Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2003 PRESENT: Robert Cornell, Thomas Feavel, Cheryl Hentz, Larry Lang, John Schorse EXCUSED: Ed Wilusz 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. Ms. Hentz asked for the minutes of October 22, 2003 to reflect that Vice Chairperson Hentz presided after Chairman Schorse was excused. The minutes of October 22, 2003 were approved. (Hentz /Feavel) Unanimous. Mr. Robert Cornell was introduced to the Board as the newest member. I: 1000-1240 CUMBERLAND TRAIL A E C Architects Engineers Construction Mgrs., applicant, and the Oshkosh Housing Authority, owner, are requesting a reduction in the number of required parking spaces for the multi-family development from 156 to 130 spaces, whereas Section 30-36(B)(6) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires 156 parking spaces for the multi-family development. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated photos. He explained that the item was laid over from the meeting of October 22, 2003. Mr. Tucker noted that the requested reduction to 1.77 parking spaces per dwelling unit exceeds the 1.5 parking spaces per unit that was required when the property was originally developed in 1972. Brad Masterson, Executive Director of the Oshkosh Housing Authority, distributed a hand out depicting a parking analysis and comments, which addressed concerns from the last meeting. (On file in the Department of Community Development) Mr. Masterson addressed concerns about on street parking during snow removal from the parking lot. He stated that no matter how many vehicles are in the lot, they are all required to be moved to the street to allow for the removal of the snow. He also addressed the concern of restricted parking to residents only. He explained that this would allow more control of events occurring in the lot. He added that whether or not the parking is reduced they would still restrict parking in the lot to residents only. Mr. Masterson explained the data that was compiled for the last meeting and he gave an explanation of the current parking analysis. He said, in his opinion, these numbers clearly demonstrate that the parking requirement is unnecessary. He stated that the residents are low income families, many of the households are single parents, and it is typical to have at most one vehicle per household. Mr. Masterson further explained that a program was recently applied that encourages tenants to move on to private market apartments as the households become more prosperous. He said that because of the nature of the apartments and because it was built with excess parking availability, he does not feel that it is unreasonable to ask for the reduction. Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -November 12, 2003 Mr. Lang asked for clarification of the parking analysis and questioned why the parking was not controlled. There was further discussion on the data that was obtained for the parking analysis. Mr. Masterson answered that parking was never an issue or a problem in the past for the subject property. Ms. Hentz said she was pleased to see that the current data included statistics from additional time frames, compared to the information that was presented at the last meeting. She added that she was curious as to why the column denoting excess spaces, on the submitted parking analysis, showed a 5% increase in July of 2002. Mr. Masterson replied that perhaps the higher number reflected the possibility that some of the apartments that did not have more than one driver were vacant at that time. Mr. Feavel questioned if the parking analysis represented tenants and guests. Mr. Masterson answered that the analysis was based on tenant parking, and added that tenant leases have a clause that lists standards pertaining to guests. Frank Wolff, 1075 Cumberland Trail, questioned why the proposed building was needed and asked many questions regarding the purpose of the proposed building. Mr. Masterson explained that the complex was a 1973 project built by Registered Homes, which was a private for profit developer. He added that a community space was not built at that time because there was no profit in building such a space. Mr. Masterson said that there was a need for low income housing and it was a very basic development. He stated that he started as Director in 1999 and at that time they were already exploring a plan for additional programming for residents. He commented that there had previously been summer recreation programs available and a Boy Scout Troop, but due to a lack of space the programs were discontinued. He noted that additional space would allow them the opportunity to serve both the children and the adults in a more effective manner. Mr. Masterson stated that an office, which would be staffed full time, would allow them to better serve the clients and added that they would be installing security cameras and lighting, which would allow them better security and management of the activities on site. Mr. Wolff questioned the profit involved today and asked Mr. Masterson who he was. Mr. Masterson stated that he is the assistant secretary of the Cumberland Court Housing Commission, which has a legal relationship with the Oshkosh Housing Authority, and the Housing Authority is part of the Department of Community Development. He added that he is a City employee and that the Cumberland Commission is a nonprofit organization that was created to run the complex. Mr. Masterson clarified that there would not be a profit and explained that they can afford the investment in the property because they feel it will enhance the area and benefit the families in the complex. Mr. Wolff continued with many questions, directed to Mr. Masterson, regarding the purpose of the proposed building. Ms. Hentz asked Mr. Wolff to direct his questions to the Board rather than to Mr. Masterson. Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -November 12, 2003 Mr. Wolff continued with questions regarding the costs involved with the building. Mr. Tucker explained that the line of questioning was irrelevant. He reminded the Board that the variance request is for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces for the multi-family development from 156 spaces to 130 spaces. Mr. Wolff questioned the maintenance costs and the hours of operation for the building, he asked if the item would go before the City Council. Ms. Hentz told Mr. Wolff that she understood his concerns and again reminded him that the Housing Authority is not asking for permission to erect the building, they are simply asking for a reduction in the number of parking spaces required. Chairman Schorse suggested that Mr. Wolff address his concerns to the Housing Authority, at a later time. Mr. Wolff voiced concerns about the area being dangerous because of the street parking, the curve on the street, and the fact that it is a speed zone. He also voiced concerns about police vehicles, emergency vehicles, and fire engines being able to access the area if the proposed building is placed as depicted on the applicant’s submittal. Mr. Tucker again reminded Mr. Wolff that his concerns were all issues that the Board is not equipped to answer and if he was concerned about issues relevant to the development he should direct those questions to the City Manager, or the Director of the Housing Authority. Mr. Wolff commented that if the Board was not equipped to answer the questions then they should not be judging the item. Ms. Hentz stated that the Board is not approving conception of the building, and again explained to Mr. Wolff that the variance request is for the reduction of parking stalls. She explained that the Board is empowered to grant up to a 25% reduction in the parking requirement and noted that the proposed reduction of 26 parking spaces is only a 17% reduction. She further explained the excess parking as denoted on the parking analysis, which was presented by Mr. Masterson, and noted that it is the excess parking that would be removed and stated that nobody would be loosing a parking space. Mr. Tucker told Mr. Wolff he would be happy to meet with him the next day for discussion. Mr. Cornell asked Mr. Wolff, if there was ever a time when the street parking was affected enough to be a concern. Mr. Wolff answered that maybe holidays, weekends, and the winter months with the snow have been a problem. He questioned where the playground was to be located and again voiced his concern on safety issues pertaining to emergency vehicles. There was further discussion on the parking situation. Mr. Masterson said that there are three areas that are being considered for the playground area replacement or reconstruction. Board of Appeals Minutes -4 -November 12, 2003 During board discussion Mr. Feavel questioned if the three variance test questions were applicable to this item. Mr. Tucker responded that the three variance test questions do apply in general, but that the questions are approximations of the tests that a variance needs to pass in court proceedings and are found in the Procedures and Regulations of the Board of Appeals. Mr. Feavel said he could understand Mr. Wolff’s questions in regard to the proposed building because the building was referred to in the applicant’s submittal. Mr. Tucker explained that the information about the building was being offered for general information. Mr. Lang questioned the statistics on the parking analysis, where 94 spots were indicated as needed in the worst case scenario. He asked Mr. Masterson if he had ever actually counted the number of open spots in the parking lot. Mr. Masterson answered that he personally had not, he had his maintenance person observe the parking lot at 8:00 am, noon, and various times, and he observed 50 cars in the lot. Mr. Lang stated he felt that 8:00 and noon were not good times to count, as many people would have left for work during those hours. Mr. Masterson indicated that he went to the site one evening since the past meeting, and did not observe many cars in the lot. He again reiterated the fact that the residents are low income individuals, many of whom do not have a job, some having part time jobs, and others work shift work at various times such as second or third shift, which makes it difficult to get a complete sampling. Mr. Lang questioned where the snow is positioned, if parking places were lost to snow storage, and if snow was pushed into the green space. Mr. Masterson denoted on a site plan where the snow is placed, and noted that he was not aware of the loss of any parking spaces due to the placement of snow. He added that when the snow becomes an issue it is removed from the parking lot. Mr. Lang noted that there is not a limitation as to to the number of cars a person may have, and that Mr. Masterson’s analysis assumes people only have one car. Mr. Masterson responded that his analysis was based on percentages of dwelling units and people of age that could be licensed to drive. Discussion continued about the analysis presented. Mr. Lang, said, in his opinion, it is necessary to physically count the excess spaces that are available in the parking lot rather than using hypothetical data. Mr. Masterson noted that past physical counts have provided no useful information because there were very few vehicles in the parking lot. Mr. Lang indicated an interest in having statistics provided as to the number of vacant spaces, when observed. Mr. Lang asked when the process started to consider constructing a building. Mr. Masterson indicated the process began before he became employed with the City in 1999. Mr. Lang stated that there were many days that staff could have gone out and observed the parking lot, to provide data. Chairman Schorse asked Mr. Lang for clarification of his point. Mr. Lang stated the issue has been raised as to whether or not excess parking really exists at the site. Chairman Schorse questioned how many times the parking lot has been full and how often there have been complaints about the residents not finding a place to park. Mr. Masterson stated that there have not been parking issues, with the exception of an argument one time over which resident could use a specific handicapped stall. Chairman Schorse said, in his opinion, if parking were a problem, the applicant would not be asking to remove parking spaces. Mr. Tucker commented that he had recently been to the subject property three times, and has reviewed aerial photography from the years 1994,1997, 2001, & 2003, which were taken during day time hours in the months of March or April, to gather information and, in his opinion, to obtain accurate data on the actual use of the subject property is very challenging and the best data available is the statistical data that was provided by Mr. Masterson. He asked Mr. Masterson to clarify the statistical data he had gathered. Mr. Feavel said he would not support the variance because he does not believe that there is excess parking due to his belief that guests should have a right to use the parking spaces, and each apartment should have a guest parking spot. He suggested that the snow issue could be resolved by having the cars moved around the parking lot rather than moving to the street. Ms. Hentz stated that she has worked in the low income rental industry and she knows that many of these individuals do not have cars and those that do typically have one vehicle. She said that, in her opinion, as far as the snow plowing of the lot is concerned, plows would not wait around for people to be moving their vehicles from one side of the lot to another, and plowing is handled in most cases by a private contractor. She further commented about procedures for snow removal. Ms. Hentz stated her support for Board of Appeals Minutes -5 -November 12, 2003 the variance request noting that the applicant has demonstrated that the parking requirement is excessive for the subject property. Mr. Cornell said he agreed with Ms. Hentz and said he had personally observed the parking situation. He said, in his opinion, a 17% reduction would be reasonable. Ms. Hentz commented that landlords should not have to provide guest parking. Mr. Feavel said that the street is for moving traffic, not for parking. Mr. Tucker stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not require off-street parking spaces for visitors and he noted that streets are used for parking, when possible, which is why the City has a Traffic Advisory Board to advise for on-street parking rules. Motion by Hentz to approve a variance to approve a reduction in the number of required parking spaces for the multi-family development from 156 spaces to 130 spaces. Seconded by Cornell. 3-1-1. Aye; Cornell, Hentz, Schorse. Nay; Feavel. Abstain; Lang. Item carried. Mr. Feavel asked who owned the subject property. Chairman Schorse responded that the City Housing Authority owns the property. Mr. Masterson stated that it is owned by the Cumberland Court Housing Commission and it is its own legal entity. Mr. Feavel stated that he previously had a problem in respect to voting on this issue and he still feels that it is a conflict of interest for him. He said that, in his opinion, because he is a City tax payer he owns part of the City, and as a member of a City Board he is voting on a City request and this is why he feels uncomfortable voting on the item. There was further discussion on what would be considered a conflict of interest. Mr. Lang said that he abstained from voting because he did not have enough information to make a decision on the item. II: 1834 ALGOMA BOULEVARD Herman G. Schatz, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to construct a ground sign that will have a 15’ front yard setback, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires ground signs provide a 25’ front yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item and presented photos. There was no one available to represent the item. During board discussion Chairman Schorse said there was construction that had taken place in which the applicant lost part of his land and it was beyond the applicant’s control. It was noted that the 15’ front yard setback would be the same as before, except for the relocation of the sign. Ms. Hentz said she would support the variance request and noted that the hardship was not self-created. Motion by Feavel to approve a variance to construct a ground sign that will have a 15’ front yard setback. Seconded by Hentz. Motion approved. 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that the hardship was not self-created, there would be no adverse impact on neighboring properties, and it was the least variance necessary to reestablish the sign with a similar setback. Board of Appeals Minutes -6 -November 12, 2003 III: 832 POWERS STREET Clifford A. Osen, applicant, and Thomas Witte, owner, are requesting a variance to permit a detached garage to be located in a side yard area with a 2.5 foot side yard setback, whereas Section 30-19(B)(4)(c)(iv) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 7.5 foot side yard setback for detached garages located in a side yard area. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated photos. He noted that the garage meets all the qualifications for a rear yard garage in regard to setbacks to the rear lot line, but because of the configuration of the house with the proposed addition the structure would be located in the side yard area. Tom Witte, 832 Powers Street, and Cliff Osen, 417 E. Lincoln Avenue, introduced themselves. Mr. Osen stated that the request is basically a technicality because the garage does meet all the other required setbacks. He noted that it is a newer garage and stated that the garage in the present location does not not pose any problems to the neighborhood. Mr. Feavel noted that he had checked the City Assessors website, which indicate the owner purchased the property in 1989 and questioned a warranty deed for the property in the year 2002. Mr. Witte explained that he actually purchased the property in 1984 and the warranty deed was due to a divorce and remarriage. There was further discussion on repositioning the garage to enable it to be compliant with the Ordinance. Mr. Osen commented that the current garage is in line with the adjacent neighboring garage and he added that the two properties share a common driveway. Mr. Tucker read a letter of support, which was submitted by Suzanne M. Poulos, Trustee for the Robert W. Monroe Trust. (On file in the Department of Community Development) Mr. Feavel said he was in agreement with the statements from the letter. Motion by Hentz to approve a variance to permit a detached garage to be located in a side yard area with a 2.5 foot side yard setback. Seconded by Lang. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that there would be no harm to the public interest, there was support presented from an adjacent property owner, and the current arrangement would be unchanged. OTHER BUSINESS There was discussion on the draft copy of the Procedures and Regulations for the City of Oshkosh Board of Appeals. Board of Appeals Minutes -7 -November 12, 2003 Motion by Lang to approve the amended draft of the Procedures and Regulations for the City of Oshkosh Board of Appeals with the following condition: 1) To extend the right at the next meeting for any member of the Board to call for reconsideration of the vote to suggest changes to the adopted document, and if no such call is made the first vote shall stand as final approval. Seconded by Hentz. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Mr. Lang thanked staff for the enlarged copies of diagrams, which were included in his packet. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld