Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JUNE 12, 2002 PRESENT: Cheryl Hentz, Joel Kluessendorf, Don Krueger, Edward Wilusz, EXCUSED: Carl Ameringer, Fred Dahl, 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 May 22, 2002 were approved as mailed. (Hentz/Wilusz) Unanimous. Item II and Item III preceded Item I, while staff prepared a presentation. II: 233 OXFORD AVENUE Kenneth E. App, applicant, is requesting a variance to allow for a 7’4” privacy fence in the side yard, whereas Section 30-17(B)(4)(e)(iii) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance allows for a 6’ fence in the side yard. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos. He explained it is a renewal of a variance that was previously presented twice before the Board. The first application, on July 22, 1998, was denied, and the second application, May 12, 1999, was granted with the condition that no fence was to be constructed along the building at 303 Oxford Avenue. However, since a building permit was not obtained within 6 months of the approval of the variance, the applicant is required to re-apply for the variance. Mr. Tucker recommended that the Board should attach a similar condition on the proposed variance request. Ms. Hentz asked if Mr. Tucker was suggesting that the condition state that no fence be constructed along the east side of the house at any time or simply by the applicants. Mr. Tucker explained that the variance is for the property, not the applicants. Kenneth App, 233 Oxford Avenue, said that his lot is within 8” of the neighbor’s house to the east, and it was previously agreed that a fence would not be constructed there for safety reasons. He said if there would be a fire the neighbor might not have a way to escape with a fence so close to their house. Ms. Hentz stated, in her opinion, it seemed straightforward. She asked if there should be a deed restriction also applied to the condition. Mr. Tucker responded no. He explained the file would be flagged to note the condition, that there could never be a fence erected on the east side of the property, adjacent to the building at 303 Oxford Avenue. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to allow for a seven (7) foot four (4) inch privacy fence in the side yard with the following condition: 1.) No fence be placed along the east side of the property, adjacent to the building at 303 Oxford Avenue. Board of Appeals Minutes - 2 - June 12, 2002 Seconded by Kluessendorf. Motion approved 4-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: Ms. Hentz stated they were simply reaffirming what had been approved previously. She stated it takes care of Mr. App’s problem and still protects the safety of the residents at 303 Oxford Avenue. III: 2873 RUSCHFIELD DRIVE Marlon Gasner, applicant and owner, requests a variance to construct a 12’ x 12’ (144 square foot) utility shed, whereas Section 30-17(B)(4)(e)(iii) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance allows for utility sheds up to 100 square feet in size. Matt Tucker introduced the item noting the applicant requested to change the size of the proposed structure from 12’ x 12’ (144 square feet) to 10'’x 14'’ (140 square feet). He further noted that the Department of Community Development is currently preparing Zoning Code text amendment changes, which relate to the current variance request. Marlon Gasner, 2873 Ruschfield Drive, said when he first made the application he thought it would be a 12’ x 12’. He has now decided on a 10’ x 14’, because it is difficult to find a 12’ x 12’ that could be built by himself and friends, and a 10’ x 14’ would be easier to match the style and design of his house. Chairman Krueger asked if he intended to have a slab. Mr. Gasner answered yes. Mr. Kluessendorf asked the reason why the applicant wanted to erect the utility shed now instead of waiting for the new changes to go through. Mr. Gasner replied it is convenient now with the weather and because of his lack of storage. Mr. Kluessendorf asked Staff about the time frame involved regarding the amendment changes. Mr. Tucker explained they hope to have a presentation for the Planning Commission in July or early August and to follow with a formal document ready in September or October. It would then go before the Common Council for adoption in October or November. During board discussion Ms. Hentz said she had no problem with the request since City Staff is going to be recommending changes to the ordinance. She said it was a reasonable request and she would support it. Mr. Kluessendorf stated a concern about having similar variance requests come before the Board that were not approved. He said he was looking at it as a matter of protocol and that until there is verification of the changes he could not support the request out of fairness to past applicants. Board discussion continued with it being noted that other similar variances have been approved in the past. Chairman Krueger said most of those that have not been approved were in excess of 144 square feet. Mr. Tucker explained the reason staff has recommended approval on this matter; since it is the beginning of the construction season and staff is anticipating the change to be in effect before the end of the year. He noted the possible Zoning Code text amendment is for a limitation of sheds up to 150’ or 30% of the rear Board of Appeals Minutes - 3 - June 12, 2002 yard area, which the applicant meets. Mr. Kluessendorf said that in view of the clarification he would support the request. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct a 10’ x 14’ (140 square foot) utility shed. Seconded by Wilusz. Motion approved 4-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded there would be no adverse impact on the neighbors, City Staff is moving to change the code, and it will be an aesthetic improvement. I: 1060 WITZEL AVENUE Mike Hurley, representative for Hurley Properties LLC, owner, is requesting an appeal to the Zoning Administrator’s determination as to the functionality of an off-street parking area and the functionality of proposed parking spaces for a commercial use. Matt Tucker introduced the item with photos and an overhead presentation. He explained the applicant’s submitted request is to change the present office area of the building, approximately 2,026 square feet, into a commercial use, which is a permitted use requiring a greater number of parking spaces. He noted the Zoning Code does not presently have specific parking requirements for laundromats, however the Ordinance does require one parking space for every 100’ of building area for general commercial uses not specifically identified in the ordinance The total required parking spaces for the proposed mixed-use development be 31 spaces. Through research, he determined the standard for parking requirements from other communities was relative to the number of washing machines in the establishment. What he found was 1 parking space per 3 washing machines, dryers, and dry-cleaning machines, or 1 per 2 washing machines. Mr. Tucker said the applicant has a deficiency in viable parking spaces and those proposed by the applicant lend to a confusing traffic pattern and create several vehicle conflicts. He questioned if the approximate square footage of office space included the second floor office portion of the building, stating if not, there would be more parking spaces required. Mr. Tucker noted the Board could advise the applicant to request variances to expand the parking area into the front yard setback area or for the reduction in the number of parking spaces required for the use. Mr. Wilusz asked if the City was considering establishing parking requirements based on the number of machines. Mr. Tucker explained that there are some uses, such as laundromats, that do not have a specific parking requirement, and the code states if a commercial use is not identified, but similar in nature to a general commercial use, then the requirement of 1 parking space for every 100’ of building area applies. Discussion continued on the nature of the possible Zoning Code text amendment changes, which could relate to this item. Ms. Hentz asked if the Board could tweak the recommendation since this item is an appeal to Staff’s determination and not a variance request. Mr. Tucker responded that the Board must act on what is presented, however there could be discussion on what the Board might support in terms of variances. Board of Appeals Minutes - 4 - June 12, 2002 Mike Hurley, 1060 Witzel Avenue, introduced himself and stated his wife, Carol, and son, Chad, are owners of the property, which was purchased in September of 2000. He circulated photos of the property as it looked prior to their ownership. He thanked Mr. Tucker for his assistance and suggestions. Mr. Hurley said the property has been marketed by a top area realtor, and in his opinion, there is too much office space available in the area, so the office space has been vacant for over 1 ½ years. He added it is starting to fall into disrepair. Mr. Hurley stated he would like to make this a viable business, and in his opinion, there is a reasonable demand in the community for a laundromat in this area, which could be successful. He said there is a parking concern, which they have addressed, with the assistance of his architect, Dorsch Designs. He noted their proposals have been designed to meet industry standards. Mr. Hurley presented information based on the laundry industry on how many people occupy the building and the number of machines that are used (said information on file in the Department of Community Development). He said the occupiable space that the customers would use in the building, is far from the actual square footage of the building. He said, in his opinion, one blanket parking requirement does not fit all situations. Mr. Hurley said they are looking for ideas and suggestions on whether they should request a variance for parking in the 25’ set back area, or request a variance for a reduction in the number of parking spaces required. Mr. Hurley said he would appreciate the Board’s input in this matter. Chairman Krueger asked if reducing the parking requirements by 25% would allow the parking to be functional. He questioned how many parking spaces are required based on square footage of the building. Mr. Tucker responded that the first floor is 2500 square feet, and if the second floor is being used as office space, that square footage must be considered to calculate the parking requirement. He said the laundromat use would require 21 parking spaces if the code of 1 space per 100’ were applied. Mr. Tucker indicated that during discussion with the applicant, it was explained that in certain reviews of parking requirements, where the square footage requires an additional space, that one space reduction could be permitted, considering the mechanical room, which is not useable space, so 20 spaces would be required for the laundromat portion of the building. He stated that as shown, the office building would require 11 spaces and the associated car wash facility would require 1 space per employee. Mr. Hurley replied the second floor is storage space, which is unoccupiable. He mentioned the mix of use, noting that with the type of businesses that are located on site, not all spaces are used at any one time. He added the office space is not occupied on weekends. Discussion continued on the proposals that had been presented to staff. Mr. Hurley said the final proposal, in his opinion, offers the best use of parking availability. Dan Naumann, 14230 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Elmgrove, WI., introduced himself as a Maytag Commercial Laundry Distributor. He said he develops coin laundries throughout Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and northern Illinois. He added he is also a member of the National Board of the Coin Laundry Association serving as a director. He presented a letter from the Executive Director, Brian Wallace, explaining guidelines of parking requirements per machine, which is 1 parking space per 4 to 5 washing machines, it also stated that coin laundry facilities see 60% to 70% of its volume on weekends and nights. He further mentioned if the City of Oshkosh is interested in setting up future guidelines, Mr. Wallace would be happy to help. In addition Mr. Naumann presented numbers on average customer usage based on the revenue projections for Mr. Hurley’s property. Board of Appeals Minutes - 5- June 12, 2002 Discussion continued on the operating hours of the laundry facility being 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM and the office hours being 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday thru Friday. Mr. Kluessendorf questioned if the peak laundry hours would correspond with the peak car wash hours and asked about the possibility of downsizing the number of washers and dryers. Mr. Hurley explained the customer usage of the driveways on the property and stated for the past 1 ½ years they have not had any conflict with cars on the lot in regard to the car wash peak hours. He added that the number of parking spaces required is based on the square footage of the building, so downsizing the number of machines would not help. Mr. Wilusz asked about the timing. Mr. Hurley responded that time is of the essence to generate the revenue for his financial obligations. Gavin Dorsch, 456 N. Douglas Street, Ripon, WI., stated given the requirements of the square footage of the building, 31 stalls would be required, which included the existing office space. He said he prepared three different designs, the last one being presented to the Board for consideration. Mr. Dorsch said the site was designed to accommodate all the required stalls to the best of his ability, per the owner’s request. He said there could be some functional problems, and he did use an architectural graph design standard to determine the sizes, but unfortunately these standards do not always work with the direction of traffic. Mr. Dorsch added he was not aware of the 25’ front yard setback until after staff’s review, so this could be a case where either a zoning appeal could be requested or it could fall into the 25% reduction. Chad Hurley, 1060 Witzel Avenue, said their major goal is to improve the site, he noted it was previously an eyesore and they have already aesthetically improved the property. He said they are moving in the direction to further improve the area. Mr. Hurley said they are trying to cooperate to create a solution, he added they are open to all input. Discussion continued on the direction the City is considering with potential changes in regard to the zoning code. Mr. Wilusz questioned if there is a process to get to a solution regarding the zoning issues. He noted the CLA (Coin Laundry Association) has presented different numbers than were mentioned by staff. Mr. Tucker said this could be discussed at the time of the ordinance change, not when there is an issue in front of the Board. Mr. Wilusz wondered if it was a viable option for the applicant to down size the number of washers. Chairman Krueger stated the present issue is the applicant’s appeal to staff’s determination. Mr. Tucker noted it is not a use issue. He added it is a challenging property and questioned what the site can functionally support. Norbert Salzsieder, 130 Josslyn Street, said he is the abutting warehouse operator, he complimented the applicants on the good will they have extended to the property. He said they are excellent neighbors. Mr. Salzsieder said it has been his observation that laundromats normally have 1 or 2 cars in their parking lots and they are not overflowing. He said through research, he has discovered that most people use 4 to 6 machines at one time. He mentioned Mr. Hurley is anticipating having 30 machines in the building, and in his opinion, the Board needs to look at what is actually in front of them and make an appropriate decision. Carol Hurley, 1060 Witzel Avenue, said it was her idea to utilize the property for a laundromat. She said she personally frequents laundromats and has never been in one that is occupied by more than 7 people. Board of Appeals Minutes - 6- June 12, 2002 She stated her son is at the site and has done a wonderful job maintaining the property. She said they wish to utilize their property and to make it functional for the community. During board discussion Mr. Kluessendorf asked if the appeal is denied, would there be other options to make this work. Mr. Tucker explained there is this parking requirement, which will always be there. He suggested two options; either the property could be redeveloped, or keep the site as a functioning office space. He said staff would also like to see this as a viable property, however you can only do so much with what the property can support. Mr. Kluessendorf suggested that the square footage of the building could be reduced, which would require less parking. Ms. Hentz said this is a difficult decision, and she appreciates the improvements the applicant has made. She noted that she doesn’t know what the future holds for this building and parking will always be an issue. Ms. Hentz said in the present state she would concur with city staff, but if it could be redesigned or an alternate proposal presented she would be willing to work with the applicant. Chairman Krueger asked staff if in the future the applicant would request a variance, could the Board limit the use. Mr. Tucker replied verbiage could be added, however he is not sure if it would stand up in court. Chairman Krueger said he agreed with staff that the parking is not functional. Mr. Wilusz said he feels the applicant has done a wonderful job and he would encourage them to continue with the good work and in his opinion the most promising solution is the code redevelopment and the potential for changing the requirements based on machine standard. Mr. Kluessendorf asked for clarification on the vote. Mr. Tucker said a yes vote would support the appeal and a no vote would support staff’s determination. Motion by Hentz for approval of the appeal to the Zoning Administrator’s determination as to the functionality of an off-street area and the functionality of proposed parking spaces for a commercial use. Seconded by Kluessendorf. Motion denied 0-5. The Board took a short recess. Chairman Krueger set ground rules relating to Item IV, 21 Bowen Street. He explained the Board will address only what is requested in the variance. He further explained they are not capable of making decisions on any design other than a request for an extension of the height and setback. He told the audience they are welcome to make comments, but to please direct the comments to the Board, not the applicant, regarding the two issues at hand. . IV: 31 BOWEN STREET Ben Ganther, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to allow for a 5’ front yard setback to Bay Shore Drive for the off-street parking area, and a variance to permit a multi-family structure that will be 54’ tall, whereas Section 30-22(B)(5)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ front yard setback and Section 30-22(B)(5)(a) requires a 45’ maximum height for multi-family structures. Matt Tucker introduced the item. He explained that roof height measurement is half way between the peak and the eave, which would result in the peak being higher than 54’ from the existing grade. He added 4’ would be excavated down to get to the water table and the parking area would be on top of that. He said the site is unique because it is surrounded on three sides by public right-of-way. Mr. Tucker mentioned he circulated information on the history of the property, which denotes the fact that in 1976 the property was rezoned from M-1, Light Commercial District, to R-5, Residential District, and in 1979 variances were approved for a 10’ front yard setback and a building height of 72’. Board of Appeals Minutes - 7 - June 12, 2002 Ms. Hentz asked which parcel was involved in the additional packet of information and Mr. Kluessendorf asked for classification of intensified landscaping. Mr. Tucker responded it was the entire piece of property, and explained that intensified landscaping is a combination of berms and landscaping. He added it is a very built up area of landscaping, rather than just trees and shrubs. Ben Ganther, 6030 County Road A, said they looked at many options for this site. He said they could meet the height requirement by putting a flat roof on the building, still having four floors of living space, and eliminate the underground parking, which would force them to use the vacant land by the lake for parking. He explained this option would take up much more green space, which would not be the best use. He also mentioned they could do anything from a WEDA tax credit, to a low to moderate income project, which would then have up to 45 units, but instead they opted to construct a 39 unit age- restricted multi-family complex. Mr. Ganther stated the other project that was considered had 15 curb cuts, which met the code, and if they had to redo this they would need a couple more curb cuts to access where the parking would be, which would meet the code, but it would push the boats and trailers from the boat launch further into the neighborhood. Mr. Kluessendorf questioned the staff report, which stated the 48 underground parking spaces would be for short-term parking. Mr. Ganther corrected the fact that the 48 spaces would be used for the tenants. Mr. Tucker apologized for the confusion, noting the 16 spaces in the front yard would be for short-term parking. Mr. Wilusz questioned the east corner on the site plan, which notes future parking. Mr. Ganther said that parking would not be the best use for that area. He suggested it could possibly be used for green space or for adding on the last couple of units for the condo development. Ms. Hentz questioned where the address of 31 Bowen Street came from. She asked if sidewalks are proposed for that side of the street and questioned if the $2000.00 a month for rent was accurate. Ms. Hentz also asked the height of the three existing condos. It was explained that the City assigned the address. Mr. Tucker explained that the City could order in sidewalks where necessary. Mr. Ganther said they would consider the sidewalks, and explained the reason for the $2000.00 rent is because they are providing a service. He further explained they are intending to serve two meals a day, provide housekeeping, and to have available a live in staff person and doorman. Mr. Ganther stated market research was done by his partner, noting there is nothing like this in Oshkosh. He said the present condos are approximately 32’ tall. Mr. Kluessendorf asked if parking requirements for senior housing is different from other usage. He also inquired if the senior housing could be converted back to a different use. Mr. Tucker responded that 1 parking space per dwelling unit is required for age restricted senior housing. Mr. Ganther said that the visitor parking area would keep the vehicles off the street. He stated the intent is that after one year the occupants could do a conversion on the unit and buy it as a condominium. Mr. Ganther said it would still remain a 55 and up age-restricted complex, because if it were to be converted to market rate apartments there would be a parking issue. Mr. Tucker added that an interpretation of condominiums as a retirement community could require 2 spaces per dwelling unit. He Board of Appeals Minutes - 8 - June 12, 2002 said the applicant would have to comply with the ordinance if they planned to convert it to something other than a retirement community. Mr. Tucker said that in reviews he has done he has found that the parking requirement of 1 space per unit is really in excess of what is being used in elderly retirement complexes. Mr. Ganther reminded the Board that they are speaking of a hypothetical situation, which may never occur. Chairman Krueger asked the height of the proposed building to the peak. Mr. Ganther responded it would be approximately 57’from the first floor elevation to the peak and the 4’ added for the underground parking would be a total of 61’. Jim and Sharon Emerson, 704 bay Shore Drive, presented a petition stating four concerns of the neighborhood, 1) snow removal 2) sidewalk and parking congestion 3) building height blocking the sun 4) additional population issues. The Emersons expressed their objections to the proposed plan, stating in their opinion, the developer is asking to put something too large in an area too small. Chairman Krueger stated if the snow can not be stored on site, it would have to be hauled away. Discussion continued on snow issues, the location of the property line, and the intensified landscaping. Carol Bollom, 35 Bowen Street, said she bought a condo from the applicant in 1998 and she still does not have a deed or a property tax. Chairman Krueger reminded Mrs. Bollom to speak to the variance request. Mrs. Bollom said the Board should know this additional information. She said Mr. Ganther is presenting a plan that does not fit in with the existing condos. She stated her neighbor bought his condo in February and was told there would be seven more condos erected and he entered into a buy back arrangement that allows Mr. Ganther to buy back in the next 5 years at 2 ½% interest. Mrs. Bollom voiced a concern that she could lose her property if the project was to fail. She began to mention storm damage and Chairman Krueger again reminded her to speak to the issue. He said the Board could not act on those issues. Mark Radl, 14 Bowen Street, said he purchased his property in 1974. He questioned why he did not receive information on the variance request or on the previous rezoning in 1976. He said he applauds Mr. Ganther in the fact that he is finally trying to do something with the property, but said he is not pleased with all the changes that are being proposed. He said he understands the importance of the community to expand, but feels the proposal does not meet the guidelines set forth by the letter of the law, for a variance. He said the building should be scaled back and he continued to voice his opposition to the variance request. Bradley Disch, 30 Bowen Street and 1770 Cliffview Drive, said his issue with this proposal is the parking. He noted the Board denied the previous item because of parking issues and feels this proposal defines a definite parking issue. Yvonne Schaele, 710 Bay Shore Drive, voiced her opposition to the height issue. She questioned why the applicant did not submit a view of the north side of the proposed building. Laura Todd, 807 Bay Shore Drive, also stated a concern with the parking and height issues. Susan Reed, 61 Bowen Street, said she has a considerable interest in viable community development and stated she was uncomfortable with not being able to address other issues related to the variance request. She said, in her opinion, the project will fail because of the character of the community, the Board of Appeals Minutes - 9 - June 12, 2002 demographics, and the average income. She said she believes the people that can afford this will not move to that location. Chairman Krueger reminded Ms. Reed to speak to the variance request. He reiterated that the use has already been established. Ms. Reed said she is directing her comments to the City Planners as to what will work in this area and benefit Oshkosh. She said, in her opinion, the only person who will benefit from this project is Mr. Ganther. Ms. Hentz stated in her opinion, when you are looking at adverse impact on a neighborhood it is not always immediate, it can be long term. She said that although the neighbors are deviating from the variance, she too would consider the long-term impact. Chairman Krueger responded he is not preventing that and he has allowed a number of people to speak to the issue of adverse impact, however it has been reiterated over and over again and it has already been established. Ms. Reed continued to voice her opposition to the variance request. She said the City should give Mr. Ganther the property in the City that is being decontaminated and she does not support the variance. Roger Stecker, 38 Bowen Street, said he would like to go on record as being against the variance. He noted his opposition to the parking issue and stated, in his opinion, the building should be scaled down. Mrs. Bollom asked about procedure if the item is voted down. Chairman Krueger explained at that point the applicant would have an opportunity to come back with a new design or he could go forward with a plan, which would not require a variance. Discussion continued on procedure. Mr. Radl stated he would like to issue an open invitation to Mr. Ganther to meet with the neighbors. Mr. Ganther stated the north elevation would have windows. He said the complaints he has heard all relate to the number of people, the number of units, and the four stories. He said he could accomplish all of this without the requested variances, with one exception that the flat roof top deck would be a patio, which would be equivalent to a fifth story. He further explained the reason for the setback request was so the parking would not have to be on the lake. There were further comments made on other optional plans. Ms. Reed asked what the applicant would do if the project was built and it did not sell. Mr. Ganther replied that the question is purely hypothetical and he has two partners on the project, Chuck Hertel and Don Anbar, who he would have to consult. Mrs. Bollom said she had contacted the chief building inspector, with a question on the ceiling heights of underground building ramps, and she asked why the inspector referred the call to Mr. Tucker. She said she found it strange that the chief building inspector would not answer her question, which she directed to him and although Mr. Tucker did return her call she still does not have an answer to her question. She also asked the procedure for notification. Mr. Tucker responded that the inspector simply forwarded the call to him. Mr. Tucker explained that because of the water table they can excavate no further than 4’, and then they can have another 4’ above the grade that they are going to slope the grade up to, but the height of the building is measured from the Board of Appeals Minutes - 10 - June 12, 2002 existing grade. Discussion continued on the procedure to erect a new building. Mr. Tucker stated that the notification of adjacent property owners is prepared by the secretary. Mrs. Degner stated that the data, which she uses for identification, does not have the occupants of the condos listed as owners. Mr. Tucker said that when he became aware that some individuals, who were interested, did not receive notification he personally delivered the information to them. Mrs. Bollom presented a question on property value. Mr. Tucker commented that the City is currently sitting with a vacant piece of valuable property. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan has taken a look at how the property can be revitalized and noted that the subject property is a neighborhood in transition. He said the City encourages development in this targeted area and private individuals invest in such neighborhoods to stabilize and maintain the property values. During Board discussion Chairman Krueger said he would like to add conditions. He said he would like the second condition to limit the curb cuts on Bay Shore Drive to two and for them to be approved per current code and the third condition state no surface parking to be built on the premises. He said that height is an issue that he can support and the parking also, as long as the conditions are applied. Chairman Krueger said he would support the variances and, in his opinion, a neighborhood meeting would be a good idea. Ms. Hentz said she would not support the variance for a number of reasons. She said there is no hardship; the height of the building would be 61’ from peak to ground, which in her opinion, is not reasonable for this area; this project would not sell in this area; parking is an issue; this is an effort to turn as much money as possible for the developer and not best for the neighborhood; and she is not comfortable with the term of “intensified landscaping”. Ms. Hentz added she believes the developer has shown arrogance and disrespect for the neighbors. Mr. Kluessendorf stated that the area is zoned R-5 and eventually something will be built there. He said, in his opinion, a reasonable design would not require intensified landscaping to mitigate the effects on the neighborhood. He said he would not support the variance. Mr. Wilusz said he would not support the variance because the neighborhood clearly does not want it. He said, in his opinion, Mr. Ganther has a nice project and made accommodations to try and do some good things. Mr. Wilusz stated, in his opinion, the communication between the neighbors and the developers has been terrible. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to allow for a 5’ front yard setback to Bay Shore Drive for the off-street parking area, and a variance to permit a multi- family structure that will be 54’ tall with the following conditions: 1.)A landscaping plan, consisting of intensified landscaping in the 5’ green space area along Bay Shore Drive be approved prior to obtaining a building permit. 2.)Limit the curb cuts on Bay Shore Drive to (two) 2 to be approved per current code. 3.)No surface parking lot to be built on premises. Seconded by Wilusz. Motion denied 1-3. Nay: Hentz, Kluessendorf, Wilusz. The Board took a short recess. Board of Appeals Minutes - 11 - June 12, 2002 V: 1016 MICHIGAN STREET David R. Ostwald, applicant, and Holly J. Eichman, owner are requesting a variance to construct a deck on the rear of a house, that will result in the dwelling having a 20’ rear yard setback, whereas Section 30-19(B)(3)(d) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ rear yard setback for a principal residential structure. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures, adding there is a letter of approval from an adjacent property owner. David Ostwald, 5846 Hwy K, introduced himself. Ms. Hentz said it appeared to be straightforward and she would support it. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct a deck on the rear of a house, that will result in the dwelling having a 20’ rear yard setback. Seconded by Kluessendorf. Motion carried 4-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: Ms. Hentz stated it would be an aesthetic improvement, the lot is unique in shape, and it is the least possible variance. VI: 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 structure. Mr. Tucker introduced the item with pictures. Inam Ul Haque, 930 Bavarian Court, said he had explored other alternatives and explained that southern exposure is necessary for the green house and the 16” is necessary because of equipment needed, such as humidity control, benches, water reservoirs, etc. Chairman Krueger asked if he was building into the existing house. Mr. Haque said it would be added on. Discussion continued on whether the size of the addition could be cut back 16”. Other options were mentioned such as, making the addition wider instead of deeper, and building the green house as a free standing unit behind the house. Mr. Haque explained he has a magnolia tree, which prevents the addition from being wider, there would not be enough light if it was located behind the house, and the east and west sides of the house have shadows from buildings. Board of Appeals Minutes - 12 - June 12, 2002 Mr. Wilusz asked if the magnolia tree could be moved Mr. Haque said he explored that possibility and noted that option could possibly add to the cost of the project if the design was changed. Ms. Hentz suggested the item be laid over until Mr. Haque could further explore the possibility of moving the magnolia tree. Motion by Hentz to lay the item over to the meeting of June 26, 2002. Kluessendorf seconded. A hand vote was taken. Approved for lay over. 4-0. Unanimous. TH VII: 2318 W. 20 AVENUE Tammi & Tim Coates, applicants, and Scott Kelly, owner, are requesting a variance to construct a new wall sign on a structure located within a residential zoning district, whereas Section 30-37(F) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance does not permit commercial type wall signs in residential zoning districts. Matt Tucker introduced the item. Tammi Coates, 5943 HWY 91, introduced herself. There was discussion on the lighting of the sign. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct a new wall sign on a structure located within a residential zoning district, with the following conditions: 1.)The new sign be no larger than the area of the existing sign. 2.)The sign may not be externally lit in any manner. 3.)The sign must be set on a timer, to turn off at 9:00 PM daily. Seconded by Kluessendorf. Motion approved 4-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: Ms. Hentz stated there would be no adverse impact on neighboring property, and it was the least variance necessary to correct the problem. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld