HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES AUGUST 27, 2003 PRESENT: Thomas Feavel, Cheryl Hentz, John Schorse, Ed Wilusz EXCUSED: Larry Lang, Ron Montgomery 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 August 13, 2003 were approved as
mailed. (Hentz /Feavel) Unanimous. I: 1550 OSBORN AVENUE /1415 ARMORY PLACE The State of Wisconsin, Department of Military Affairs, applicant, is requesting a variance to construct two
sixty (60) square foot identification ground signs at an institutional property, whereas Section 30-37(F)(a) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance permits one sign, not to exceed fifty
(50) square feet in area. Matt Tucker introduced the item and presented photos of the property. Major Dan Pulvermacher, representing the Department of Military Affairs, stated that they
have funding approved to construct new signs and they are attempting to standardize them for all facilities in the state of Wisconsin, which would allow them the flexibility to move
signs to new locations as needed. He explained that through restationing, unit designations can change and the construction of the new signs would allow them to easily revise or relocate
the signs. Major Pulvermacher explained that the proposed signs would accommodate panels that could be changed out when necessary, which would provide the opportunity to save money.
He noted that a portion of their funding is affected by the State budget. Ms. Hentz asked how the size of the signs would affect the public image, as indicated in the application. Major
Pulvermacher stated that they attempt to show a positive public image to present their presence in the community. He said that the existing signs are smaller, which makes them difficult
to see and read, and they do not present a good public image of the State and Federal facilities in the municipality. He added that the Armory’s livelihood is based on having soldiers
in the units, units, so positive public image is very important. Ms. Hentz questioned the nature of the facility for the Transportation Company and how many public citizens use the facility.
She also questioned what percentage of the public actually utilizes the Field Maintenance Shop, and why size differential of the sign would be a problem.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -August 27, 2003 Major Pulvermacher said that the Armory is typically used by the public as a rental facility for organizational events and in some cases
used for voting purposes. He said he could not speak specifically to the facility on Armory Place, but the bulk of the facilities around the state are used for a number of different
uses. He added that individuals for training purposes mainly use the maintenance facility. There was further discussion on the reasons for sign changes and how often they are changed.
It was noted that the inner panel of the sign is not changeable, only the top and bottom portion of the sign could be changed and the intent would be to move the entire sign from the
base. It was also noted that the proposed signs would not be lit. Major Pulvermacher stated that 70% of the signs for the 80 + facilities are now in mass production. He mentioned that
other municipalities also required variances for the construction of the signs. Some of the issues for the variance requests included the size, location, design, and landscaping of the
proposed signs. Major Pulvermacher stated that the intent to move signs would require that all bases be uniform in size to accommodate the 60 square foot identification signs. During
Board discussion Mr. Feavel said it was a reasonable request and he would support the variance Mr. Wilusz said, in his opinion, the government is attempting to be efficient and he would
also support the variance request. Ms. Hentz agreed, stating that because of the location of the Armory any potential for negative impact on neighboring properties would be nonexistent
or mitigated. Chairman Schorse also stated his support for the variance request noting that the sign would not be lit. Motion by Hentz to approve a variance to construct two sixty (60)
square foot identification ground signs at an institutional property. Seconded by Feavel. Motion approved 4-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that it was a reasonable
request, and the location of the property would not result in harm to the public interest. II: 1312 ALGOMA BOULEVARD Ken and Susan Haidlinger, applicants and owners, are requesting a
variance to construct a two-story, 1216 square foot detached garage, whereas Section 30-18(B)(4)(a) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires detached garages be single story
structures, no greater than 800 square feet in structure area. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. Ken and Susan Haidlinger, 1312 Algoma Boulevard, circulated pictures of
the existing buildings on their property and carriage houses in the neighborhood noting that their property is located in the Algoma Boulevard Historic District. They explained that
the present buildings all existed when they purchased the property. Mrs. Haidlinger stated that the current structure is dilapidated and they wish to replace it with a new carriage house,
which was designed by architect Rick Schroeder, to blend with the architectural details of the house. The proposed structure would be 1216 square feet, which is 36 square feet less than
the existing structure. She noted that their lot size is approximately 367 feet deep and 90 feet wide, which is much larger than most. They expressed a need for enough storage space
to store a handicap van, children’s toys and accessibility/medical equipment, and furniture. Mrs. Haidlinger stated that they have adopted six handicapped/disabled children and mentioned
that they are licensed to take
Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -August 27, 2003 four foster children with special medical needs, so their storage needs are excessive. Mr. Haidlinger stated that on the second floor it
is very difficult to utilize truss storage when it applies to beds and dressers. He added that even with a story and a half structure it is impracticable with the rooflines. Mrs. Haidlinger
reiterated her desire to remain sensitive to the historic and aesthetic needs of the neighborhood. Ms. Hentz asked if the 18’height requirement would not facilitate the medical van.
Mrs. Haidlinger said the 18’ height would accommodate the van, but it would not meet the storage needs. Rick Schroeder, 581 N. Main Street, explained that if the structure was limited
to 18’ there would be little head room on the second floor and the applicants would lose about half of the second story floor space. Mr. Tucker explained that the height is measured
half way between the peak and the eaves. He noted the height of the proposed structure is 27’8”. Mr. Tucker stated that the building by definition, is a garage, not a storage building.
There was further discussion on the height of the proposed structure and how it relates to other carriage houses in the neighborhood. Ms. Hentz asked if the applicants had considered
other alternatives. Mr. Schroeder said the intent is to have the carriage house mimic the design of the house. He explained that the reason for the tall walls is to accommodate the windows
for the second floor. There was further discussion on the design and the function of the proposed structure. Chairman Schorse said he lives in the neighborhood and is aware that the
structure is dilapidated and that the applicants have had a desire to fix it for some time. Mr. Haidlinger said that he inquired about a variance last year and it was indicated to him
that the City was looking at addressing the Historic District’s dilemma with the present Zoning Ordinance, so he pursued it again this year and has learned that the situation still remains
the same. Mrs. Haidlinger said they are now at a point in time where they have to address the issue. She asked staff if a letter of support was received from the Richesons. Mr. Tucker
said staff did not receive a letter from the Richesons. Mr. Tucker explained that there has been discussion and interest in regard to changing ordinances to facilitate the replacement
of existing nonconforming structures on historic properties where carriage houses previously existed. Although this property may qualify from a historic standpoint, the structure, as
proposed, is much larger than the existing structure, rather than a replacement of a similar sized structure. Mr. Wilusz asked where the furniture, beds, dressers, etc. are now being
stored. Mrs. Haidlinger responded that items are now stored in the bedrooms, basement, and in the garage of a rental property, which they own. She commented that she had two concerns,
the storage issue, and the fact that she wants the structure to look good.
Board of Appeals Minutes -4 -August 27, 2003 Mr. Tucker stated that he believes a structure to replace the existing structure could be attractive and a benefit to the neighborhood, however
staff would consider supporting a structure of a smaller size and scale. Ms. Hentz questioned a comment that was made by the applicant regarding storage at a rental property. Mr. Tucker
explained that accessory structures on rental property are not to be used for storage/warehousing for the property owners. He noted that structures such as garages are accessory to the
principal use of the property, which is the tenant rental use, not cold storage/warehousing for a landlord. There was further discussion on the use of garages in regard to rental properties
and whether or not this was pertinent tot the requested variance. Bonnie Marousek, 1304 Algoma Boulevard, said she would like to find a solution to meet the needs of the applicants and
the aesthetic needs of the neighborhood, but in her opinion the structure is too tall. She said she does not have an objection to the footprint of the proposed building, but she does
object to the height. Ms. Marousek said she was involved with getting the district on the National Register of Historic Places so she would like to see the building maintain the historic
character. In observing the carriage houses in the neighborhood, she feels that 2/3 of the size of the main structure for the carriage house is aesthetically pleasing. She questioned
if gables might be an alternative for the needed space. Mr. Tucker suggested that perhaps the applicants should have a recommendation from the Landmarks Commission. He stated that he
had two conversations with the applicants prior to submittal and their request is now before the Board. He said the Board should now act on the requested variance. Mr. Feavel said he
would not support the variance request and stated that he would have to leave shortly because of a prior appointment. Mrs. Haidlinger said the reason they went with this design was because
Mr. Schroeder works closely with historic properties and they felt the design would meet their needs. During board discussion Ms. Hentz said she appreciates what the applicants have
done in preserving and improving the property, however in her opinion the basic footprint is fine but she could not support the proposed height of the structure. Mr. Wilusz commented
that this was a very difficult issue. Chairman Schorse said the 1200 square foot garage is not without precedence, there have been a couple of other items before the board in that respect,
but noted that the proposed height does seem to be a concern. Motion by Hentz to approve a variance to construct a two-story detached garage that will be 27’8” in height and 1216 square
feet in area. Seconded by Feavel. Motion denied 1-3. Aye; Schorse. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tucker discussed the copy of the Procedures and Regulations Guideline for the City of Oshkosh Board
of Appeals, which was included in the Board packets. He explained that it was last amended in April/April/1982. Mr. Tucker said his intent is to prepare a handbook, with the advice of
the City Attorney, on guidelines for the Board in regard to meeting procedures. Chairman Schorse asked for the info to be presented in a binder, for each active board member. It was
decided that there would be two workshops; one to clarify the role of the Board, to be scheduled at a future date and a second working workshop to address procedures for the Board, tentatively
set for September 10, 2003.
Board of Appeals Minutes -5 -August 27, 2003 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld