Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2002 PRESENT: Carl Ameringer, Fred Dahl, Cheryl Hentz, Don Krueger, John Schorse, EXCUSED: Joel Kluessendorf, Edward Wilusz STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; Mary Lou Degner, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Krueger. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Regarding the minutes of August 14, 2002, Ms. Hentz asked for clarification on Item V, 1712 Hazel Street, regarding the second condition. She said she would like the minutes to reflect the statement “that the size of the ramp must remain at the size that it is now.” Minutes approved. (Hentz/Dahl) Unanimous. I: 103-123 N. SAWYER STREET Hans Zietlow, applicant for Kwik Trip, is requesting a variance to construct a building and parking lot with a 10’ setback to N. Sawyer Street, and a 10’ setback to Witzel Avenue, and a variance to locate a ground sign with a 10’ setback to Witzel Avenue, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ front yard setback for buildings, parking facilities, and ground signs. Hans Zietlow, 1626 Oak Street, La Crosse, Wisconsin, said due to the fact that the City Council did not vote in favor of their rezoning request at the meeting of August 27, 2002, they propose to lay the item over until the Board of Appeals meeting of September 25, 2002. Motion by Dahl to lay over the variance request to construct a building and parking lot with a 10’ setback to N. Sawyer Street, and a 10’ setback to Witzel Avenue, and a variance to locate a ground sign with a 10’ setback to Witzel Avenue, until the meeting of September 25, 2002. Seconded by Schorse. Motion approved 4-0. Present: Hentz. II: 1050 WITZEL AVENUE Russell J. Reff, applicant, and Hurley Properties, LLC, owner, are requesting a variance to construct an off-street parking area with a 5’ front yard setback to Witzel Avenue, and a reduction in the number of required parking spaces to 25 for the proposed mixed use development, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ front yard setback and Section 30-36(A)(ii) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires 31 parking spaces. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos. He explained the change from the last application, of June 12, 2002, is that the proposal now offers a more functional parking lot. Attorney Russ Reff, 217 Ceape Avenue, introduced himself as being the representative for Hurley Properties. He explained the background of the property stating his clients acquired the property in August of 2000 and have since been making improvements and upgrades to the property. He noted the office space area has been vacant for over a year and noted the Hurleys have concluded that a laundromat facility would be a viable and needed use for this property. Attorney Reff said the physical Board of Appeals Minutes - 2 - August 28, 2002 constraints of this property make it difficult to comply with the current zoning requirements. He mentioned the previous site plan was rejected because of concerns of parking and vehicular conflicts and added since that time they have met with Norbert Salzsieder, an adjacent property owner, a professional planner, and staff to look at various parking arrangements. Attorney Reff said a driveway has now been proposed between the building and the creek to allow vehicles to travel along the east side of the building, and an agreement has been reached with Mr. Salzsieder that the southerly 6’ of his property and the northerly 6’ of the subject property will be used for vehicle maneuvering purposes. He noted eventually this area would be paved. Attorney Reff said, in his opinion, the current site plan is a tremendous improvement. He said concerning the variance of parking in the setback, the property is zoned M-2, and the only reason a variance is necessary is because there is a residence across Witzel Avenue, which subjects this property to the transitional setback requirements. Attorney Reff stated he would like to emphasize that there will not be additional paving in the front of the building and they are not eliminating green space, they are just using the existing asphalt, essentially what was driving area now becomes parking area. He said there would actually be additional landscaping added in the area, as a result of a condition placed on the variance by recommendation of City staff. Attorney Reff said regarding the request for a reduction in the number of parking spaces, it is allowed under the ordinance. He stated the City has no special standards for parking for coin laundrys and noted other municipalities generally have standards based upon the number of machines in the building and the industry has a standard of 1 parking space to 3 to 5 machines. He stated the total parking spaces required for a coin laundry standard would be 18 to 22 parking spaces and they have proposed 25 functional parking spaces on the current site plan. Attorney Reff noted that before a building permit could be issued they would have to file and record a cross access agreement, so there would be a legal agreement requiring both property owners to allow the strip of land to be used jointly for vehicle movement. Attorney Reff said in summary, he believes it is an appropriate situation for a variance, a variance is necessary to utilize this property, the constraints of the existing site and the absence of a separate parking standard for a coin laundry create a legally recognizable hardship, and the variance would not adversely affect neighboring properties. Ms. Hentz questioned the issue about the sign, which was discussed at the previous meeting of June 12, 2002, and asked why the address was previously listed as 1060 Witzel Avenue and is now listed as 1050 Witzel Avenue, she added staff indicated that it was not a typographical error. Mr. Tucker answered the sign is not considered as part of this request, and staff has been working on this issue, and Attorney Reff said he did not have an answer for the address discrepancy. Ms. Hentz also questioned if the proposed agreement between Mr. Salzsieder and the applicants would be attached to the properties if they should be sold in the future. Attorney Reff responded that it would stay with the land and it would be stated that the agreement can not be modified or terminated without the consent of the City. Mr. Ameringer asked for clarification on the changes. Attorney Reff presented a larger site plan of the redesign for the subject property and explained the proposed changes. During board discussion Ms. Hentz stated it was a better plan than what had previously been presented and she would support the variance request. Mr. Ameringer said he did not have a problem with the reduction in parking spaces for laundromat purposes, but he did have a concern about the 5’ setback if the need was for only 3 parking spaces and if elimination of these parking spaces would also be compliant with the parking standards in other areas. Mr. Ameringer said he liked the idea for additional space for turn around and the landscaping factor. Mr. Tucker responded that the applicants wish to provide as much parking space as possible in a safe and efficient manner. He noted that it is a mixed-use property and there is the future possibility that the use could change, and that the parking spaces in the transitional yard setback would probably be the least used spaces, considering their proximity to the Board of Appeals Minutes - 3 - August 28, 2002 building. Chairman Krueger said he also had a concern about infringing upon the setback for 3 additional parking spaces, but because the property is zoned M-2, which would allow parking with a 0’ setback, and because future use of the property is an unknown he would support the variance request. Chairman Krueger said he would like to add a condition to the variance request reflecting the cross access agreement between the applicants and Mr. Salzsieder. Motion by Hentz to approve the variance request to construct an off-street parking area with a 5’ front yard setback to Witzel Avenue, and a reduction in the number of required parking spaces to 25 for the proposed mixed development with the following conditions: 1)A landscaping plan be submitted and approved, by the Department of Community Development, prior to obtaining a building permit, depicting landscaping treatments along the Witzel Avenue frontage of the subject property. 2)A cross access easement be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and recorded at the Winnebago County Register of Deeds for the ingress and egress on the north side of the lot and the southern portion of the adjacent property. Seconded by Dahl. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that the hardship is a lack of an ordinance regarding parking spaces for a coin laundry, the number of parking spaces is enough to satisfy the area, it would clean up the site, it is an unusual configuration for ingress and egress, and the applicants have no possibility of acquiring more land. III: 2843 STONEY BEACH LANE David A. Prieto, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to expand the width of an existing driveway by 7’, which will result in the driveway being wider than the garage, whereas Section 30-36(C)(5) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires driveways to be no wider than the garage. Matt Tucker introduced the item. David Prieto, 2843 Stoney Beach Lane, said he would like to have his original variance approved, rather than the recommendation by staff, or to reach a compromise that allows more parking on the north side of the property. He presented plans with photos, of 3 various alternatives to his variance request.(Said plans on file in the Department of Community Development) Mr. Prieto said he has occupied the house for 8 years and he takes pride in the aesthetics of his property. He said to accommodate staff’s recommendation he would need to relocate a spruce tree and the placement of his vehicle in the driveway would also interfere with views from the house window. Mr. Prieto said his present driveway is in need of repairs and his desire is to expand the driveway to the north. He stated the area to the north is the common ground between two houses and has low activity. He added the adjacent neighbor’s driveway is on their north side also. Mr. Schorse questioned the distance between the garage and the side lot line property. Mr. Prieto answered it would be about 7’ to 8’. Discussion continued on the shape of the subject property, the number of vehicles and whether screening would be necessary. Mr. Tucker explained that screening is required for uncovered off-street parking facilities that are not in a driveway. Board of Appeals Minutes - 4 - August 28, 2002 Board discussion continued on the options presented and the footage necessary to accommodate the situation. Chairman Krueger and Mr. Ameringer said they were concerned about the issue of hardship. Mr. Ameringer stated that the applicant’s objection to expanding to the south is that it would obstruct his view, but if expanded to the north then it obstructs the neighbor’s view. Discussion continued on the options of expansion to both the north and the south. Motion by Hentz to approve the variance to expand the width of the existing 14’ driveway to a maximum of 20’, which would result in an expansion of 4’ to the south and 2’ to the north. Seconded by Dahl. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that the position of the house on the lot is unique in that it does not allow for expansion of the garage, it is the least variance necessary, and the hardship was not self created. IV: 1607 HAZEL STREET Captain Randy Van Ness of the City of Oshkosh Police Department, applicant, and Timothy J. Zielicke, owner, are requesting a variance to construct a 6’ tall solid fence in the front yard, with a 0’ front yard setback, whereas Section 30-35(E)(2) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance permits fences less than 4’ tall in the front yard, except fences that are more than 50% solid shall not be permitted within 15’ of a front lot line. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos. Timothy Zielicke, 1607 Hazel Street, and Police Chief David Erickson, 420 Jackson Street, introduced themselves. Officer Zielicke said the requested enclosed site allows for a shaded area, which would increase activity for the dog, and furthermore, this area with large shrubs, provides excellent training opportunities in regard to hiding suspects and practicing drug searches. He added a u-shaped training configuration is important in the training of wind drift and scenting for the dog. Officer Zielicke said he sees no drawback for the community and the neighbors have no concerns. He stated in his opinion, there would be no further obstruction of view for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Officer Zielicke said the purchased the subject property in May of 2002, knowing he would be a dog handler, but at the time he was not aware of the setback requirements for a corner lot. He said a large factor in his choice for the property was the large back yard. Chief Erickson said the police department supported Officer Zielicke’s application. He noted one of the critical aspects of any canine unit is the working relationship between the handler and the dog. He said approval of the variance request would allow daily training and interaction for the officer and the dog. Chief Erickson added the 6’ high solid fence would reduce distractions, it would allow for the dog to run free, and it would screen the area from children traveling to and from Emmeline Cook School. He proceeded to explain the application process in the selection of canine handlers. He stated his only involvement was in the review/selection process of the K-9 handler. Mr. Schorse noted the part of the fence in question was only located along Bent Avenue. He said the existing dense shrubbery, in his opinion, is not much different than erecting the proposed fence. He said the hardship is that this is a corner lot, since a 6’ solid fence would otherwise meet city ordinances. Mr. Board of Appeals Minutes - 5 - August 28, 2002 Schorse said this issue has come up many times and in the past variances have been granted for corner lots. Chairman Krueger asked where the dogs are normally trained. Chief Erickson answered that introduction and basic training is in Campbellsport, Wisconsin. He said they are able to return there for refresher courses once or twice a month, but the main training is at the dog handler’s residence. He further explained how important continuous training is for the handler and the dog. Mr. Schorse questioned the location of the neighbor’s driveway, and if the height of the proposed fence would interfere with the vision triangle. Mr. Tucker responded that the neighbor’s driveway is about 25’ from the lot line. He noted shrubs are allowed to be 4’ tall and the existing shrubbery is in violation of the ordinance. Mr. Tucker said there is no concern involving the vision triangle in regard to this request. Ms. Hentz asked if the dog would still be at the residence if the appeal was denied. Chief Erickson replied this was not a consideration when the assignment of the dog was approved. He said this would simply limit the opportunities for training. Discussion continued on the necessity of a 6’ high solid fence. Mr. Tucker commented that this is a residential property that in effect would be used for an institutional dog training use. He presented an alternative for the location of the 6’ high solid fence. Discussion continued on this possibility. Ms. Hentz questioned a statement from Officer Zielicke’s application regarding the high liability risk or civil suit to the City. Officer Zielicke explained that it referred to the fact that a 4’ tall fence could allow for the dog to escape the area or for someone to enter the area. He said due to the aggressive training of the dog there would be a concern of increased liability. He added that a 6’ solid fence would prevent this. Mr. Dahl said that he would support staff’s suggestion for the alternative location of the 6’ high solid fence, which would not require a variance. He said it basically involves the same square footage with a different configuration. Officer Zielicke again mentioned the significance of the u-shape configuration for training. During board discussion it was noted that this is a residential area. Chairman Krueger stated he is appreciative of the training, but he would not support the variance and noted there are other options. Mr. Schorse said he has no problem with the compromise, but again reiterated, in his opinion, the hardship is that the property is a corner lot. Discussion continued on past approvals of fences on corner lots. Ms. Hentz stated she feels the alternative suggestion is a good choice. Motion by Hentz to approve a variance to construct a 6’ tall solid fence in the front yard with a 0’ front yard setback. Seconded by Schorse. Motion denied 1-4. Aye; Schorse. Nay; Ameringer, Dahl, Hentz, Krueger. Board of Appeals Minutes - 6 - August 28, 2002 V: 1024 MASON STREET Gerald and Marjorie Zick, applicants and owners, are requesting a variance to construct a pool and deck attached to the principal structure, which will result in the principal structure having a 23’7” rear yard setback, whereas Section 30-17(B)(3)(d) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ rear yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos. Gerald and Marjorie Zick, 1024 Mason Street, presented a letter from the Pool Center, LLC, confirming the fact the pool was not enlarged, it was originally 24’ and was replaced with a 24’ pool. (Said letter on file in the Department of Community Development) They also presented letters in support of the variance request from James th Youngworth, 1029 Mason Street, and Barbara Richmond, 1246 W. 11 Avenue. (Said letters on file in the Department of Community Development) Mr. and Mrd. Zick presented pictures of the pool area. Mr. Schorse questioned the distance from the pool, to the north lot line. It was noted the distance is 23’. Ms. Hentz noted a correction on the dates of the storm being June 11, 2001, not June 11, 2002, as stated in the staff report. She also questioned the date on the letter from the Pool Center being May 11, 2201. Mrs. Zick explained the walls had started to bow at that time and that is when they received the quote. Mr. Tucker noted that the assessor’s office does not actually measure in the field, so the original pool could have been 24’. Mr. Tucker read the letters for the record, from their neighbors in support of the variance request. During board discussion Mr. Schorse said, in his opinion, the hardship was not self created, the applicants were repairing damage that was caused by nature and it is a fact that building permits may not have been required 23 years ago, when the pool was first erected. Ms. Hentz said by the city’s own admission there could have been a misjudgment as far as the actual size of the pool. She stated she would support the request. Mr. Ameringer said he would also support it because it only involves 1’5”, there was storm damage, the pool has existed for 23 years, and there are mitigating circumstances. Motion by Schorse to approve the variance to construct a pool and deck attached the principal structure, which will result in the principal structure having a 23’7” rear yard setback. Seconded by Hentz. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded the hardship was not self created, the pool was possibly built before the need for a permit, and there would be no adverse impact on neighboring properties. VI: 1008 N. SAWYER STREET & 1150 VAN BUREN AVENUE James and Nathan Larson, applicants, and Zion Lutheran Church, owner, are requesting to provide three parking spaces for the proposed duplex within the front yard setback and front yard area, with a 27’ driveway opening, whereas Section 30-36(A)(4) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires no parking in the designated setback areas and Section 30-36(C)(5)(a) requires uncovered parking spaces to Board of Appeals Minutes - 7 - August 28, 2002 meet the principal structure setback requirements and Section 30-36(C)(5)(c) requires maximum driveway width not to exceed 12’ and shall be situated as to not create only a front yard parking area. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos. Ms. Hentz questioned the site plan, which labeled a building as being an “existing” condo. James and Nathan Larson introduced themselves. Mr. James Larson said they have the opportunity to take a building that has more intensive use and make it comply with what the actual zoning is for the property. He said they are simply asking to use the same area for parking that has been utilized for the past 40 years. Mr. Larson presented copies of the schematic floor plan for the units. He added they would be willing to eliminate 4’ of concrete to create a landscape buffer for the neighbors to the east. Discussion continued on the available and proposed parking situation and the possibility of providing a garage. Ms. Hentz asked about the rental probabilities. Mr. Larson replied the units would be rented to the general public. Reverend Gerald Nerenhausen, 400 N. Sawyer Street, said his intent is to sell the property to the Larsons, which would allow the property to generate income for the City through the tax rolls. During board discussion Mr. Ameringer inquired about alternate locations for the required parking spaces. Chairman Krueger said they could be located in the middle of the yard, but that would require the use of existing green space. Mr. Tucker explained the possible location for a garage. Chairman Krueger said, in his opinion, it makes sense to leave the existing parking and to provide a landscape buffer. Ms. Hentz said to her, it makes more sense to have parking closer for unit one. Chairman Krueger explained that the parking for unit 1 is provided behind the unit. Discussion continued on future potential parking situations. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to provide three parking spaces for the proposed duplex within the front yard setback and the front yard area, with a 27’ driveway opening, with the following conditions: 1)If garages should be erected in the future, the parking area to the east shall be eliminated. 2)The parking area to be shifted 4’ to the west to provide a 4’ landscaping buffer, to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Dahl. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that the parking currently exists and by allowing this to continue the green space would remain and a buffer created on the east side would reduce the impact for the neighbors. Board of Appeals Minutes - 8 - August 28, 2002 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld