HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES DECEMBER 23, 2003 PRESENT: Robert Cornell, Cheryl Hentz, John Schorse, Ed Wilusz EXCUSED: Thomas Feavel, Larry Lang STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; Mary
Lou Degner, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schorse. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of December 10,2003 were approved
as mailed. (Hentz/Cornell) Unanimous. There was discussion as to the procedure for 1000-1240 Cumberland Trail. Chairman Schorse said that the item was laid over for further discussion.
Ms. Hentz said that it was her understanding that the item was laid over, to be reconsidered and heard again. Mr. Tucker said he had received direction from the City Attorney’s office.
He stated that Lynn Lorenson, Assistant City Attorney, indicated to him that there had already been two public hearings on the issue and the option for reconsideration is for the item
to come back for the purpose of voting. Mr. Tucker stated that if there needed to be more discussion or fact finding this was the opportunity to do so. Ms. Hentz said, in her opinion,
because it is an open meeting the public should have an opportunity to address the item. Chairman Schorse asked Ms. Hentz to ask for public comment to which she responded it was the
Chairman’s job, and instead the Board moved into the rest of the agenda thereby giving the public an opportunity to comment as the item was called. I: 1000-1240 CUMBERLAND TRAIL A E
C Architects Engineers Construction Managers, applicant, and the Housing Authority, owner, are requesting a reduction in the number of required parking spaces for the multi-family development
from 156 spaces to 130 spaces, whereas Section 30-36(B)(6) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires 156 spaces for the multi-family development. Brad Masterson, of the Cumberland
Court Housing Commission, said he had another new piece of information. He said he had reviewed the City’s aerial photos from 1994,1997, 2000, & 2003 and said that according to those
photos the peak use of the parking lot was in 1997 with a total of 38 vehicles, which is 25% of the existing 156 spaces. He added that there could be a 77% increase in vehicles and there
would still be adequate parking with the requested reduction. Ms. Hentz and Chairman Schorse thanked Mr. Masterson for all the effort he put forth into this item. Mr. Tucker commented
that he had conferred with the City Attorney, Warren Kraft, as to what the burden was when reviewing the evidence in this type of scenario, and Mr. Kraft indicated to him that there
needs to be substantial evidence. Mr. Tucker explained the term “ substantial evidence”, as dealt with in Supreme Court cases, is defined as “relevant evidence that a reasonable mind
would accept as adequate”. Mr. Tucker added that the Board has been provided information during the previous hearings, and this is the burden the Board should consider when reviewing
the information provided.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -December 23, 2003 Mr. Wilusz stated that he was not present at the meeting of November 12, 2003, but was in attendance when the item first came before the
Board in October. He stated that he did listen to the tape of the November meeting, has received the handouts, and is prepared to vote. Motion by Hentz to approve a reduction in the
number of required parking spaces for the multifamily development from 156 spaces to 130 spaces. Seconded by Cornell. Motion approved. 4-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded
that substantial evidence has been met, there would be no adverse impact on neighboring properties, the hardship was not self-created, there would be no harm to the public interest,
and it is the least variance necessary. II: 2505 OREGON STREET Mauro and Cynthia Martinez, applicants and owners, are requesting a variance to construct an off-street parking area with
a 3 foot setback from Oregon Street and a 5 foot setback from Hughes Street, a variance to permit a principal structure with a 3 foot setback from Oregon Street, a 5 foot setback from
Hughes Street, and a variance for an accessory structure to be placed with a 20 foot front yard setback to Oregon Street, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning
Ordinance requires a 25’ transitional yard setback along Oregon Street for off-street parking areas, a principal structure, and accessory structures and Section 30-24 (B)(3)(c) requires
a 20’ setback along Hughes Street for a parking lot and principal structure. Mr. Tucker introduced the item and noted that the variance request is similar to variances approved at the
Board of Appeals meeting on April 24, 2002, however because the applicant did not secure a building permit within six months of variance approval it was no longer valid. Architect Steve
Clark, 1437 Ceape Avenue, and Mauro Martinez, owner of 2505 Oregon Street, identified themselves. Mr. Clark distributed an updated site plan of the subject property. He said that the
reason for positioning the cooler, as indicated on the new site plan, is to allow for convenient accessibility to the restaurant and to make it appear less visible to the street. He
added that they intend to put a solid decorative wood fence around the unit. Chairman Schorse noted that the 3’ setback for the cooler would be the same as the 3’ setback for the building
from Oregon Street. Mr. Wilusz questioned if there was a way to minimize the variance requests and questioned specific hardships that would result due to minimum code compliant setbacks
for the parking lot and for moving the cooler further away from the street. He said his intent is to minimize the variance requests and to manage to accommodate the needs of the applicant,
which in his opinion are reasonable. Mr. Clark said that the cooler could be moved to a 10’ setback without any difficulties, but mentioned the owner’s concern that the cooler would
be visible to the restaurant patrons. Mr. Clark stated that by reducing the parking space depths from 20’ to 18’ it would affect the setback by 10’ and the proposed addition would lose
5’. There was further discussion on the position and location of the cooler and it was suggested that the footprint of the parking lot be reduced to minimize the variance needed, with
the building remaining at 5’ from Hughes Street. The applicant and owner indicated that they would be agreeable to a reduced size of the parking spaces and access aisles.
Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -December 23, 2003 Mr. Cornell asked where the present cooler existed and the reason for moving it to the outside. Mr. Martinez answered that the present
cooler is located in the basement and it would be more convenient for kitchen staff and for the delivery of supplies for it to be located at the proposed site. Ms. Hentz asked if the
present request, except for the addition of the cooler, was the same as previously requested. Mr. Martinez responded that it was similar. During board discussion the possibility of shifting
the cooler closer to the building was mentioned. Mr. Clark noted that City Inspectors would have an issue with the cooler if it was to be closer than 10’ to the building, because it
would then be considered part of the building, which would require the cooler to comply with all the building codes of an addition to the principal structure. He added that it would
be complicated if a firewall was required because of its proximity to the building. There was further discussion on the location of the cooler and the possibility of the cooler being
fully screened from the building with fencing. Mr. Tucker noted that there would be a 6’ restriction on the height of the proposed fencing in the front yard setback area of Oregon Street,
and suggested that the Board consider varying the height restriction for fences to fully screen the cooler. Chairman Schorse stated that the fence would address both the screening issue
and provide security for the cooler. Motion by Wilusz to approve a variance to reduce the size of the parking lot to a 10’ setback to Hughes Street and an 8’ setback to Oregon Street,
to approve a variance to allow a 10’ setback from Oregon Street to the accessory structure, and to require the accessory structure to have fencing on the east side and the south side
to extend to the building and a requirement that the fencing be sufficient to fully screen the unit. Seconded by Hentz. Motion approved 4-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was determined
that the property is unique, the hardship was not self created, the variance will not result in harm to the public interest, and as amended it is the least possible variance necessary.
OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tucker noted that the request made at the meeting of December 10, 2003 for a generalized chart regarding parliamentary procedure has been delayed due to the schedule
of City Attorney, Warren Kraft, but it will be forth coming. Ms. Hentz asked for her opinions to be on record in regard to Item I, 1000-1240 Cumberland Trail. She said that an applicant
is allowed to bring back an issue three times and because there were two previous hearings on the item already it does not mean that there should not be a full third hearing. She added
that Mr. Masterson did have additional information to present, and that is why she believes it was necessary to conduct a full third hearing.
Board of Appeals Minutes -4 -December 23, 2003 Mr. Cornell asked if the Board was to receive a copy of the finalized “Procedures and Regulations for the City of Oshkosh Board of Appeals”.
Mr. Tucker responded that a finalized copy would be included in the Boards next packet. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:10. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker
Associate Planner MT/mld