Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JUNE 26, 2002 PRESENT: Carl Ameringer, Fred Dahl, Cheryl Hentz, Don Krueger, Edward Wilusz, EXCUSED: Joel Kluessendorf, John Schorse 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 June 12, 2002 were approved with additions relating to Item IV, 31 Bowen Street. Ms. Hentz asked for the discussion on rent, page 7, to reflect that Mr. Ganther had indicated that the rents could actually be closer to $3000.00 a month and that he made comparisons to Centennial Inn. Ms. Hentz also noted that the statement she made, on page 10, that “the developer has shown arrogance and disrespect for the neighbors” was made in reference to the fact that Mr. Ganther was unwilling to work with the neighbors unless the variances were approved. Mr. Wilusz said he would like it noted on page 9 that he questioned if the project would go forward with out approval and Mr. Ganther indicated that he had contingency plans and the project would go forward. (Hentz/Dahl) Unanimous. I: 930 BAVARIAN COURT Inam Ul Haque, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to construct an addition on the front of a house, that will result in the principal structure having a 23’8” front yard setback, whereas Section 30-17(B)(3)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ front yard setback for a principal residential area. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos and noted the item was laid over from the meeting of June 12, 2002. There was a question of whether an existing magnolia tree could be moved or removed to enable the addition, without the need for a variance. Mr. Tucker had consulted with the City Forester, Kevin Westphal, and was advised that a magnolia tree of this size could not be successfully moved. Inam Ul Haque, 930 Bavarian Court, said he built his home in 1981, and at that time a greenhouse was not considered because horticulture was not a hobby. He presented a list of several nurseries he had contacted about the possibility of moving the tree and found it was not a viable option. He explained that the east and west sides of the home have little exposure to the sun in the winter months. He noted that neighbors sent a letter to Staff indicating no objections to the variance request. Mr. Ameringer asked why the construction of the greenhouse requires the additional 16” in the setback area. Mr. Haque answered he intends to grow orchids, which requires equipment such as foggers, heaters, lights, benches, etc. Mr. Ameringer asked if the design could be altered to eliminate the 16” into the setback area, which would still allow him to cultivate the orchids. Board of Appeals Minutes - 2 - June 26, 2002 Mr. Haque replied it would be very difficult because of the need for the equipment. Discussion continued on the lighting requirements in the greenhouse. For the record Mr. Tucker read the letter of support from John & Kathy Lenz (said letter on file in the Planning Services office). Chairman Krueger asked if the other homes in the area met the setbacks. Mr. Tucker responded yes. Mr. Ameringer commented that he is a garden enthusiast and he realizes how important the correct light exposure is and although he is sympathetic he could not support the applicant’s request. He commented that in his opinion, the placement of the addition would not be disadvantageous to the neighborhood, however his concern is that there is not a more solid reason as to why the greenhouse design requires the additional 16” into the setback area. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct an addition on the front of a house that will result in the principal structure having a 23’8” front yard setback. Seconded by Ameringer. Motion denied 0-5. Unanimous. II: 110 CIMARRON COURT Chris Mokler, Mokler Properties, applicant and owner, requests a variance to construct an identification sign for a multi-family complex that will have a 5’ front yard setback, whereas Section 30-22(B)(2)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ front yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated pictures. Mr. Ameringer noted a point of correction in the Staff Report. The last paragraph should state “the sign will not interfere”, the word “not” was omitted. Chris Mokler, 3025 Hayward Avenue, introduced himself and said he was available to answer questions. Ms. Hentz asked if the applicant was comfortable with the condition recommended by staff. Mr. Mokler said he agreed that they would not have a lit sign. He added that it is an attractive, colorful sand blasted sign. Discussion continued on the size of the existing sign and the proposed sign. During board discussion Ms. Hentz said she was familiar with both the area and with Mokler Properties and she would support the variance. Motion by Ameringer for approval of the variance to construct an identification sign for a multi- family complex that will have a 5’ front yard setback with the following condition: 1)The sign may not be internally or externally lit in any manner. Seconded by Hentz. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Board of Appeals Minutes - 3 - June 26, 2002 Finding of the fact: It was concluded there were unusual characteristics of the right-of way and it did not cause any safety issues. III: 3125 MEDALIST DRIVE Martin Johnson, applicant, and Mark Toll, owner, are requesting a variance to construct an off-street parking area that will have a 7’ front yard setback, whereas Section 30- 30(B)(1) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 30’ front yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item and noted the letter of approval that was received from Chamco, Inc. Kevin Revolinski, Vice President of Fox Valley Metrology, said he would be representing Mr. Johnson and Mr. Toll. He explained the project was actually started last year and they canvassed several paving companies to find a solution to the parking problem, which they are now presenting. He noted that the east side of the building has no viable room, so the proposal is to use the north side of the building. He said the stalls run north to south and the easement is necessary due to the narrowness of the area. He added there is not enough parking space for vehicles and gravel was added this past spring because they were parking off the pavement into the grass area. He said their intent is to increase this parking area to meet City code, to enclose the dumpster area, and to landscape the site. Discussion continued on the location of the present dumpsters. Mr. Revolinski said Jack Schloesser, who is the owner of the parcel to the south, has no interest in selling the vacant lot, which they had considered purchasing for expansion. Ms. Hentz asked if approval of this variance would have a possible adverse impact on future businesses interested in the location. Mr. Tucker said considering the potential of what uses could locate there, it could be possible that the parking area would have an adverse impact on neighbors. He added when change of use occurs there are zoning and screening requirements that must be met, and Chamco has covenants within the Industrial Park to protect adjacent properties. He said lack of parking would continue for this property. Mr. Revolinski said their intention in regard to future growth is to buy another building and operate a portion of their division off-site. He further explained that they have three different segments to their business, and they would move one of these operations to another building if space becomes a problem. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct an off-street parking area that will have a 7’ front yard setback with the following condition: 1) A landscaping plan be submitted and approved prior to obtaining a building permit, showing landscaping and green space, along with providing a solidly screened refuse enclosure area. Seconded by Wilusz. Motion carried 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded that the hardship was not self-created, it is the easiest solution, it would improve the property and it conforms to other properties in the area. Board of Appeals Minutes - 4 - June 26, 2002 IV: 491 S. WASHBURN STREET Andy Dumke, applicant for Dumke & Associates LLC, is requesting a variance to construct an access aisle way that will have a 5’ side yard setback, whereas Section 30- 34(D)(4)(b) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 15’ side yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos. Gary Eake, G. Earl Real Estate, introduced himself and Andy Dumke. Mr. Eake said his firm is marketing the subject property and he circulated pictures of projects in the community that Mr. Dumke is involved in. Mr. Eake explained the architect laid out the plan for a satellite banking facility for no particular tenant, other than a financial institution. He further explained that a retail banking headquarters for First Federal Savings & Loan, which was planned for the Appleton area, has now expressed an interest in this site. Mr. Eake said, in his opinion, the hardship is that they have a tenant with a greater need, than what was anticipated for the City of Oshkosh, which will generate more employment in the area. He noted the affected neighbor does not object to the variance request. He added that this is a great opportunity to bring a quality organization to Oshkosh. Andy Dumke sated that First Federal has a concern that cars will back up around the back of the building, which will present a safety issue. He said the traffic flow would create a hardship. Mr. Dumke said the design meets the setback requirements for state codes, however First Federal feels that any bank, which would come in here, would have the same issues. He added an adjacent property owner, Tom Rothe, has no objection to the setback request. Mr. Eake added that the congestion would also be a problem for other tenants in the building and they would like to minimize the safety concern by the construction of the extra lane. Discussion continued on the configuration of parking and traffic flow. Mr. Ameringer asked about alternatives. He noted the four bays have been approved and said it was a unique configuration and stated he was trying to establish a hardship for the variance request. Mr. Eake responded the building is near completion. Mr. Dumke said when it was built he was thinking of a small branch facility and had no idea that this would turn into a showcase facility for the Fox Valley. Mr. Tucker said there has been no discussion of alternatives. He said he had approved two landscape plans for this project, one with a drive- thru and one without a drive- thru, because at the time of application, the applicant was still searching for a tenant and there was the possibility that the drive-thru would not be needed. Mr. Wilusz asked how many cars the original design could hold before the cars would begin to stack up, what percentage of time the cars would be backed up, and how long the back up would last. He said in his rough calculation he estimated that perhaps there would be room for 10 or 11 cars before they would start to back up. He asked for statistics on these questions. Mr. Dumke replied that in the bank’s opinion, it would be backed up all the time because of the type of banking they do. Mr. Wilusz said he was not convinced that there would be a problem. Board of Appeals Minutes - 5- June 26, 2002 Chairman Krueger asked if the building layout could have been placed differently, within the setback requirements, to accommodate the extra lanes if they had known in advance that this particular need was necessary. He also questioned if development would occur to the west of the property, the size of the retention pond, and the setback from the property line on the north side to the driveway. Mr. Dumke said the architect would need to answer that question. He added that if the 10’ variance request had occurred up front, in his opinion, the City would not have had a problem with adding a two million dollar building to the tax rolls. Mr. Eake commented that due to the high tension wires that are located there and the 50’ restriction on either side, it forces them to favor the south property line. Mr. Tucker explained the property to the west has already been developed and there would be no outlet for vehicles there. He further explained the retention pond, which has been relocated to another area other than depicted on the site plan, would be reviewed by the Department of Public Works, and Mr. Tucker stated the setback from the north property line would be a minimum of 15’. Discussion continued on the location of the proposed additional lanes. Ms. Hentz asked the applicant if he had anything in writing, from the proposed tenant, stating their intentions. Mr. Dumke and Mr. Eake stated the initial term for the lease would be 10 years. Discussion continued on the importance of the variance approval and if the project would be at risk if the variance was denied. Discussion ensued on how many facilities of First Federal Savings & Loan are presently existing in the Oshkosh area. Mr. Eake explained in addition to a full service bank, the proposed tenant is bringing part of their regional and commercial business to the area. During board discussion Mr. Tucker circulated a paper in opposition of the request from Gabert & Rusch (said item on file in the Planning Services Division). Mr. Wilusz asked how many past variances have been granted in situations like this in regards to new construction. Mr. Tucker responded he could give an overview, but cautioned that each variance request must stand on its own merits. He explained that typically what they see is a request as a result of code changes, where the property was developed before current ordinance requirements. Mr. Tucker mentioned a couple of requests that were located in the HWY 41 Corridor. Chairman Krueger said that he would support the variance. He said in his opinion, with the retention pond and the proper screening the driveway would not be an eyesore. Chairman Krueger stated the building was designed to meet the setbacks required and with the safety concerns along with the value of the business he feels the variance request is reasonable. He expressed a concern about the traffic flow in the front of the building. Mr. Ameringer said he would also support the variance request because it evolved, there were issues that could not be anticipated and the applicant acted in good faith. He added there is uniqueness and unusual aspects to the property and by granting the variance the odd configuration would be corrected. Mr. Ameringer said, in his opinion, there is potential for a traffic flow and safety issue, which needs to be taken into consideration. Ms. Hentz asked the applicant if there was a reason that the tenant had to be a bank. Mr. Dumke answered no. Mr. Eake responded that a tenant, Virchow Krause, has the expectation that it would be marketed as a financial institution and that is why two site plans were approved as a financial institution. The construction schedule was discussed with it being noted that Virchow Krause has expected occupancy of August 1, 2002. Motion by Ameringer for approval of the variance to construct an access aisle way that will have a 5’ side yard seatback, with the following condition: Board of Appeals Minutes - 6 - June 26, 2002 1) A landscape plan be reviewed and approved indicating intensified landscaping in the sub-standard setback area. Seconded by Hentz. Motion approved 4-1. Nay: Hentz. Finding of the fact: Mr. Ameringer stated there was a strong case for unique and unusual characteristics for the subject property and the way it has been assumed over time and the addition of this lane would allow it to connect with the configuration of what was previously approved. He stated there is a potential hardship with respect to leasing the property. Mr. Ameringer noted that although Staff circulated a document indicating opposition to the variance request there were no reasons stated and no one has appeared before the Board to indicate adverse impact on neighboring property. In addition there was a neighboring property owner not opposed that was represented. With respect to reasonable alternatives there has been no discussion with Staff and to his knowledge there is no reasonable alternative to satisfy the conditions that the builder has requested concerning the variance. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld