
he would abstain from the vote. Mr. Tucker explained that since Mr. Lang abstained from the vote, Mr. Cornell’s vote (an alternate member) would be counted. Finding of the Fact: Mr.
Wilusz stated it was the least variance necessary. Ms. Hentz stated there didn’t appear to be an adverse impact on the neighboring properties and the safety issue has been addressed
and approved by the Fire Department. II: 3190 OREGON STREET Jeffrey and Wendy Jagodinski, applicants/owners, are requesting a variance to construct an additional detached garage in the
rear yard area that is 1320 square feet in structure area, and to extend a driveway to the new structure that will be surfaced with gravel, whereas, Section 30-17 (4) (b) (vi) of the
City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires that detached garages in the rear yard area shall not exceed 800 square feet in structure area and Section 30-36 (C) (3) (a) (i) requires driveways
to be surfaced with dust-free material such as asphalt or concrete. Wendy Jagodinski, 3190 Oregon Street, stated this property was the homestead of her in-laws and they were trying to
keep it in the family. She stated her in-laws purchased the property when it was in the Town of Black Wolf. She stated that according to Black Wolf codes, if the property was still in
the Town of Black Wolf, they could have up to 1892 square feet of accessory structure area. She stated she was not aware of the R-1, Single Family Residence District Zoning they were
in now after annexing to the City of Oshkosh. She stated they thought they were still zoned commercial and questioned if the zoning was changed when they annexed into the City. Mrs.
Jagodinski stated they store many articles off-site at the present time. She passed around an aerial map of the property and noted the 2 acres of farmland making this an unusual City
of Oshkosh property. She stated they bought the property 2 1/2 years ago and didn’t want to sell the property since it’s been in the family for an extended period of time.
Board of Appeals Minutes -4 -April 14, 2004 Ms. Hentz requested Mrs. Jagodinski to point out on the map where the garage would be located. Mrs. Jagodinski showed the proposed location
of the garage on the map. She stated all the neighbors have an extra storage area, and this was proposed to be similar to their buildings. She stated they do not want to build the building
where farmers currently cultivate the land and noted the garage would be out of site from the road. Mrs. Jagodinski also noted that according to the Zoning Ordinance the driveway would
have to be paved. She stated the length of the proposed driveway was 260’ and the existing driveway is gravel and they would like to extend the gravel. She stated only one neighbor has
a blacktop driveway in the neighborhood. Ms. Hentz questioned if she was the only property in the City in the area. Mrs. Jagodinski stated they were the only ones in the City in the
area, and they annexed because of a contaminated well. She also stated that three neighbors had called her about the project with no opposition. Mr. Wilusz questioned if this variance
was denied, did they intend to put up an 800 square feet or smaller garage. Mrs. Jagodinski stated they have put new siding on the home recently, and made a lot of improvements, and
they can’t afford to tear down the garage to rebuild. She stated they don’t have enough storage room for all their belongings and do not desire to move from the homestead. She stated
they need extra space for a boat, camper, and 2 cars driven by their teenagers, along with maintenance equipment for their large property. Mr. Schorse questioned if she had talked with
the Town of Black Wolf. Mrs. Jagodinski stated she had talked to the town and she tried to stay within the Towns guidelines of 1900 square feet maximum size for all out buildings and
they are requesting 1320 square feet for the new building, 30 x 44, with this variance request. Mr. Schorse questioned where she got the zoning information that this was commercial property.
Mrs. Jogodinski stated her in-laws told her they were zoned commercial. She stated they pay both City and Town of Black Wolf Taxes because of a piece of land near the railroad tracks
that has remained in the town. She stated she doesn’t really know what the town portion of her property is zoned. Mr. Tucker stated the property was annexed into the City of Oshkosh
with a zoning classification of R-1 Single Family Residence District, either as requested or recommended by staff, which is established by the present use or future use of the property.
He explained a land bridge on the east end of the property was needed to connect to Town property to the north, in order not to create a Town island. Mr. Lang asked if this property
was the only piece in the area annexed into the City of Oshkosh. Mr. Tucker pointed out on the map displayed the property that is in the City at this time, the City’s Aviation industrial
park is across Oregon Street, some properties are annexed to the south, and several properties surround the subject subject property that are in the Town of Black Wolf. Mr. Tucker stated
some of the properties in the area will be coming into the City in 10 years according to a soon to be approved agreement between the Town of Algoma and the City of Oshkosh. However,
Ms. Hentz pointed out all abutting residential properties at this time are in the Town of Black Wolf.
Board of Appeals Minutes -5 -April 14, 2004 Mr. Wilusz questioned since they have a 572 square feet of existing detached garage, if they could build another garage that would be 628
square feet. in size. Mr. Tucker stated no, they could construct an addition to the garage to bring the detached garage up to 800 square feet, raze the existing detached garage and build
a new 800 square foot garage, or build a 1200 square foot attached garage. They could also construct a 150 square foot utility storage structure. Mr. Feavel stated he was in support
of a denial for this request. Mr. Schorse stated he could see the uniqueness of the property, and the neighbors have the same situation and out buildings, and the applicant is trying
to stay within the previous zoning requirements so it seems like they’re asking for what’s necessary. Ms. Hentz stated they annexed to the City through no fault of their own. Mr. Lang
stated he didn’t find anything unique in this situation. He stated the property has been annexed since 1995, and one should follow the rules of their zoning district. Mr. Lang stated
he would not support this variance request. He stated it’s been quite some time since special circumstances have applied. Mr. Wilusz stated it didn’t appear to be a unique situation,
as this variance wouldn’t be granted anywhere else in the City. He stated he is sensitive to the situation, however, he would have to support a denial of the variance. Ms. Hentz stated
she would vote in favor of the granting the variance. She stated she didn’t see any harm it would cause the public and it would match the neighboring lots who are all country residents.
She also stated the hardship was no fault of their own. Mr. Wilusz agreed there would be no harm to the public interest, however, he didn’t see a hardship and stated they didn’t need
a variance for the alternatives listed in the Staff Report. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct an additional detached garage in the rear yard area that is 1320
square feet in structure structure area, and to extend a driveway to the new structure that will be surfaced with gravel at 3190 Oregon Street. Seconded by Lang. Motion denied. 2-3.
Nays: Feavel, Lang, and Wilusz. III: 2660 OREGON STREET Howard Hoth, applicant, and R. Todd Thill, owner, request a variance to construct a fence that will be 7 feet tall in a required
setback area, whereas, Section 30-35 (E) (3) and 30-30 (B) (3) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 50 foot setback for a fence taller than 6 feet in height. This item
was withdrawn by the petitioner.
Board of Appeals Minutes -6 -April 14, 2004 V: 1605 S. MAIN STREET Edward Lemke, applicant/owner, requests a variance to construct a building with a 20 foot setback to W. 16th Avenue
and an off-street parking area with a zero foot setback to W. 16th Avenue and a 10 foot setback to S. Main Street, whereas Section 30-35 (B) (1) (c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance
requires a 25 foot setback to W. 16th Avenue for an off-street parking area and building and Section 30-35 (B) (1) (d) requires a 25 foot setback to S. Main Street for an off-street
parking area. Mr. Tucker introduced the request, and since the staff report was quite detailed in analysis, he asked the applicants to assist in explaining the project to the board.
Jim Groff, HGM Architects, introduced himself, Dean McCann, general contractor and Mr. Lemke, owner. Mr. Groff stated he is requesting a 20’ setback from 16th Avenue, and a 10 foot setback
from S. Main Street to accommodate a new building to be constructed and vehicles with boat and trailer parking. Mr. Tucker stated staff could support two spaces for vehicles with a boat
and trailer, which would provide a 20 foot setback to S. Main Street, and necessitate a 5 foot area variance. Mr. Lemke indicated that most parking is short term, for 5-10 minutes only.
Mr. Lemke showed a copy of the site plan with parking spaces with vehicles with a boat and trailer parked in those spaces. Mr. Groff stated the final configuration of the lot has the
building set back 71 feet from S. Main Street to allow parking in the front of the building. He mentioned they wouldn’t be able to provide 1 space per 200 square feet of building area
per the parking stall requirement for retail space because this wouldn’t allow them room for vehicles with boats and trailers to park. Mr. Lang questioned if there was parking available
on public streets. Mr. Groff stated there is some parking on 16th Avenue, but there is not enough room between lots for a vehicle pulling a boat to park because many of the lots are
only 40-50’ wide and many of the boats that come in, especially for tournaments, are 45’ long without including the vehicle pulling them, and there is no parking on S. Main Street. Mr.
Groff stated the subject property is zoned M-2 and not directly adjacent to an R-2 property. Mr. Lang questioned if there was parking on Doty Street. Mr. Groff stated there might be
one stall available. Mr. Lemke stated parking was lost across the street when that property was recently redeveloped. Mr. Groff stated the parking plan they have submitted allows for
4 vehicle/boat stalls and 14 car spaces. Mr. Lemke stated they have already reduced the size of the building on both sides, as they have changed the site plan from what was originally
submitted. Ms. Hentz questioned exactly what variances they were asking for, since a second submittal has been discussed. Mr. Tucker stated the final site plan depicting the requested
variances is included in the Staff Report.
Board of Appeals Minutes -7 -April 14, 2004 Mr. Groff stated they are asking for a building with a 20’ setback from 16th Avenue and an off-street parking area with a 10’ setback from
S. Main Street. He added that razing the existing building and putting up a new building with a paved parking including landscaping would be a great improvement to the corner. Mr. Lang
questioned if there was sufficient setbacks from Doty Street and the property to the south of his lot. Mr. Groff stated that the proposed plans are compliant on Doty Street and to the
south, they are asking for variances for the east and the north. Mr. Wilusz questioned what size of building they could put up to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Dean McCann stated
it was his opinion they wouldn’t be able to put up a building and comply with the Zoning Ordinance. He stated Mr. Lemke has off-site storage in several places in the City and he would
like to centralize the storage at one location. They are proposing between 3000 and 3150 square feet of of retail space to meet Mr. Lemke’s needs. Mr. Wilusz questioned if they could
build more than one story. Mr. Lemke stated the surrounding area is comprised of one-story buildings. Mr. McCann stated a two story building would double the cost and added that they
are restricted because of the accessibility requirements of the building code. Mr. Lang questioned if the setback issue from 16th Avenue was for the building or for the parking. Mr.
Groff stated the setback was needed for the building. He stated in his opinion there are many houses on 16th Avenue that have setbacks varying from 10’ to 16’. Mr. Tucker stated houses
on 16th Avenue vary from 10’ to 25’ set back from the right-of-way line. Ms. Hentz questioned how much square feet of storage Mr. Lemke had at other locations around the City. Mr. Lemke
replied he has storage sheds 6’x 8’, 20’ x 22’, and 10’ x 22’, and in the back of his current building in a 16 x 40 square foot area that are all full. He stated he desires to centralize
all his storage into into one location as he is looking for more convenience at his age. Mr. Schorse stated the proposed building is 4600 square feet. Mr. Groff stated they are figuring
on less than 3200 square feet for retail space and the rest of the space will be used for offices, restrooms and storage. Mr. Wilusz questioned if the requested variances were denied,
if they would be able to work with the staff’s recommendation of a 20 foot setback for the off-street parking area to S. Main Street and approval of a variance for the two vehicle towing-a-boat/trail
er parking spaces to have a 14 foot setback to 16th Avenue. Mr. Lemke stated this wouldn’t be an alternative for him, as he couldn’t lose one more inch of space he was proposing. Mr.
Wilusz stated he was struggling with this situation, balancing the economic hardship with the zoning requirement. Mr. Schorse questioned if he had tried to acquire additional land from
the adjacent property owner. Mr. Lemke stated he hoped to in the future but he hasn’t approached that option at this time. Discussion followed regarding alternatives as to where to place
the building, reducing the building size, the size of the parking lot, the size of vehicles using the parking lot, the off street parking available and the disruption the street parking
has on the homes in the area when customers pull up early in the morning for supplies.
Board of Appeals Minutes -8 -April 14, 2004 Mr. Lang questioned the configuration of the parking lot. Mr. Wilusz questioned if signs would be used for entrance and exit points. Mr. Lemke
stated they want to have the traffic enter on 16th Avenue and exit on Main Street and stated signage could be used. Mr. Tucker noted that the site plan also shows a loading space proposed
in the required front yard setback from W. 16th Avenue, which is not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance and a variance request was not submitted to request this. Mr. Groff stated they
are planning to close a curb cut and put a sidewalk in for loading purposes. Mr. Tucker stated that the current plan shows a space that would not be a location permitted for a loading
space. Mr. Tucker stated that it appears the building is too large for this site, and it is a difficult situation. He stated the City is in support of private redevelopment, but it appears
the applicant’s needs in this case are greater than this site can support. Mr. Groff questioned if they reduced the building to 85 feet if they would still need the variance on Main
Street for the proposed off-street parking. Mr. Tucker stated a 5’ variance would still be needed for the two boat parking spaces. Ms. Hentz stated she visited the site at 1:00 in the
afternoon and traffic was heavy and parking was difficult. She also stated that she was there on a Tuesday, and the weekend traffic must be very congested at the property. Mr. Groff
stated that currently the building is in the middle of the lot and they have a gravel site. He stated their proposal would make a great improvement to the area. Ms. Hentz questioned
what they would do if this variance request would fail. Mr. Lemke stated he might be forced to go out of business. Mr. Wilusz stated the proposal addressed their economic problems but
not the traffic problems. He stated the staff recommendation offers a compromise that addresses the economic concerns but only partially addresses the traffic concerns. Mr. Lemke stated
that was probably true. Mr. Lang questioned if an 85’ building would not allow Mr. Lemke the economic opportunity he would need to be successful. Discussion followed and Mr. Tucker stated
an 85’ building, or building that wouldn’t need any variances due to setbacks, seemed to be a too great of a negative economic factor for the applicants to absorb. Mr. Groff stated that
this site is in an M-2, Central Industrial District, but because of a house that is 400’ down the road a transitional yard setback applies for a buffer to a residential property. He
stated even though that is a good idea, the M-2 District was there first. Mr. Tucker stated there are rules built into the Zoning Ordinance to buffer residential districts, and this
site is also along the gateway into the City. Discussion followed regarding the zoning in the surrounding area.
Board of Appeals Minutes -9 -April 14, 2004 Ms. Hentz questioned if anyone felt there would be a slightly different alternative proposed if this item would be laid over. Mr. Lemke stated
the site plan had been redrawn three times already. Ms. Hentz questioned if they were willing to reduce the building by 5 feet. Mr. Groff reiterated that the building code requires a
specific size for offices and restrooms which leaves limited sales and storage area. Mr. Lang stated the Board would be putting a burden on the applicant to re-design the site again,
and they should vote on what is proposed at this time. Mr. Feavel agreed to vote on the original proposal. Motion by Lang for approval to construct a building with a 20 foot setback
to W. 16th Avenue and an off-street parking area with a zero foot setback to W. 16th Avenue and a 10 foot setback to S. Main Street. Seconded by Feavel. Motion denied 1-4. Nays: Feavel,
Lang, Schorse, and Wilusz. Motion by Wilusz to compromise using the staff recommendation, for the off-off-street parking area with a 20 foot setback for to S. Main Street and approval
of a variance for the two vehicle towing-a-boat/trailer parking spaces to have a 14 foot setback to W. 16th Avenue, provided the approach to the boat parking spaces is reconfigured to
the least possible flare necessary to functionally access the northernmost space, with the following condition: 1. A landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Department of Community
Development prior to the issuance of a building permit. Landscape plan is to include more intensive landscaping in areas where setbacks have been reduced by variance. Seconded by Hentz.
Motion denied 3-2. Nays: Feavel and Lang. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Wilusz noted that within the last two months the Wisconsin Supreme Court has made a decision relevant to the standards for
granting a variance request, and would like the City Attorney to explain the decision to the Board. Mr. Lang stated he would like to receive a hard copy ahead of time and have Board
discussion on the issue, then have the City Attorney discuss it with them, or the other way around, but would like it to be a 2 part workshop. Mr. Wilusz stated he would also like to
see a hard copy in advance of the City Attorney speaking to the Board. Mr. Tucker stated he had three interpretations of the issue and would get a hard copy to the Board members before
inviting the City Attorney to address the Board. Mr. Schorse questioned if this would change the way variances are granted in the State of Wisconsin. Mr. Tucker stated this legislation
would change the way variances are granted because the use of the property would not be a consideration when hearing an area variance.
Board of Appeals Minutes -10 -April 14, 2004 Mr. Lang questioned if the neighboring properties were notified in the 3190 Oregon Street variance request. Mrs. Rand stated that whether
adjacent properties are in the town or the City they are notified. Mr. Lang questioned how they were notified. Mr. Tucker stated they are sent a meeting notice with a copy of the application
along with a copy of any materials the petitioners have submitted. Mr. Lang stated he wanted to make sure, as he had not received notification for action that has concerned his property
in the past. Mr. Tucker also noted that when they meet with the property owners they always suggest they talk to their neighbors regarding any action they want to take. There being no
further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:27 p.m. Hentz/Wilusz. Unanimous. Respectfully Submitted MATT TUCKER Associate Planner MWT/vlr