Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OCTOBER 22, 2003 PRESENT: Thomas Feavel, Cheryl Hentz, John Schorse, Ed Wilusz EXCUSED: 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. Ms. Hentz said she would like the minutes to reflect additions in the paragraph on page two, which commented on the line of questioning. She stated that she needed to have all the facts to determine what had happened, and that she believed it was her right to pursue that line of questioning, and that the City still has the responsibility to see that codes are met. The minutes of October 8, 2003 were approved with the additions. (Hentz /Feavel) Unanimous. I: 1235, 1319, & 1331 HIGH AVENUE Paul Phillips, R.A. Smith & Associates, Inc., and River Valley Church, owner, are requesting a variance to construct an off-street parking lot that will have a 5’ front yard setback and a 5’ 7” + rear yard setback, whereas Section 30-21(B)(2) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25 foot front yard and rear yard setback for an off-street parking lot. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated photos. He also presented two possible layouts for a parking lot, meeting required setbacks, denoting 36 stalls and 43 stalls respectively. He explained that the schematics, prepared by City Staff, were configured as if the parking area was to be constructed as part of a new development. He noted that the item had been denied at the meeting of September 24, 2003 and stated that the applicant has now presented a new submittal, addressing some of the Board’s concerns from the previous meeting. Mr. Wilusz noted that the applicants currently have 39 spaces available and one of the prepared configurations only denotes 36 spaces. Mr. Tucker explained that the 39 existing spaces include spaces that are located in the setback area. Paul Phillips, R. A. Smith & Associates presented a poster of the existing conditions and the proposed reconstruction of the parking areas. He explained that they currently have two parking areas, which they want to consolidate, expand, and reconstruct. Mr. Phillips stated that one of the parking areas does not allow for proper ingress and egress as required by City Code and added that the project would allow them to satisfy two other code requirements. The variance request would allow them to have all parking spaces located within the same lot as the structure, and it would also expand the existing parking from 39 spaces to 61 spaces. It was noted that based on the City Ordinance, the Church should provide 58 stalls and they are actually proposing 61 spaces. Mr. Phillips said that the existing vacant house would be demolished. He further added that at the previous meeting they failed to communicate to the Board the status of the existing Ordinance violations, which they are attempting to address. Mr. Phillips said Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -October 22, 2003 that since the last request they have added more buffer area in the front with more plantings, and he added that they are willing to work with the City Forester in regards to the landscaping issues. Norris Batts, Trustee for River Valley Church, said that if at all possible they would have met the setback requirements because they wish to be a good neighbor. He asked the Board to please consider their variance request. Michael Smith, Pastor for River Valley Church, mentioned that the City of Oshkosh Museum uses their parking area for overflow parking and he presented and read a letter of support from Brad Larson, Director of the Oshkosh Public Museum. (On file in the Department of Community Development) Ms. Hentz said one of her concerns the first time the item was presented was that the setbacks that were requested were too small. She noted that the current request is for a gain in the front yard area, however the rear yard area is actually loosing area. Mr. Phillips stated that the rear setback area is bordered by a parking lot for a multi-family housing complex and added that they are willing to replace the chain link fence that presently exists, with new fencing. Ms. Hentz said that she appreciates the relationship that the Church and the Museum have and given the changes that have now been presented for the variance, she would support the request. Motion by Feavel to approve a variance to construct an off-street parking lot that will have a 5’ front yard setback and a 5’ 7” + rear yard setback with 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 setback variances are requested. 2) A curb stop be installed along the High Avenue side of the lot. Seconded by Hentz. Motion approved 4-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: Ms. Hentz stated that there would be no adverse impact on neighboring properties, there would be a new fence along the rear setback area and required landscaping in the front area, it is the least possible variance necessary, and it was noted that the applicant and owner worked very hard to remedy the situation. Mr. Feavel added that it would be an improvement over the existing situation. II: 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 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 presented photos. He explained that the burden is upon the applicant to demonstrate conclusively that the parking requirement is unnecessary. Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -October 22, 2003 Brad Masterson, Executive Director of the Oshkosh Housing Authority, said that he accumulated current data and also data from a given month in 2001 and from a different month in1998 to demonstrate that the current parking requirement is excessive. He said at the present time only 12 .5% of the households have more than one family member of age to be a legally licensed driver. Mr. Masterson added that historically the numbers were at 26% in 2001 and 28% in 1998. He said that because of the low income restriction on the property and the fact that many of the households are single parents, it is typical to have only one vehicle per household. Mr. Masterson said he started as Director in March of 1999 and at that time they were already exploring a plan for additional programming for residents, however he was unwilling to move forward with the plan because a suitable location was not determined for the building, which would have housed both the maintenance building and the Community Center. He stated that with the decision to separate the two buildings, the location in the main parking lot would screen cars and some activity in the parking lot from the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Masterson added that they would be installing security cameras and lighting, which would allow them better management of the activities on site and he added that the proposed building would be staffed. He explained that they currently use one of the apartments for administrative and maintenance functions and the proposed facility would serve the clients better than the current situation. Mr. Masterson commented that there had previously been summer recreation programs available and a Boy Scout troop, but due to a lack of space, these programs were abandoned. Ms. Hentz questioned why data was researched from the years 2001 and 1998. Mr. Masterson explained that when the Housing Authority took over the complex all tenants were evicted and the units were rebuilt. As a result in 1995 there were only 13 tenants in the complex and in 1996 there were only 29 tenants. Mr. Masterson stated that to work with appropriate numbers he chose years when the complex was at a fuller capacity. Mr. Wilusz raised further discussion on the historical data, which represented the fact that there would be excess capacity for parking. Mary Tollard, 1095 Cumberland Trail, said she has lived in the area for 34 years and her property is located across from where the proposed Community Center would be located. She questioned why such a facility is necessary after all these years and noted that there is a playground in the vicinity. She questioned the appearance of the proposed building. Mrs. Tollard voiced a concern with the possibility of additional on-street parking. She commented on the issue of having to clear the parking lot to accommodate the snow plows. Ms. Hentz asked Mrs. Tollard her opinion on the parking capacity of the existing parking lot. Mrs. Tollard answered that, in her opinion, there are times when the lot is not completely full and that there probably are more spaces than needed. She added that she does not believe that removing a large portion from the middle of the parking lot is appropriate. Ms. Hentz said she understood that the applicant’s intent is to remove spaces that are not being utilized, so this would not cause extra cars to be parked on the street. She commented that one of the reasons for the proposed Community Center is to provide space for the children so that they are not conjugating in the parking lot. Board of Appeals Minutes -4 -October 22, 2003 Mr. Masterson presented a drawing of the proposed garage, which would be similar in design. He explained that they would mirror the rooflines of the buildings. He explained that for snow plowing all vehicles are removed from the parking lot to allow the four plows, which they own, to clear the lot. During board discussion Mr. Feavel stated that the Community Center is a good idea, but he would not support the variance for parking reduction. He said, in his opinion, it is not the correct location for the building and noted that there is vacant land around the property where the proposed building could be placed. Mr. Tucker explained that the issue is not whether the building should be there or where it should be located, he reminded the Board that the variance request is for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces because the requirement is unnecessary. He further explained that the statute states that the applicant must demonstrate conclusively that that the parking requirement for the subject multi-family development requires excessive parking that is not needed. Mr. Feavel stated he would not support removal of parking spaces from any parking lot on any property in the City. He noted that the subject property has signs that restrict the parking lot to tenant parking only that, in his opinion, means that guest parking is only available on the street. Chairman Schorse commented that he observes tenant parking only signs, at most apartment buildings. Mr. Masterson explained that the parking is restricted because the Housing Authority does not require parking stickers for the subject property and they do not police the parking lot. He further explained that the signing is a tool that is necessary to allow for the towing of abandoned vehicles. Mr. Feavel commented that when he first read the staff report he thought he may have a contrast of interest being on the City Board of Appeals and also voting on an item for the City and he offered to remove himself himself from voting on the issue. Mr. Tucker explained that the City has to follow the same parking rules as any one else and stated that there was no conflict of interest involved. He again explained the burden of the applicant and stated that the Board is empowered to grant a reduction of up to 25% of the required number of parking spaces. Chairman Schorse cited an example of conflict of interest would be if Mr. Feavel had a financial gain in regard to the parking lot. Mr. Feavel commented that if circumstances should change for the subject property there would be no opportunity to reinstate the reduced parking spaces. Mr. Wilusz said, in his opinion, the applicant has demonstrated, with the presentation of the historical data, that the parking requirement is excessive. He added that he believed that there is sufficient parking to accommodate far more vehicles in the parking area, than what has historically existed in the parking lot, and, in his opinion, there is a buffer for future changes in vehicle ownership at the subject property. Mr. Wilusz said he would support the variance request. Chairman Schorse said he would also weigh the balance between the loss of some parking spaces versus the loss of green space if the proposed buildings were to be located off-site. Ms. Hentz said she agreed with Chairman Schorse and, in her opinion, the subject property does have more parking spaces available than what is necessary. She added that in the past she has worked in the rental industry with subsidized housing and she knows that in many cases the low income population has a lesser number of vehicles. Ms. Hentz stated that she does not believe that a reduction in the number of parking spaces will impede any of the residents, or create any more havoc on the street. Ms. Hentz stated her support for the variance request. 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 Wilusz. Mr. Tucker questioned if all the Board members were comfortable with the issue or if there needed to be more discussion on the subject before a vote was entertained. There was no further discussion. Board of Appeals Minutes -5 -October 22, 2003 The vote was 3-1, which resulted in an automatic layover to the meeting of November 12, 2003. Aye; Hentz, Schorse, Wilusz. Nay; Feavel. III: 1508 W. BENT AVENUE David Resop, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to construct a detached garage in the rear yard area with a 0’ rear yard setback, whereas Section 30-18(B)(5)(b)(iii) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 2.5” rear yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated photos along with a plat map of the subject property. He explained that the applicant recently obtained a building permit to construct a detached garage and it was discovered that there was an error in the City’s records as to the depth of the subject property. City Assessor records indicated that the lot depth was 123’ and it is actually approximately 120’. He noted that both the garage contractor and the applicant contacted City staff several times to inquire as to the correct depth of the lot prior to construction, to ensure that the proposed garage location was compliant. He added that because of the 0’ rear yard setback the subject garage would not have an overhang on the back and the garage would have to meet certain building code requirements due to the reduced setback. David Resop, 1508 W. Bent Avenue, said he was available to answer questions. Chairman Schorse stated that, in his opinion, the item was self-explanatory. Mr. Feavel asked why the garage dimensions could not be changed. Mr. Resop said that when the project started it was his understanding that the property depth was 123’. He explained that it was discovered after the slab was poured that the measurement was incorrect. There was discussion on the costs involved to reduce the size of the slab. Mr. Feavel said it would help in his decision if he knew the position of the property at 1615 Sheridan Street. Mr. Tucker explained that all adjacent property owners received meeting notices in regard to the item and it was noted that the property at 1615 1615 Sheridan Street was a rental property. He added that normally if there is any objection, staff is notified and the objection is introduced for the record. There was further discussion on the correct lot depth for the properties in the neighborhood. During board discussion Mr. Feavel said he would support the variance request. Mr. Wilusz said this was a classic example of why the Board exists and he would support the variance request. He added that it is not the fault of the applicant and noted that the applicant and the contractor made attempts to ensure that the placement of the garage would be correct. Ms. Hentz agreed with Mr. Wilusz in voicing her support for the variance request. She added that neighboring landowners were notified so apparently there were no objections. Mr. Feavel said he would like it recorded on the deed that this property was granted a variance, if the item was approved. Mr. Tucker said that there could be further discussion on the Register of Deeds to follow. Board of Appeals Minutes -6 -October 22, 2003 Motion by Hentz to approve a variance to construct a detached garage in the rear yard area with a 0’ rear yard setback. Seconded by Feavel. Motion approved 4-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that there was an error in the recorded depth of the applicant’s property in the City’ records, which was not a self-created hardship, and noted that the applicant made every effort to ensure that the garage was being placed in the correct location. It was further concluded that there would be an improvement in the property that would not result in any harm to the public interest. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tucker explained that the Register of Deeds is basically an entity that records historical information on properties such as ownership changes, mortgages and easements. Chairman Schorse voiced a concern with the Board adding items to deed restrictions. Mr. Feavel mentioned a previous item in which the approval of the variance was to be recorded at the Register of Deeds office and Ms. Hentz said, in her opinion, it was a good tool to use for full disclosure in regard to the sale of properties. There was further discussion on the procedures at the Register of Deeds office. Chairman Schorse was excused. Vice Chairperson Hentz presided over the remainder of the meeting. There was discussion on the draft copy of the Procedures and Regulations for the City of Oshkosh Board of Appeals. Mr. Tucker said he would prepare another draft of the document and present it to the Board at the meeting of November 12, 2003. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld