HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 2004 PRESENT: Robert Cornell, Larry Lang, Edward Wilusz and Cheryl Hentz, Vice Chairman EXCUSED: Thomas Feavel STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner;
and Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Minutes of the February 11, 2004 meeting
were approved as amended. Wilusz/Cornell. Unanimous. Vice Chairman Hentz questioned where the Board could see the amended minutes. Mrs. Rand stated the minutes could be seen on the City’s
web site or on file in the Department of Community Development. I: 3700 JACKSON STREET Drew S. Ricks, applicant and Oshkosh 41 Pantry, LLC owner, request a variance to construct a refuse
disposal area that will have a 10’ setback from the north lot line and an 11’ setback from the east lot line, and a variance for an off-street parking area that will have an 8’ rear
yard setback, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 19’3” setback from the north lot line and a 25’ setback from the east lot line for parking
and a refuse disposal area. Mr. Tucker introduced the item and informed the Board that the Conditional Use Permit request had been approved by the Common Council with the conditions
as listed in the Staff Report on February 24, 2004. He explained this is actually a request for renewal of the variances that were approved by the Board of Appeals on January 8, 2003.
He stated no work has commenced under the timeframe allotted by the building permit, therefore the variance has expired. Mr. Lang questioned if anything had been done to-date. Mr. Tucker
stated construction of the addition has not begun, and no ground has been broken. Ms. Hentz questioned if the conditions as listed in the Staff Report, which were presented at the Common
Council meeting had anything to do with the Board of Appeals. Mr. Tucker stated they were relevant to the development of the car wash/storage addition in relation to the parking and
refuse refuse location. Mrs. Hentz questioned Condition number 5, which stated Board of Appeals variances be obtained for placement of the parking spaces along the east property line.
Mr. Tucker clarified that conditions 2 and 5 related to the Board of Appeals action. Mr. Cornell questioned if the trash enclosure would be the same as what is behind the building at
this time. Mr. Tucker stated the trash enclosure would be a masonry structure with three sides and an open top with a gate for access. He stated they would try to match the exterior
of the existing building as closely as possible. Mr. Lang noted that he didn’t see the parking issue addressed on the application. Mr. Tucker explained the applicant or owner doesn’t
always know exactly what variance they need because they may not be completely knowledgeable with the code that would apply to their situation until they talk with the staff.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -February 25, 2004 Mr. Lang questioned if parking spaces 9-13 on the site plan were considered the back of the lot and if so were they the parking spaces
the variance was needed for. Mr. Tucker stated they were the parking spaces the variance was needed for and explained that a 19’3” setback was required from the north lot line, and a
25’ setback was required from the east lot line to provide a transitional yard setback to buffer the existing use from the less intensive abutting use. He explained in this case the
C-2 General Commercial District is adjacent to an R-3 Multiple Family Dwelling District. Mr. Lang questioned the distance of the parking spaces from the east lot line. Mr. Tucker stated
they are eight feet from the east lot line. Mr. Wilusz stated that condition number 4, as approved by the Plan Commission and Common Council have required four seasons screening to screen
the new parking spaces and the proposed car wash addition. Ms. Hentz questioned if the Board would allow the applicant to come forward with any statements he would like to make at this
time since he had just arrived. Consensus was made for the applicant to come forward. Drew Ricks, CSC Designs, agent for Oshkosh 41 Pantry, LLC, owners, stated when the site was originally
developed in 1994 they had to move the driveway off of Snell Road to the area where the eight foot variance is being requested at this time, to line up with the center median cut. He
stated pavement exists there now. Mr. Ricks stated at this time they are being asked to replace the five parking spaces that would be displaced by the car wash addition on the back of
the store. He stated they have proposed to place them on the back of the lot where asphalt already exists. Mr. Ricks stated those spaces would be designated for employee parking, keeping
the primary parking by the building for the customers. He stated they are also proposing to move the trash enclosure from the rear of the building to the back corner of the property,
where a green green space exists at this time. He stated they are proposing a masonry structure to match the existing building. Mr. Ricks stated that when the plan was approved last
time, a requirement was made for more intense four season landscaping to be installed in the 8 foot setback area between properties. Mr. Cornell questioned the distance between the car
wash and the new parking area. Mr. Ricks stated there was a distance of 40-42 feet between the car wash and the new parking spaces. Mr. Lang stated he didn’t see any landscape plan included
in the Staff Report. Mr. Ricks stated a more intense landscape plan had been submitted to serve as a buffer to the neighboring properties. Mr. Tucker stated a landscape plan had been
submitted in July of 2003 with the building permit request, and was in compliance with the conditions of approval. Mr. Lang stated he would not support an 8’ setback since a transitional
yard of 19’3” is required according to the Zoning Ordinance. He stated there is no point in taking advantage of the neighboring property. He stated there is to many things proposed for
this lot, and there is nothing unique about the lot that would justify this variance. He stated he felt the same way about the trash enclosure and noted that the owners need to find
a way to comply. He stated he has referred back to the rules used to consider when granting a variance and can see nothing unique about this lot or situation or any hardship present.
He stated he doesn’t feel it is fair for the neighbors to have to look at parked cars or a refuse disposal container, and would not support either variance.
Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -February 25, 2004 Mr. Wilusz stated the current configuration of the lot is a result of a previous variance in 1994, and it may not have been allowed at
the present time. He stated the variance is basically a request to paint lines on existing asphalt. The current site landscaping was discussed, as it exists near the proposed parking
area, and not the proposed refuse disposal area. Mr. Wilusz stated he didn’t have any problem supporting this variance request. Mr. Cornell asked for clarification of the previous action
taken by the Common Council and the Board of Appeals, why it is being brought back at this time, and if the request differed from the last variances granted. Mr. Tucker stated the Common
Council approved a modified Conditional Use Permit on October 22, 2002 and February 24th 2004, with the conditions as listed in the Staff Report. He stated in 1994 the Board of Appeals
granted a variance to place a driveway in the rear yard setback area with an 8’+ rear yard setback setback for the parking lot/drive aisles. The Board of Appeals approved the same variances
being requested today, on January 8, 2003. He stated the variances have expired since the property owners did not begin construction within the 6 month required timeline of the building
permit, therefore, they are here to reapply for the variances at this time. Motion by Hentz for approval of a variance to construct a refuse disposal area that will have a 10’ setback
from the north lot line and an 11’ setback from the east lot line, and a variance for an off-street parking area that will have an 8’ rear yard setback. Seconded by Lang. Motion denied
2-2. Nays: Hentz and Lang. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tucker informed the Board that there would not be a meeting on March 10, 2004. Mrs. Rand passed out a memo to that fact. There being no
further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:53 p.m. Hentz/Wilusz. Unanimous. Respectfully Submitted MATT W. TUCKER Associate Planner MWT/vlr