HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JULY 23, 2003 PRESENT: Thomas Feavel, Cheryl Hentz, Larry Lang, John Schorse, Edward Wilusz EXCUSED: Carl Ameringer 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 July 9, 2003 were approved as mailed.
(Hentz /Feavel) Unanimous. I: 1010 W. 20TH AVENUE Thomas J. Sitter, applicant, and Thomas Rusch, owner, are requesting a variance to construct a ground sign that will have a 16’ front
yard setback, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(d) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ front yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item and presented a photo of the property,
he also circulated an attachment, which the applicant had distributed before the start of the previous meeting. He explained that the Zoning Ordinance states that when properties on
a block are in different zoning districts with different front yard setback requirements, the most restrictive front yard setback must be provided for all properties along the block.
Mr. Tucker said in this particular case there is a residential development to the west that is zoned C-1, but because it was developed residentially it has a 25’ front yard setback requirement.
He noted that there are alternatives to the requested sign. Mr. Tucker suggested that there could be an identification sign toward the road or it would seem reasonable to modify the
variance request for a 20’ front yard setback. Tom Sitter, 1420 Lawndale Street, said the request was to construct a ground sign that would have a 16’ front yard setback. He said that
after much discussion at the previous meeting of July 9, 2003, a motion was made to position the sign with a 20’ front yard setback. Mr. Sitter said they were agreeable to that compromise.
Mr. Feavel asked how much of the building they occupied and if there was another business in the building which required signage. Mr. Sitter responded that they rent from Mr. Rusch and
occupy 2/3 of the building. He stated that the other tenant in the building is a bankruptcy lawyer, who does not require signage. Motion by Lang to move the item onto the table to request
construction of a ground sign that will have a 20’ front yard setback. Seconded by Wilusz. Ms. Hentz stated that although it may typically be the correct procedure, in the past the Board
has not brought the motion to the table before board discussion. She questioned if the Board was changing procedures. Chairman Schorse said there could be board discussion before the
vote was called.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -July 23, 2003 During board discussion Ms. Hentz stated that she supported the 20’ front yard setback the first time and would again support it. Mr. Feavel
said he had previously objected to the variance request, but after reconsideration noting that the cars are parked so close to the sidewalk, he would now support the variance request.
Chairman Schorse noted there was a motion for a variance to construct a ground sign that will have a 20’ front yard setback. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was
concluded that it is the least variance necessary, there would be no negative impact on neighboring properties, it takes into account safety issues that might be presented, and the hardship
was not self-created. II: VACANT LAND ISAAC LANE & JACOB AVENUE Garry Decker, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to allow the use of stacked parking, located within the 25’
front yard setback, for a multi-family development, whereas Section 30-36(C)(3)(e) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires parking spaces be located out of the setback area.
Matt Tucker introduced the item and presented a large site plan of the property, which is on the north east corner of the Patriarch’s Subdivision. He explained that there was a conceptual
plan, which did not have the parking depicted, that was approved prior to the actual land division. He further explained that as the land division occurred the Department of Transportation
(DOT) Trans 233 Administrative Rule was applied to the subject property, which required a substantial setback from Highway 45. Mr. Tucker said that because of this setback requirement
the applicant shifted the buildings to the west and now requests a variance for parking spaces in the driveway, within the front yard setback area. Garry Decker, 1113 Oregon Street,
stated that a variance request was approved on November 28, 2001 for the same scenario. He said this development consists of three buildings, each building having 2 twobedroom units
and 2 one-bedroom units. He explained that he is often in the subdivision often, and finds it rare that there are cars parked in the driveway of the current developed properties to the
south, because there are garages for each unit. Mr. Decker noted that there have been numerous restrictions and challenges in developing this area due to the state highway, wetland areas,
railroad tracks in the area, and the close proximity to an airport runway. Ms. Hentz inquired about the previous similar situation and asked how it was resolved. She also mentioned that
financial aspects do not qualify as a hardship. Mr. Decker explained that he followed the same procedures as he has with this request, with the Plan Commission’s recommended approval
and the subsequent approval from the Board of Appeals. He mentioned that the two outer units of the proposed buildings are two bedroom units and they have wider driveways to allow for
the passage of cars from the garage area without having to move a car. Ms. Hentz said she would support the the variance request to remain consistent with the previous approval, and
because the property has unique characteristics, but stressed that she does not want to see the driveway parking abused.
Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -July 23, 2003 Mr. Decker stated that as a landlord in the City of Oshkosh since 1970, and as a developer of subdivisions, he has entered written restrictions
into protective covenants. He stated that each unit would have a single garage and the two end units would have a wider driveway. Mr. Lang questioned the size of the garages for the
units. He said, in his opinion, the two-bedroom units would each have two vehicles and that would automatically place one vehicle in the driveway. He questioned if there would be sidewalks
and asked for clarification on the setbacks. Mr. Tucker explained the required setbacks, and explained sidewalk, terrace, and road within the dedicated right-of-way. He noted that a
Conditional Use Permit/Final Development Plan was approved for the subject site on September 26, 2000 and at that time discussion was geared toward the fact that the development was
marketed toward empty nesters or single people, who most likely would have one vehicle. Chairman Schorse questioned the width of the driveways. Mr. Decker responded that the wider driveways
would be about 22’ wide and not designed for the convenient parking of two vehicles. Mr. Lang stated that it is parliamentary procedure to move an item onto the table before board discussion
can begin. Motion by Hentz to allow the use of stacked parking, located within the 25’ front yard setback for a multi-family development, with the stipulation that the buildings be located
at the minimum DOT (Department of Transportation) highway setback. Seconded by Wilusz. During board discussion Mr. Lang said he did not think the intent of local zoning was to offset
state zoning, which has a setback requirement of 110’. He said, in his opinion, it is the responsibility of the developer to inquire into possibilities before the start of the design
process, and to use local zoning to lessen the applicant’s burden was not appropriate. Mr. Lang added that he sees garages that never get used. Mr. Lang said he was not swayed by the
last last variance approval, and in his opinion, the hardship was self-created. He said he would not support the variance request. Ms. Hentz questioned if the DOT plans came forth first
or if Mr. Decker’s plans were first. Mr. Tucker responded that Mr. Decker’s conceptual plans were first. Ms. Hentz, said in her opinion, the DOT created the hardship. Ms. Hentz questioned
if a situation would be created if the Board were to go against the DOT rule and she also voiced a concern about the possibility of one phase of the development being approved and another
phase not being approved. Mr. Tucker explained that if the Board were to approve the variance request they would be meeting the DOT requirement and varying the City’s requirement in
regard to off-street parking. There was further discussion on the original position of the buildings and parking availability. Ms. Hentz said she would support the variance request.
Mr. Feavel said he would support the variance request. Motion approved 4-1. Nay; Lang. Mr. Lang asked asked for the minutes to reflect his following opinions; the hardship was self-created,
it would have a significant adverse impact in both the way the zoning was enforced by seeming to say that once it is done, the Board can not reverse themselves.
Board of Appeals Minutes -4 -July 23, 2003 Finding of the fact: Ms. Hentz stated that because Mr. Decker’s plans came first, albeit without parking represented, the hardship was created
by the DOT, the property is unique, there will be no adverse impact on surrounding properties, and Mr. Decker’s covenants and declarations will help to police the potential for additional
stacked parking, which would not be permissible. Mr. Decker commented that he would like it noted that, in his opinion, the hardship was not self-created because if the DOT had not changed
the rules this would not have been an issue. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Schorse stated there needs to be clarification as to the procedures for motions. Mr. Tucker said he would check with
the City Attorney as to the proper procedure and report back to the Board. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate
Planner MT/mld