Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2002 PRESENT: Carl Ameringer, Fred Dahl, Joel Kluessendorf, John Schorse, Ed Wilusz EXCUSED: Don Krueger, Cheryl Hentz STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; Mary Lou Degner, Recording Secretary Matt Tucker called for nominations for Chairman Pro Temp. Fred Dahl nominated John Schorse. Seconded by Carl Ameringer. Unanimous. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Pro Temp Schorse. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of September 11, 2002 were approved as mailed. (Dahl/ Kluessendorf) I: 723 W. LINCOLN AVENUE Thomas G. Sonnleitner, Assistant Chancellor, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, applicant, is requesting a variance to construct an accessory storage structure with a 12’ 7 ¾ front yard setback and a variance to construct a refuse disposal area that will not be screened on one side. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated pictures, and explained the site plan appears to indicate that the dumpster portion of the building will not be screened on the south side. Mr. Ameringer stated that in the interest of full disclosure, he noted that he is a faculty member of the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh and is aware of nothing that would preclude him from participating in the decision or from voting on the item. Tom Sonnleitner, Vice-Chancellor for the University of Oshkosh, introduced himself along with Steve Arndt, Director of Facilities, Diana Dorschner, architect of the building, Jim Chitwood, Director of Residence Life and Dean of Students, and Tom Fojtik, Assistant Director of Residence Life. Vice-Chancellor Sonnleitner explained that the structure would be unlike other facilities on campus because the students would need to enter the structure to place their trash. He said due to the fact that there is staff available to monitor the situation they should be able to contain the placement of the trash. Mr. Arndt explained that the existing wood enclosures are about 6’ to 7’ tall, and the students typically throw their garbage over the top, therefore there is a problem with the containment of the trash, whereas the proposed structure would have a roof, so the students would need to enter the facility to dispose of the trash. He stated the proposed open design on the front of the structure would address a safety concern for female students regarding the potential for rape. Diana Dorschner noted that the design is a masonry structure, which would be lit, and in addition to keeping the front open, the sides are also separated to create viewing capabilities, which would address safety issues. Mr. Chitwood stated that during check-in week there are extra dumpsters available. He added that the trash situation is monitored, so when there is an increase in trash there is an increase in pick up times. Mr. Chitwood also noted there would be people assigned to clean the area on a daily basis. Board of Appeals Minutes - 2 - September 25, 2002 Mr. Ameringer questioned if there was precedence for this. He asked if there are structures on other campuses that also have an open side for safety reasons. Mr. Chitwood responded that Platteville has a structure that is hooked to a shelter, which is mostly open air. He added that they consider the proposed structure to actually be in the back yard not the front yard as stated in the staff report. Vice-Chancellor Sonnleitner stated that each year the Chancellor has a safety walk, which identifies areas of concern. He said this would be an area that would be identified as an unsafe area for students. Mr. Wilusz questioned the design of the enclosure. He asked why the safety concern does not exist on the bike parking side of the enclosure. Ms. Dorschner said the structure would be open on that side also. She stated both sides are open to view. Vice-Chancellor Sonnleitner said that having one side fully open allows for a complete view as opposed to glances that would be otherwise available. There was further discussion on the design and elevations of the structure. Mr. Tucker asked if it was policy for students to take the trash to the refuse disposal area or to a central area within the dormatories, which was then taken to the refuse disposal enclosure by Residence Hall staff. Mr. Chitwood explained that the students in low-rise halls take their garbage to the dumpster areas. Mr. Tucker noted that the structure would be very close to the road and would not be effectively screened. He stated that as a student at UWO he had participated in a safety walk and the purpose of the walk was to solve existing situations, not to create them. Mr. Chitwood said the structure is being created to control and contain the garbage, not to create an unsafe area. Discussion continued on the location of the existing maple tree and the effectiveness of screening, with Mr. Chitwood adding the refuse disposal companies do not like to have their operators get out of the vehicle to access the dumpsters, which would be the case if a door were provided. Mr. Fojtik said this was initiated because they need to replace the present wood dumpster enclosures and they were impressed with those located at Radford Square, which are open. Mr. Tucker noted that the dumpster enclosures at Radford Square are not located in the setback areas, and added that staff’s concern with the variance request is with the placement being so close to the road and the possible adverse impact to adjacent properties. Mr. Wilusz questioned the possibility of adding gates, which would provide a security view and which would match the architectural design. Ms. Dorschner said anything is doable, but it would increase the cost. Mr. Tucker stated he received a voice mail message from Thomas Brinkman, adjacent property owner, stating an objection to the variance request. He noted that there was no reason given for this objection. During board discussion Mr. Ameringer said this is a situation that warrants an exception because it is a University site that involves students and a safety issue. He said, in his opinion, staff’s concerns are mitigated by the fact that there is full time maintenance available. He said the safety issue would be the main reason for leaving the side open. Mr. Ameringer noted there is also the bicycle storage safety issue to be considered. Chairman Pro Temp Schorse said, in his opinion, if a gate was added to wrap the Board of Appeals Minutes - 3 - September 25, 2002 louvers all the way around, then there would still be a see through portion, which would not result in screening the dumpsters. Mr. Tucker stated that there have not been any design alternatives presented. Mr. Wilusz said the security concern is inconsistent with the two sides, and in his opinion, the routine of regular maintenance is an off setting factor. Motion by Ameringer to approve a variance request to construct an accessory storage structure with a 12’ 7 ¾” front yard setback. Seconded by Wilusz. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Motion by Ameringer to approve a variance request to construct a refuse disposal area that will not be solidly screened on one side. Seconded by Dahl. Motion approved 4-1. Nay: Kluessendorf. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that safety is an issue for both the trash enclosure and the bicycle storage area, there is the mitigating circumstance of having full time maintenance available, and the design will accommodate both the students and the trash pick-up vendor. TH II: 1668 OREGON STREET & 166 W 17 AVENUE Jerry Martin, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to create two substandard lots, one with 52’ of width and 6,422 + sq. ft. of area, and the second with 75’ of depth and 5,197.52 sq. ft. of area, and a variance to allow for a duplex on a substandard lot, and a variance for a principal structure with a 13.5’ rear yard setback, whereas Section 30- 73(H)(4) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires 60’ of lot width, and 7,200 sq. ft. of lot area for a residential lot and Section30-19(B)(3)(d) requires a 25’ rear yard setback for principal structures. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. Jerry Martin, PO Box 2865, Oshkosh, said his initial request was to provide additional parking. He said that Staff suggested there was an opportunity to resolve the on going problems related to the properties. Mr. Martin asked if he could nail the garage doors shut instead of removing them, as recommended in the staff report. Chairman Pro Temp Schorse mentioned that the existing driveway, which leads to the garage, would be eliminated so, in his opinion, it doesn’t matter if the doors function. Mr. Tucker explained that if the doors are left in place it could be problematic in the future. Discussion continued on the removal of the garage doors. Louis Del Frate, 1658 Oregon Street, said his property to the north abuts the present driveway and the garage. He said the removal of the driveway would alleviate the concerns he has with the present use. It was noted that the commercial use of the property at 1676 Oregon Street has created concerns with the use of the wrap around driveways. Discussion continued on the location and use of the driveways as related to the subject property. There was discussion on the possibility of creating some physical barrier on the subject property, to prevent thru-traffic from using the driveway. Board of Appeals Minutes - 4 - September 25, 2002 Mr. Wilusz questioned if it was necessary to add to the recommended condition that the removed garage doors should be replaced with a solid wall. Mr. Tucker said that would be understood. Motion by Kluessendorf to approve the variance request to create two substandard lots, one with 52’ of width and 6,422 + sq. ft. of area, and the second with 75’ of depth and 5,197.52 sq. ft. of area, and a variance to allow for a duplex on a substandard lot, and a variance for a principal structure with a 13.5’ rear yard setback, with the following condition: 1)The existing driveway on the north side of the duplex be removed, the garage doors facing west on the garage be removed, and code compliant parking be installed on the duplex lot, prior to recording the land division. Seconded by Wilusz. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that it is the most logical division of the properties, and it is an unusual and unique property. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Tucker presented Mr. Dahl with a certificate and a letter of appreciation for his many years of contribution to the Board of Appeals. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld