Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2002 PRESENT: Cheryl Hentz, Joel Kluessendorf, Don Krueger, John Schorse, Edward Wilusz EXCUSED: Carl Ameringer, Fred Dahl 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. The minutes of July 24, 2002 were approved as mailed. (Hentz/Schorse) TH I: 525 W. 20 AVENUE Jeff Wanke, of Orion Flight Services, is requesting a variance to install two signs on the face of a wall that will project 1.5’ above the wall, therefore making it a roof sign, and a variance for a 45’ tall ground sign, whereas Section 30-37(E) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance identifies roof signs as prohibited signs and Section 30-37(F)(2)(d)(i) requires ground signs not exceed 30’ in height. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos. He said the three issues presented could be voted on separately. th Jeff Wanke, President of Orion Flight Services, said the sign facing 20 Avenue is inadequate. He said the black background of the building makes it difficult to see the present sign, especially with cloudy conditions. He noted the company logo colors are royal blue, which gets lost in the black background of the building, and gray. Mr. Wanke said he would like to push the sign up beyond the roofline to provide better visibility for the entire sign. He said the hardship, in his opinion, is that he has a lot of money invested in the sign and it is not going to function well, and he noted visibility is important for the identification of the business. Mr. Wanke said his business has multiple services including; flight instruction and aircraft rental as well as charter services, which is of interest to people coming from the street side. He said, in his opinion, it would be a reasonable solution to project the sign above the wall. Ms. Hentz asked how long the applicant has been in business and if he has other facilities in the area. She inquired if the black color was on the building when he considered the present property. Mr. Wanke replied he has a facility in Sturgeon Bay, WI, which opened in April of 1997, and he has recently opened in Oshkosh after almost 20 months of preparation. He said the terminal is black and he would have an issue with asking the owner of the building (Winnebago County), to alter their building to suit his sign. Mr. Wanke explained he was given a rendering of how the sign would look, however the artist’s version showed a higher roofline than is permitted. Mr. Tucker stated the sign contractor submitted a plan for a building permit and those plans were denied. Ms. Hentz asked the applicant if he was aware the permit was denied and asked if the sign is to be illuminated. She also questioned if he intended to be listed on the marquee sign in front of the airport terminal. Board of Appeals Minutes - 2 - August 14, 2002 Mr. Wanke said he did know the permit was denied, but at that point the sign was already made and ready to be installed. He said the sign is on a photocell, which illuminates it from about dusk to dawn. He noted that with low light it is very difficult to see the sign. Mr. Wanke said he was approached about the possibility of being included on the marquee. Discussion continued on the corporate logo colors, the position of the 1.5’ wall projection, and the possibility of having the background color changed. Ms. Hentz questioned if the County has any codes, which would supercede the City codes. Mr. Tucker explained that the property is located within the City, so the local building code requirements must be met. Mr. Tucker presented a letter from Duncan C. Henderson, Airport Director, indicating the airport’s support of the variance requests. (Said letter on file in the Department of Community). Mr. Wanke presented pictures for the placement of the wall sign on the south side of the building. He said this request is to allow the corporate logo to be represented properly. He said there is a canopy that interferes with the placement of the sign. Ms. Hentz said when she spoke with Mr. Wanke he had indicated that the services offered include; aircraft fueling, flight instruction services, aircraft rental, and air charter services. She asked who would be viewing the sign on the rear of the building. Mr. Wanke said the customer base would be coming from the street, ramp side, and they would be taxiing in from the runway. He said his intent is to make the sign visible. Ms. Hentz noted that as one moves further away from the building the canopy no longer blocks the sign. Discussion continued on the coloration of the building. Mr. Wanke explained the Texaco sign serves two purposes, as an identification sign and a reference sign. He said that as a pilot he knows how important it is as a safety issue, not crossing active runways, to be able to identify where services can be obtained. Mr. Wanke said, in his opinion, it is necessary to have tall signs and he feels the code, which restricts ground sign heights to 30’, is not applicable to airports. He said the sign is not th obtrusive to 20 Avenue and is mostly blocked by trees. He presented pictures of the current sign. Mr. Wanke said he is requesting the additional height for the sign and added it was originally engineered to be a 45’sign. th Discussion continued on the customer base that would be coming off 20 Avenue for the fueling aspect of the business and the location of other competition located at the airport. Mr. Tucker explained that bulletins from airports are available to pilots, providing the location of fuel providers. It was noted this information is also available from air traffic control. Discussion continued on the size of the existing sign compared to the size of the competitor’s sign. During board discussion Ms. Hentz stated she has difficulty supporting the variance for the sign on the back of the building. She said, in her opinion, the customer base would be coming in by airplane, so she would not support the variance request. Ms. Hentz said she believes a 45’ tall sign is not necessary since the competition has a 6’ wall sign which has sufficed for many years and she also stated she could not support the request for the sign th facing W. 20 Avenue because the applicant knew the color of the building and the colors of the corporate logo. She said the applicant had stated to her that the hours of operation are from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM and it is an illuminated sign from dusk to dawn and the business will be listed on the marquee so she could not support the variance request. Mr. Schorse commented that the applicant is limited to options for the sign design and a 1.5’is the minimum needed to make it palatable for Mr. Wanke. Board of Appeals Minutes - 3 - August 14, 2002 Mr. Kluessendorf said he also believes the request for the 1.5’is minimal and that, in his opinion, there is not enough color contrast for the sign to be entirely visible. He stated he would support a variance for the sign on the south side of the building, however on the other two issues he would concur with Staff. Chairman Krueger said he would support the wall sign on the south side of the building, due to the interference of the overhang, He added the design of the building does not allow for a sign that does not project above the wall. Chairman Krueger stated he would not support the other two issues. He mentioned the terminal has no other signs at a height of 45’, and the sign in the front of the building fits there very nicely. Motion by Schorse for approval of the variance request for a wall sign to be placed above the roof line for the sign on the south side of the building, facing the tarmac. Seconded by Hentz. Motion approved 4-1. Nay: Hentz. th Motion by Schorse for approval of the variance request for the sign facing W. 20 Avenue to project above the wall. Seconded by Hentz. Motion denied 1-4. Nay: Hentz, Kluessendorf, Krueger, Wilusz. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance request for a 45’ tall ground sign. Seconded by Kluessendorf. Motion denied 0-5. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that the building on the south side with the overhang does not allow for a sign to be placed where it does not project above the roof line and there would be no adverse impact on neighboring properties. Ms. Hentz announced that although she would participate in the discussion of Item II, she would be voting present. II: 103-123 N. SAWYER STREET Hans Zietlow, applicant for Kwik Trip, is requesting a variance to construct a building and parking lot with a 12’ setback to Faust Avenue, 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. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated photos along with an enlarged site plan. He noted there would be future reconstruction of N. Sawyer Street. Hans Zietlow, 1626 Oak Street, La Crosse, Wisconsin, introduced himself as the representative for Kwik Trip. He said he concurs with all of staff’s recommendations. He presented a picture of a 15’ high ground sign that was recently erected in Burlington, Wisconsin. He said they would be able to lower this sign to a height of 12’, which in turn would make the sign slightly wider. He described the sign as having brick pillars, to match the building, which would hold the traditional sign, and it would be topped off with limestone caps. He presented a site plan of the proposed landscaping and added they would abide by any reasonable recommendations from the Plan Commission as far as the future landscaping plan. He noted they have pushed the building and the canopy as far to Sawyer Street as they can to move Board of Appeals Minutes - 4 - August 14, 2002 away from the neighbors. Mr. Zietlow said that generally when they build they have eight multiple pump dispensers (MPD) and here they have opted for six because of the narrowness of the site. He added that anything less than six would not be economically feasible. He said the traffic around the canopy is very important, not only to get people in and out, but also to keep the driveways clear. He said the vast majority of sites on Sawyer Street are older commercial properties, which have smaller setbacks. Mr. Zietlow said the proposed setbacks will increase green space and be a vast improvement on what is presently there. He stated that the Plan Commission has recommended approval to the City Council. Mr. Zietlow said, in his opinion, there is no other commercial viable use for the property. Mr. Tucker noted that the site plan shows parallel parking spaces of 9’ x 18’ and code requires on street parking of 8’ x 22’. Peter Schmalz, 1303 Faust Avenue, said, in his opinion, the statement that other commercial properties in the area have 0’ setbacks is incorrect. He cited the measurements he found in the immediate area was nothing less than 15’. He added that east on Witzel Avenue there is a property with a setback of 12.5’. Mr. Schmalz said a 10’ setback is considerably less than what exists with the other businesses. He also noted that most of the businesses are offices and they do not have the same amount of traffic. He said if this was a proposal for a commercial district by Highway 41 it would not be necessary for variance requests because there would be available space. Chairman Krueger reminded Mr. Schmalz that only the variances at the subject property were to be addressed. He explained that the proposed land use and rezoning are irrelevant to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Schmalz continued that in a largely commercial district the setback issue is less important than in an area that is entirely residential. He said, in his opinion, if a setback of 10’ instead of 25’ is approved as a buffer between the two areas, because of a hardship for the applicant then a hardship is being created for the residential area. David Langkau, 1225 Faust Avenue, said the cover letter from Kwik Trip, which the applicant submitted, touches on more than just the variance requests so he would like the opportunity to address a variety of issues. Chairman Krueger reminded Mr. Langkau that the Board could only act on the variance requests. Mr. Tucker explained it is the responsibility of Staff to include all information, which applicants submit, in the meeting notice and the staff report. He said the decisions the Board makes are to be determined by the facts that are presented at the meeting. Mr. Langkau read a prepared statement relating concerns on behalf of residents of the subject area. (Said statement on file in the Department of Community Development.) William Hentz, 1312 Faust Avenue, said in his opinion, if there is a hardship it is because Kwik Trip is attempting to build on the site, which is too small, therefore they have created their own hardship. He said the applicants have come forward with a plan, that is not complete and, in his opinion, they should present another plan, which will not require so many variance requests. He stated a field survey of gasoline pump usage, which he performed at the Kwik Trip on Jackson Street, does not support the necessity of the six pumps the applicant is proposing. Mr. Hentz added that there would be adverse impact on the neighboring properties with the increase in traffic. Chairman Krueger reminded Mr. Hentz to speak to the variance requests only. Mr. Hentz said he feels the Board will be making their decision based on limited information. Mr. Kluessendorf said he could understand Mr. Hentz’s concern and questioned if the subject property was previously a gas station. Mr. Hentz answered yes that it was a very small establishment. Board of Appeals Minutes - 5 - August 14, 2002 Amy Gauger, 1203 Witzel Avenue, said she has been denied the right to erect a privacy fence because of the 25’ setback and, in her opinion, the variance request for the applicant should not be allowed. Chairman Krueger asked Ms. Gauger if she had applied for a variance for the fence. Ms. Gauger said she did not apply but was told the setback requirement for a privacy fence was 25’. During board discussion Mr. Kluessendorf asked about the vision triangle and questioned if the possibility of contaminated soil has been addressed. Mr. Tucker explained because it is a controlled intersection and structures will be at grade, there are no concerns about vision, and any soil issue would be addressed at the time a building permit was issued. Chairman Krueger voiced a concern about the ground sign being positioned so as not to interfere with visibility to the sidewalk or the street. Mr. Tucker said the concern with the pylon sign is that it is 23’ tall and 10’ off the sidewalk, which would result in a towering effect. He noted there could be some vision clearance conflicts around a monument style sign. He added the signage options are a pylon sign, which you could see underneath and around or a monument style that looks appropriate and has a lesser impact on adjacent properties, but may create a vision clearance issue for pedestrians. Ms. Hentz noted a conflict with the potential safety hazards with the sign and questioned the purpose of the ground sign and its proposed location. Mr. Kluessendorf asked if the entrance and egress remains the same as the present gas station. Mr. Tucker answered there are seven egress points on the present site and there would be three on the proposed redeveloped site. Discussion continued on the setbacks of the canopy. Chairman Krueger said he would support the request of the two variances, but not the request for the parking lot with a 12’ setback to Faust Avenue. He said it is a commercial lot and he believes that the proposal does fit there. Chairman Krueger said, in his opinion, the variance requests are not in excess. He said in the past the Board has granted variances of similar nature and, in his opinion, the lot has a hardship to place any kind of building on it and make it economically feasible. Motion by Schorse to approve a variance request to construct a building and parking lot with a 12’ setback to Faust Avenue. Seconded by Wilusz. Motion denied 0-4. Nays; Kluessendorf, Krueger, Schorse, Wilusz. Present; Hentz. Motion by Schorse to approve the variance request to construct a building and a parking lot with a 10’ setback to N. Sawyer Street and a 10’ setback to Witzel Avenue. Seconded by Wilusz. Motion laid over 3-1. Nays; Kluessendorf. Present; Hentz. Motion by Schorse to approve the variance request to locate a ground sign with a 10’ setback to Witzel Avenue, with the following condition: 1) The proposed ground sign must be a monument style sign, not to exceed 12 feet in height nor 100 square feet in area per side. Seconded by Wilusz. Motion laid over 3-1. Nays; Kluessendorf. Present; Hentz. Mr. Schorse excused himself at 5:18 P.M. III: 4085 SHARRATT DRIVE Jerry Mathusek, applicant, and Barb Wagner, owner, are requesting a variance to allow for a single family house with a 22’ rear yard setback, whereas Section 30-17(B)(3)(d) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ rear yard setback. Board of Appeals Minutes - 6 - August 14, 2002 Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos. Barb Wagner, 4085 Sharratt Drive, said she considers her front yard to be facing Sharratt and her back yard is opposite from her front door with a 25’ setback. She said she considers the area in question to be her side yard with a generous 22’ setback versus the 25’ required. Ms. Wagner said her house has been constructed and she is requesting approval for the 22’ rear yard setback. During board discussion Ms. Hentz stated it was not the owners error and granting the variance request would correct the problem. Motion by Hentz to approve the variance to allow for a single family house with a 22’ rear yard setback. Seconded by Kluessendorf. Motion approved 4-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that the granting of the variance would correct the error and there would be no adverse impact on neighboring properties. IV: 2712 STONEY BEACH STREET John & Julie Nicks, applicants and owners, are requesting a variance to remodel and expand a nonconforming structure, exceeding 50% of the current total assessed value of the structure, whereas Section 30-4(B)(1) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires alterations, additions, and expansions may not exceed 50% of the total assessed value of a nonconforming structure. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. John Nicks, 2712 Stoney Beach Street, said they originally planned to build up, but now realize it would be cost prohibitive to do so. He said they are proposing to add a 24’ x 24’ addition behind the garage and to create a bedroom above the garage, and a small office space above the master suite, which would be ground level. Mr. Nicks said they are considering a 10 pitch roof and basically plan to modernize the house with interior work. He added this would allow them to increase the value and the beauty of the house, as well as to update the house. He stated their present garage is an eyesore. Board discussion stated it would be an improvement. Motion by Hentz to approve a variance to remodel and expand a nonconforming structure exceeding 50% of the current total assessed value of the structure. Seconded by Kluessendorf. Motion approved 4-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that the property has substandard setbacks, the modernization would make the house similar to adjacent properties, which would increase the assessment value and marketability of the property and there would be no adverse impact on the neighboring properties, it would actually improve the aesthetics of the area. Board of Appeals Minutes - 7 - August 14, 2002 V: 1712 HAZEL STREET Paul & Mary Kay Jennerjahn, applicants and owners, are requesting a variance to construct a deck and attached pool to the principal structure, which will result in the principal structure having a 16’4” rear yard setback, whereas Section 30-17(B)(3)(d) of the City of Oshkosh q Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ rear yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos and also circulated a copy of the building permit, which was issued. Paul and Mary Kay Jennerjahn, 1712 Hazel Street, presented photos. Mrs. Jennerjahn said they wanted four items in the staff report to be corrected, because in her opinion, the statements are not true. She stated the deck does not surround the pool, it only covers about ¼ of the pool. She said they have their 84-year-old mother living with them and to address the “temporary” needs, staff’s recommendation would have her walking up and down a long ramp to access the deck, which is 40” above grade, versus walking across the 10’ 11”deck, which is the current ramp. She said another item to be corrected is the fact that, in her opinion, the decks have not been joined. Mrs. Jennerjahn said the ramp buts up to the new deck and the old deck, it is not connected by any nails, bolts, or screws and it is supported by floating concrete footings. Mrs. Jennerjahn said the hardship was not self-created, because they did not locate the pool at its present location. She said it is their desire to have the decks and pool attached out of a necessity because their mother is a heart patient, who uses a chair lift indoors and who has been issued a handicap permit. She said the purpose is for the comfort of their mother and because she too is getting older. Mrs. Jennerjahn said she was appalled by alleged statements made by Staff regarding the life span of their mother. Mr. Kluessendorf questioned the fact that the building permit said a 5’ separation should be maintained. Mrs. Jennerjahn replied, in her opinion, she has a 10’11” separation. Chairman Krueger said the ramp actually connects the two decks. He said there is not a 5’ separation. Mrs. Jennerjahn disagreed. Mr. Tucker noted the alternative generally recommended to people trying to work around the connection issue, is to utilize landscape treatments for walkway service. He stated variances apply to the life of the property and there may be an immediate need that the city may be able to address. Mr. Tucker said there are a variety of alternatives that could be considered. Ms. Hentz questioned staff’s term of “temporary” needs in the staff report. Mr. Tucker explained that the staff report was addressed to the applicant’s variance submittal as well as conversations with the applicant prior to submittal, in which statements were made that the deck was built to serve an elderly resident. Chairman Krueger mentioned past variances have been approved with conditions regarding the tenure of the handicapped. Board of Appeals Minutes - 8 - August 14, 2002 Mr. Tucker explained the handicap portion of the Zoning Code is addressed to properties that do not have the opportunity for ingress and egress for the handicapped, and need to project into the setback areas. Chairman Krueger questioned if the ramp meets building code requirements. Discussion continued on ramps versus decks, and the issuance of the building permit and the applicant’s submittal. Roxanne Gaetzke, 1709 Hazel Street, said she often visits with Dorothy, and is aware of how much she enjoys the backyard. She said she does not understand the problem. Ms. Hentz again questioned staff’s term of “temporary” needs. Mr. Tucker further explained that through discussions with the applicants it was constantly reiterated that the variance was needed so their 84-year-old mother could access the pool/deck area. Discussion continued on alternatives for a ramp. Ms. Hentz said she did not see the harm in the request and although the particular hardship of the two decks being joined was self- created, the positioning of the pool was not. She said she would support the variance request. Mr. Kluessendorf asked if on May 22, 2002, when the building permit was issued, if there was any mention of handicap requirements. Mr. Tucker said he was not present, but through discussions with the building inspector, John Zarate, he learned that the inspector made it clear that a 5’ separation was to be maintained. Mr. Kluessendorf said he could not support the variance and he would like to see the Department of Community Development work with the applicants in developing some kind of access for their mother. He said, in his opinion, the 5’ separation was not maintained. Mr. Wilusz asked if it was possible to condition approval of the variance as long as the person in need is residing at the residence. Mr. Tucker explained that the variance is for the life of the property. There was further discussion involving the possibility of a deed restriction. Ms. Hentz stated, in her opinion, there has been a misunderstanding in terminology. She said she believes the applicants acted in good faith. Mr. Kluessendorf suggested that the item be laid over to allow the applicants time to research more information on handicap alternatives. Mrs. Jennerjahn said her request is not for a handicap ramp. Discussion continued on possibilities and alternatives. Chairman Krueger asked if the variance was approved with a code compliant connection, and if in the future the applicant wanted to connect the two decks fully across, would it be noticed that there was a conditional approval. Mr. Tucker replied that in review of any plans, staff would detect the condition of approval. Chairman Krueger said he could not support anything that does not meet building code compliance, and he would never want to see this extended to a full deck. He added he would like it noted in the file that the variance approval is only for the 4’ 11”ramp, so nothing in the future can be added on to it. Chairman Krueger mentioned past variances have been approved with conditions regarding the tenure of the handicapped. Motion by Krueger to approve the variance to construct a deck and attached above ground pool to the principal structure with the following conditions: 1) A building permit must be taken out for the deck addition per the attached site plan. 2) Nothing other than the 4’11” ramp may be added to the current decks. Seconded by Hentz. Motion approved 4-0. Unanimous. Board of Appeals Minutes - 9 - August 14, 2002 Finding of the fact: It was concluded that the variance as approved shows give and take on both sides, safety issues have been addressed, there will be no adverse impact on neighboring properties, and the pool was not sited by the present owners. VI: 1413 OREGON STREET Terry Helfrich, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to construct a second story addition onto a nonconforming structure, which will exceed 50% of the current total assessed value of a nonconforming structure, whereas Section 30-4(B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires alterations, additions, and expansions may not exceed 50% of the current total assessed value of a nonconforming structure. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. Terry Helfrich, 1413 Oregon Street, said he purchased the property ten years ago and the first floor layout is not adequate for his growing family. He said he is proposing to add a second story and a small addition on the back. Chairman Krueger asked if the new addition would intrude into the setback area. Mr. Helfrich said it would have the proper setback on the side. He explained the reason for the addition is to enhance the roofline. During board discussion Ms. Hentz stated it was a reasonable request and the hardship was created by the age and the construction of the house. She said she would support the variance request. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct a second floor addition onto a nonconforming structure, which will exceed 50% of the current total assessed value of a nonconforming structure. Seconded by Kluessendorf. Motion approved 4- 0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that the hardship was created by the age and the construction of the house and there would be no adverse impact on neighboring properties. VII: 1900 N. MAIN STREET Clifford A. Osen, applicant, and Brett J. Jungwirth, owner, are requesting a variance to construct a parking lot with a 20’ front yard setback to Gruenwald Avenues and a 20’ setback to N. Main Street, and a parking lot with a 5’ front, rear and side yard setback, and a reduction in the number of required parking spaces to 21, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ front yard setback to Gruenwald Avenue and a 19’3” side yard setback, and Section 30-35(B)(d) requires a 25' front yard setback to N. Main Street, and Section 30-24(B)(3)(d) requires a 20’ rear yard setback, and Section 30-36(B)(21) requires 28 spaces. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos. Board of Appeals Minutes - 10 - August 14, 2002 Cliff Osen, 417 E. Lincoln Avenue, introduced Brett Jungwirth, 860 Farmington Avenue. Mr. Osen said they are sympathetic to the neighborhood. They plan on building a masonry structure, with a full basement, which will be conforming. He said that at this time they do not have full architectural plans. Chairman Krueger questioned the location for trash. Mr. Osen said they would work with the Department of Community Development on the final location. He said it is presently shown as adjacent to the handicap area and it could be enclosed. During board discussion Ms. Hentz said it would be a big improvement and Mr. Kluessendorf stated it was good to know they are proposing to build a first rate building. Motion by Hentz to approve the variance to construct a building with a 20’ front yard setback to Gruenwald Avenue and a 20’ setback to N. Main Street, and a parking lot with a 5’ front, rear and side yard setback, and a reduction in the number of required parking spaces to 21, with the following conditions: 1)The 6’ tall fence depicted on the site plan be a solid fence. 2)The design of the exterior shall be complimentary to the residential character of the neighborhood, and subject to review by the Department of Community Development (this including but not limited to the building architecture, materials, and overall design. Seconded by Kluessendorf. Motion approved 4-0. Unanimous. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tucker stated that Mark Huddleston, Director of Transportation, has indicated that there will be 15 MPH speed limit signs in the alley running parallel to Otter Avenue and Waugoo Avenue, between Bay Street and Mill Street. He added the alley east of Bowen Street has already been posted. Ms. Hentz noted that the web site is not up to date with the agendas and minutes. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld