HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JULY 9, 2003 PRESENT: Thomas Feavel, Cheryl Hentz, Larry Lang, Edward Wilusz EXCUSED: Carl Ameringer, John Schorse STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; Mary
Lou Degner, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of June 25, 2003 were approved
as mailed. (Lang /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,
he also noted a circulation, which was distributed by the applicant before the start of the meeting. Tom Sitter, 1420 Lawndale Street, gave a brief history of the subject property. He
stated that the building was erected in 1979 and in 1984 George Curtis took over the building and erected an addition creating a parking lot around the sign, which has created the present
situation. He noted that his illustration (on file in the Department of Community Development) shows that the owner, Mr. Rusch, could put on an addition and move the parking lot further
to the west. Mr. Sitter said that the green space is available and a sign could be put there, however it would not fix the situation it would only change the situation until a future
time. He noted that the elevation of an adjacent property is 3’ to 4’ higher than the subject property and if the sign was to be moved to the west it could be necessary to raise the
sign height to 10’. Mr. Sitter stated that in the past 5 years the sign has been hit 4 times. He said that staff’s recommendation for curb stops would require an additional 3’ to 4’,
he noted that the sign is only 16’ from the parking stall so that distance would be reduced to about 12’. He added that the normal distance required is 24’. Mr. Sitter said that staff’s
recommendation for bollards, which are 6” steel pipes with concrete, would most likely be hit since they are smaller than the previous sign. He explained that the request is for a 16’
setback for a 6’ tall sign. He noted that neighboring properties, West End Pizza and Milwaukee PC, have 16’ to 17’ setbacks. Mr. Sitter questioned the reference in the staff report to
residential properties to the west. Mr. Tucker 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. He added that the condominiums to the north have not played into staff’s
recommendation for denial of the variance, he noted that there is a multi-family development to the west on W. 20th Avenue that has a 25’ front yard setback requirement. Mr. Wilusz questioned
if a parallel sign could be placed with a setback of 25’. He also asked if there were plans to expand the bui
lding.Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -July 9, 2003 Mr. Sitter said a parallel sign could be placed with a setback of 25’, but the speed limit in the area is 30 MPH, it is a busy street,
and the traffic moves right along so, in his opinion, the sign would not be spotted in time. He said the purpose of the sign is to help people locate the business. Mr. Sitter stated
that he is not aware of plans for expansion of the building. There was further discussion on the prominent location of the property and the fact that this type of business is a destination
type of property in which customers would purposely be seeking the property. Mr. Tucker commented that there is an alternative to establish a small identification sign, by the rightof-way.
He noted that the Ordinance permits such sign to not exceed 3’ high nor 8 sq. ft. in area. Mr. Sitter said because such signs are so low to the ground and because he has the unique situation
of an adjacent property owner having a higher grade, he did not find this alternative to to be viable for this property. During board discussion Mr. Feavel said he would not support
the variance request. He said, in his opinion, there are identification signs that could serve the purpose. Mr. Tucker stated that prior to the multi-family development to the west being
established 5 years ago, the sign could have been positioned with a 20’ front yard setback. He suggested that there could be opportunites for other alternatives in regard to the position
of the proposed sign. There was further discussion on possible locations and positions for the sign. Motion by Wilusz to construct a ground sign that will have a 20’ front yard setback.
Seconded by Lang. Motion denied 3-1. Nay; Feavel. Automatic lay over to the meeting of July 23, 2003. II: 1760 W. 7TH AVENUE Oshkosh Restaurant Corporation, applicant, and Sol and Lucille
Goldstein, owners, are requesting a variance to construct an off-street parking area that will have a 5’ setback, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance
requires a 16’3” transitional yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item. He added that in a typical commercial situation where both the properties are commercial, a 5’ rear yard
setback area would be acceptable for an off-street parking lot with a 5’ landscape buffer. Shari Taylor, 1760 W. 7TH Avenue, owner of the Pumpkin Patch, said she was authorized to speak
on behalf of the building owners, Sol and Lucille Goldstein. She said, in her opinion, there would be no negative impact on her property. David Todd, 2123 Fairview Street, said he represented
the Oshkosh Restaurant. He said there was no opposition to the recommended condition. There was discussion on the location of the off-street parking area. During board discussion Vice
Chairperson Hentz said she would support the variance request.
Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -July 9, 2003 Motion by Feavel to approve a variance to construct an off-street parking area that will have a 5’ setback with the following condition: 1)
Landscape treatments be installed along the east side of the property, consistent with landscape requirements for off-street parking areas, as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Seconded
by Wilusz. Motion approved 4-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that there would be limited impact in the area, it was the least possible variance necessary to remove
any hardship, and the hardship was not self-created. III: 1283 BAY SHORE DRIVE Laib Restoration, Inc., applicant, and Donald and Sylvia McDonald, owners, are requesting a variance to
construct a driveway to a width wider than a garage, by 8 feet, whereas Section 30-36(C)(5)(b) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires driveways leading to garages shall not
exceed the width of the garage. Matt Tucker introduced the item. Sylvia McDonald, 1283 Bay Shore Drive, circulated a photo, a scaled map of the subject area, and a paper signed by neighbors
stating support for the variance request. She stated the requested addition would be 6’ beyond the width of the driveway for a basketball backboard with a regulation 3-point line. Mrs.
McDonald said this would allow them the opportunity to have minimum cement and maximum green space and would also allow them to keep a mature tree, which is on the lot. She stated that
their goal is to keep the children in the neighborhood and at home. Terry Laib, 121 W. New York Avenue, said the addition of the concrete would still leave about a 55’ setback to the
west lot line. He added that geographically according to scale this is a very small amount of concrete. He said, in his opinion, the scale of the property should be taken into consideration.
He noted that the subject area could not accommodate parking for a recreational vehicle, if that was a concern. Tom Brinkman, 1253 Bay Shore Drive, said he was the adjacent neighbor
to the west. He voiced his support for the variance request. He indicated support in the alternative suggested by the applicant, rather than have the recreational equipment placed in
the side yard abutting his property. During board discussion Mr. Feavel said he would support the variance request. Mr. Tucker stated for the record, that even if the variance was approved
there was nothing that could keep the owners from building a full basketball court, a swimming pool, etc. in the side or rear yard area, if they would propose to do so. Motion by Feavel
to approve a variance request to construct a driveway to a width wider than a garage, by 8’. Seconded by Lang. Motion approved 4-0. Unanimous.
Board of Appeals Minutes -4 -July 9, 2003 Finding of the fact: It was concluded that there would be limited impact on neighboring properties and it was stated that there are unique characteristics
in regard to the size of the property. OTHER BUSINESS: There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld