HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OCTOBER 30, 2002 PRESENT: Carl Ameringer, Cheryl Hentz, Joel Kluessendorf, John Schorse, Ed Wilusz EXCUSED: Don Krueger 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 September 9, 2002 were
approved as mailed. (Schorse/Kluessendorf) I: 2520 WITZEL AVENUE William Markee, of Midwest Real Estate, is requesting a variance to construct a sign that will be 48 sq. ft. in area,
whereas Section 30-37(F)(1)(a) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires signs for multi-family residences not exceed 16 sq. ft. in area. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated
pictures. Bill Markee, 100 N. Westhaven Drive, distributed a memo to the board members (said memo on file in the Department of Community Development.) He stated that signs in their developments
have always enhanced their properties and stated there would be no adverse impact, since they own most of the property in the area. He described their signs as being made of redwood,
stating they are sandblasted and always landscaped nicely. Mr. Markee said the sign would be lit with spotlights. He added that it is a senior community and the size of the requested
sign is important for identification of the area. Mr. Tucker noted that the parking lot is set back 25’, the sign would be about 67’ from the right-of-way line, and the right-of-way
line is about 15’ back from Witzel Avenue. Vice Chairperson Hentz questioned the size of the temporary signs that are presently in the area and Mr. Schorse questioned the size of the
sign in front of the main office. Mr. Markee stated the temporary signs are 4’ x 8’, and the office sign is 4’ x 12’. He said he would be willing to compromise on the size of the requested
sign variance. Mr. Tucker noted that the temporary real estate signs referred to are both in violation of the Zoning Ordinance, which permits real estate signs to not exceed 12 sq. ft.
in in area for this particular zoning district. There was further discussion on size limitations for commercial, industrial, and residential zoning. Vice Chairperson Hentz asked Mr.
Markee if he was anticipating vacancies or a waiting list for the units. She also suggested the use of banners on the side of the building. Mr. Markee responded that he has 2 to 3 more
buildings planned and they have a similar building in Sheboygan, Wisconsin in which they are only 3 shy of capacity.
Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -October 30, 2002 Mr. Tucker explained the allowance for a banner. During board discussion Mr. Kluessendorf stated, in his opinion, the hardship was self-created
and noted that a variance should not be granted for economic gain, referring to the applicants memo, which stated “the variance is necessary in order to grant revenues to pay the local
tax contributions”. Mr. Kluessendorf said he would not support the variance. Mr. Ameringer said, in his opinion, this is more of a legislative matter, and he did not feel that it meets
any of the requirements for granting the variance. Mr. Schorse stated he found it awkward that in the next zoning area, which is commercial, the sign would be permitted. He said it is
a major street and the property has a substantial setback and, in his opinion, the proposed sign is not too big for the area. Vice Chairperson Hentz said she agreed with Mr. Schorse
that there is a huge setback, and the trees in the area would block a smaller sign. Mr. Ameringer said he was sympathetic to comments by Mr. Schorse and Vice Chairperson Hentz, however
in essence the applicant is asking for a change in the Ordinance, which refers to a 16 sq. ft. sign in an area for multi-family residences, and it does not meet any of the other requirements
for a variance. Mr. Tucker commented that the applicant has the alternative of locating a 16 sq. ft. sign at the 25’ setback. There was further discussion on the placement of the proposed
sign. Motion by Schorse to approve a variance request to construct a sign that will be 48 sq. ft. in area. Seconded by Hentz. Motion denied 2-3. Nay; Ameringer, Kluessendorf, Wilusz.
II: 411 W. 20TH AVENUE Gary Witzke, applicant and David Yakim, owner, are requesting a variance to construct a ground sign that will have a 12’ front yard setback, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(c)
of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ front yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos, clarifying the measuring of sign face to calculate square square
footage for signage. Gary Witzke, 411 W. 20th Avenue, said he was agreeable to the 15’ tall requirement, however the sign maker, John Beck, presently has a 6’ x 8’ sign available. He
said he would be required to order a 4’ x 8’ sign, and it would be more costly. Mr. Witzke explained the reason the sign is necessary is due to a billboard west of his property, which
blocks the area. He stated he has completed clean up and aesthetic landscaping to improve the property and described the proposed sign as having the company logo in Harlow script, which
would be eye appealing. Mr. Kluessendorf asked if the proposed sign would create a vision problem, and Vice Chairperson Hentz asked if the previous sign was permitted at the time it
was installed. Mr. Tucker responded vision clearance would not be a problem, and a previously installed sign was permitted. Mr. Witzke commented that the previous sign, which was for
Rainbow Car Wash, was removed and the owner, David Yakim, never considered the possibility of installing a sign in the future.
Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -October 30, 2002 During board discussion Mr. Tucker explained the current ordinance states that a sign located at the required 25’ front yard setback can
be 400 sq. ft. in area and stated that because of the small terrace area it would seem reasonable for the sign height not to exceed 15’ tall and for the area not to exceed 32 sq. ft.
in area. Mr. Schorse stated the ordinance allows up to 400 sq. ft. and the applicant is only requesting 48 sq. ft. Mr. Tucker further explained that any part of the sign would need to
meet the front yard setback. There was additional discussion on the possible design of the proposed sign. Vice Chairperson Hentz said she appreciates the fact that Beck Signs has a 6’
x 8’ sign that is readily available and she understands that each variance has to be considered on its own merit, however the Board just rejected a similar type request in an area that
had much more setback area and questioned how a request for something larger than what staff recommended could be approved. She said she would support staff’s recommendation. Mr. Ameringer
said, in his opinion, it was not the same issue as the last item. He said if the required setback of 25’ was met, that would place the sign in the parking lot area, which would be a
safety hazard. Mr. Ameringer said he would support staff’s recommendation. Mr. Kluessendorf commented that the previous variance was zoned R-5 and the present item is zoned M-2. Motion
by Ameringer to approve a variance request to construct a ground sign that will have a 12’ front yard setback, with the following condition: 1) The ground sign shall not be any taller
than 15’ nor larger than 32 sq. ft. in area. Seconded by Schorse. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that it was a unique property, due to the small
terrace area, the hardship was not self-created, and there would be no adverse impact on neighboring properties. III: VACANT LOT BROAD STREET Habitat For Humanity, applicant and owner,
is requesting a variance to permit the construction of a gravel driveway, whereas Section 30-36(C)(3)(a) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires all driveways to be paved with
asphalt or concrete. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos. Evert Swanson, 2909 Countryside Court, said the two bedroom ranch house is projected to be 22’ wide by 42’ long, he
said the other option would be 18’ x 50’. He said it is a wonderful opportunity for the individual from the community who Habitat is building the home for. Mr. Kluessendorf questioned
why such a narrow lot would be considered when there are numerous older houses available that could be rehabilitated. Mr. Tucker answered that there are a variety of lots like this in
the City that have easements, shared driveways, etc. He said the best thing would be for the lot to be combined with the 30’ lot to the south or even combined with the lot to the north,
but reasonable use of the property could occur with construction of the house.
Board of Appeals Minutes -4 -October 30, 2002 Mr. Swanson responded that the owners to the south do not wish to sell and explained that it is difficult to get people to work on rehabbing
houses because of various issues including asbestos, etc. and added that the cost is prohibitive. Jack Eiler, 614 Broad Street, stated his disapproval of the variance request. Kim Sawall,
621 Monroe Street, questioned the possible development of the 30’ lot. Ken Bender, 658 Oak Street, said in his opinion, all the ordinances are being bent and broken. He stated his opposition
to the variance request. Mr. Tucker commented that he would be available, in his office, to show anyone interested how the house would be situated on the lot. He also clarified that
the Board is not addressing the use of the property, as no additional variances are requested. Steve Bender, 810 Hawk Street, expressed his opposition to the variance request. He said,
in his opinion, it is creating a hardship for the property owner to the south. Melissa Washburn, 626 Broad Street, said since she has been in the neighborhood she has been seeing slow
but steady improvement in the area. She said that she was opposed to the gravel driveway. During board discussion the possibility was discussed to add verbiage to allow both sides of
the driveway to be paved with future development of the southern lot. It was noted that the applicants could pave the entire driveway if they so desired. Motion by Schorse to approve
a variance to permit the construction of a gravel driveway. Seconded by Kluessendorf. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded the hardship was not self-created,
due to the unique size of the lot, an easement is in place for the driveway, approval of the variance, as recommended, is not placing a burden on the applicant or the owner for paving
the entire driveway, and it meets the variance requirements. IV: 653 GRAND STREET James A. Grall, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to construct a deck on the rear of a principal
structure, which will result in the structure having a 3’ 5” rear yard setback, whe reas Section 30-19(B)(3)(d) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ rear yard setback
for principal structures. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos. James Grall, 653 Grand Street, said he purchased the home from the city and began repairs not realizing the rules.
He said he replaced the dilapidated deck that was there. Deb Frasier, 645 Grand Street, stated her support for the variance request.
Board of Appeals Minutes -5-October 30, 2002 During board discussion Mr. Tucker noted that the property had been issued substantial orders and unfortunately the applicant took care of
the problems before the building permits were obtained. Motion by Schorse to allow a variance to construct a deck on the rear of a principal structure, which will result in the structure
having a 3’ 5” rear yard setback. Seconded by Ameringer. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that the lot size was unique, it was the least possible
variance necessary to create a landing for the door, it is an improvement to the neighborhood and the hardship was not self-created. V: 501, 515, 519, 527, 531 E. PARKWAY AVENUE The
Boys & Girls Club of Oshkosh, Inc., applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to construct a ground sign that will have a 10’front yard setback, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(c) of
the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ front yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item item and circulated pictures. Jamie Wilcox, 501 E. Parkway Avenue, apologized
for the lack of obtaining a building permit in 1992. He stated the original sign is 4’ x 8’, which labels each address. He said Head Start would like the proposed sign to be attached
in front and above the existing sign. He noted it would not create a vision problem. Mr. Wilcox stated if the sign was moved back to the required 25’ front yard setback it could not
be easily seen from the street, which could cause a safety issue with slower moving vehicles searching for the sign. Dan Rylance, 602 E. Parkway Avenue, stated the Boys & Girls Club
has been a good neighbor. He took the opportunity to voice concerns in the neighborhood relating to traffic and parking on the street. He also noted an issue regarding grass planting
on the terrace on Monroe Street. During board discussion Mr. Schorse said he did not see a problem with the sign, he said it was in the most desirable position with the least amount
of disruption for the parking lot. Vice Chairperson Hentz said she agreed and noted that there is a need for signage in the area. She said, in her opinion, it is a reasonable request.
Mr. Ameringer added that it satisfies all of the variance conditions. Motion by Schorse to approve a variance to construct a ground sign that will have a 10’ front yard setback. Seconded
by Kluessendorf. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that the variance request meets all the variance requirements. VI: 635 OLSON AVENUE Gary Furtick,
applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to construct a 160 sq. ft. utility structure, whereas Section 30-17(B)(4)(e)(iii) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance allows for utility
storage structures up to 100 sq. ft. in area. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated pictures.
Board of Appeals Minutes -6 -October 30, 2002 Gary Furtick, 635 Olson Avenue, said that he has a ½ acre fenced in yard with an in-ground pool. He stated the design of the structure is
the best for his situation and a good size to allow him the storage of garbage recyclables, tools, etc. He added that approval of 150 sq. ft. instead of the requested 160 sq. ft. would
be acceptable to him. Mr. Ameringer asked why the applicant could not wait until spring, when the zoning code update if approved, would allow for the 150 sq. ft. structure. Mr. Furtick
responded that the builder was able to construct the building this season and he was anxious to get his garage in order and added that he has a lot of items sitting outside. Mr. Ameringer
commented that there have been a number of requests of this nature and that is the reason staff is in the process of recommending an amendment to the zoning code. However, at this time
it is not in place and, in his opinion, the requested variance does not meet the criteria for a a variance. During board discussion Mr. Kluessendorf asked if it was assumed the Council
would approve the update. Mr. Tucker said he was fairly confident it would be approved because it is consistent with similar communities and has been regularly non-controversial, but
that there are no guarantees. Vice Chairperson Hentz said she would support the request for 150 sq. ft. utility structure noting that the applicant has time concerns regarding the season.
Motion by Hentz to approve a variance to construct a 150 sq. ft. utility storage structure. Seconded by Ameringer. Approved 4-1. Nay; Ameringer. Finding of the fact: It was concluded
that staff is currently reviewing a proposed text amendment, which will allow for storage structures up to 150 sq. ft. and there would be no adverse impact on neighboring properties.
VII: 1511 – 1513 KNAPP STREET Sally Lane, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to construct a 6’ tall solid fence with a 16’ front yard setback, whereas Section 30-35(B)(2)
of the City Zoning Ordinance permits solid fences less than 4’ tall in the front yard area. Matt Tucker introduced the item, explaining that a building permit was issued for a 25’ setback,
however the fence was installed erroneously within the setback area, due to confusion in the location of the setback area. It was noted there was no concern with vision issues. Sally
Lane, 1513 Knapp Street, stated the fence was not intentionally located in the setback area. She said the hardship is having no privacy and added that if the fence had been located properly
it would have been right up against her house. During board discussion Mr. Ameringer said his only concern was if there was a safety issue, and staff had addressed that concern. Vice
Chairperson Hentz said she would support the variance because the lot is irregular in size and there is a hardship in regard to privacy and the fact that recreational space is limited
and other options would have a negative impact on neighboring properties.
Board of Appeals Minutes -7 -October 30, 2002 Motion by Hentz to approve a variance to construct a 6’ tall solid fence with a 16’ front yard setback. Seconded by Ameringer. Motion approved
5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that it was an unusual and unique property and there would be no adverse impact on neighboring properties. VIII: 1511 – 1513 KNAPP
STREET Russell J. Reff, applicant, and Hurley Properties, LLC, owner, are requesting a variance to approve the reduction in the number of required parking spaces to 24 for the proposed
mixed use development, whereas Section 30-36(A)(ii) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires 31 parking spaces. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos. Mike Hurley, 1050
Witzel Avenue, explained they had a verbal agreement to obtain an easement with an adjacent property owner, however they were unable to obtain that easement. Motion by Ameringer to reduce
the number of required parking spaces to 24 for the proposed mixed use development. Seconded Seconded by Schorse. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded
that there is no clear ordinance on the exact number of parking spaces required, the number of spaces being proposed is more than the 25% required and there would be no adverse impact
on neighboring properties. OTHER BUSINESS: There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld