Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES MARCH 27, 2002 PRESENT: Carl Ameringer, Cheryl Hentz, Joel Kluessendorf, Don Krueger, Edward Wilusz EXCUSED: 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 March 13, 2002 were approved as mailed. (Hentz/Ameringer). TH I: 1759 W. 9 AVENUE James H. Lang, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to construct a ground sign with a front yard setback of 0 feet, whereas Section 30-35(B)(2)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a setback of 25 feet. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. He commented the sign is going to be larger than what was noted in the application and circulated building permit information from the property file (said information not being made part of these minutes). Jim Lang, owner, introduced Mike Klaus of Colortech Sign Company. Mr. Lang explained he bought the property in the early 1980’s and through out the years has th remodeled the sight. He noted there are two addresses involved, one is1749 W. 9 th Avenue, the car wash property, and the other is 1759 W. 9 Avenue, the service station property. He added there are two separate corporations that operate these properties. He said there is currently a small readerboard at the Amoco Station, which he has occasionally used for advertising for the car wash. He added Amoco has been bought out by British Petroleum, and in July they will be changing over to BP’s corporate image, which will diminish the size of the readerboard. Mr. Lang said he would actually like to request a 5’ x 10’ sign because he has a sign cabinet of this size. He said in the past he has used portable signs for advertising, but that has caused problems with autos running into the signage. He said there are times when the area is filled to the street with vehicles and there is an overflow in the lot, and the 25’ setback requirement would severely diminish the availability of the building. He stated he previously has dealt with Jerry Conrad, the former Director of Public Works, when he originally built this and he did everything he was required to do at that time and further stated it is not a self-created hardship because the local government has changed the zoning requirements. Discussion continued on the location of the proposed sign at the required 25’ setback, the size of the proposed sign, and the size and location of the adjacent pool sign. Mr. Wilusz asked how much of an increase in business signage produces for the car wash operation. Mr. Lang responded about 25%, dependent upon other variables. Board of Appeals Minutes - 2 - March 27, 2002 Discussion continued on the possibility of moving the sign to the east 25’ back. Mr. Lang commented that would put the sign in an inappropriate spot, which would impact a lane for the car wash bays. Mr. Lang indicated it would be a safety issue, if the sign was moved further back due to the fact that semi trucks, delivery trucks, and other traffic access this lot frequently and it would impede upon their maneuverability. He added if he had to move the sign back, he would not proceed because, in his opinion, it would cause an accident. Mr. Tucker commented that he was contacted by Dennis Larson, owner of The Pool Center LLC, an adjacent property owner, who was concerned about how visibility of their sign would be affected and they also had a concern about the drawing that was submitted with the application because appeared to be not drawn to scale. Mr. Tucker noted that the signs at The Pool Center site are in compliance. Mr. Klaus said, that with the 14’ of under clearance the adjacent property owner’s sign would not be affected. Mr. Ameringer stated because the neighbor is not present and he did not put an opinion in writing for the record, in his opinion, this objection would not be considered. He said if this petition was granted then it would also have to be granted in any other kind of situation, safety issues aside. Chairman Krueger commented he is concerned with the fact that the sign has been hit by vehicles where it is presently located and, in his opinion, if it was moved back to the east side of the property to meet setbacks it also has an opportunity to be hit. He added because the adjacent property has met the setbacks it seems the applicant should also meet the setback requirements. Mr. Lang explained the portable sign, which met the setbacks, was hit by vehicles and the light pole has been hit and knocked down. Ms. Hentz said she agreed with Chairman Krueger. She commented the one point she could see in Mr. Lang’s favor is the fact that although it is self created the setback requirements changed since he has acquired ownership of the subject property and that is not his fault. However she is not inclined to support the request because, in her opinion, it is too big and it will detract from the neighboring business. Mr. Kluessendorf said he agreed with Ms. Hentz. He said, in his opinion, even though The Pool Center owner is not present his comment is tangible. He commented that The Pool Center Sign is compliant and there is a possibility that the requested sign could detract from the neighbor’s sign. Mr. Wilusz said he was sympathetic to the applicant’s need for a sign, but in his opinion, the problems that a compliant sign would cause would be manageable. Motion by Hentz for approval of variance request to construct a ground sign with a front yard setback of 0 feet. Seconded by Ameringer. Motion denied 0-5. Board of Appeals Minutes - 3 - March 27, 2002 II: 3045 N. MAIN STREET Paul Zolkoske, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to extend an access apron, which will have a setback of 64 feet from the ordinary high water mark of a navigable stream, whereas Section 30-39 of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires the City to enforce Section 17,20(3) of the Winnebago County’s shoreland setback of 75 feet. Matt Tucker introduced the item. He noted the applicant’s proposition is to continue the previously allowed setback for the 35’ driveway. He noted it was the understanding in 2000, that structures of this nature could be constructed within 35’ of the high water mark and the Department of Natural Resources has since come back and said the strict interpretation of the Ordinance states that a 75’ setback is required for all structures. Mr. Ameringer questioned why the driveway was put within the 75’ setback. Mr. Tucker explained that a zoning review was processed and it was understood at that point in time, that driveways could encroach into the setback area. He noted as ordinances are interpreted, staff comes forth and asks questions of the DNR. Mr. Tucker said he asked the DNR about the driveway issue. He said the initial response he received from the DNR two months ago was that driveways could be within 35’. In an attempt for clarification, when asked again the DNR said the City Ordinance should require a 75’ setback for all structures. Discussion continued on the fact that the interpretation and definition of the word “structure” has now apparently changed. Mr. Tucker explained that the Ordinance that the City enforces on the subject property is the ordinance that was in place at the time the property was annexed from the Town of Oshkosh. Discussion continued on the wording of the County Ordinance versus the State interpretations. Mr. Tucker explained that it is a mandated Ordinance, which the City is required to enforce. Mr. Kluessendorf questioned if this was a matter to be taken up with the DNR and the City of Oshkosh. Mr. Tucker explained if the variance was granted and the DNR disagreed with the approval the decision could be challenged. He said, in his opinion, there are areas of higher sensitivity that the DNR would be more apt to pursue. Mr. Ameringer asked if the DNR was notified about the meeting and asked if Staff had anything in writing from the DNR stating the definition of “structure”. Mr. Tucker responded the DNR was sent notification. He noted he had reviewed an e- mail correspondence related to general structures, as was circulated to the County Zoning Administrator, Mr. Robert Braun. Mr. Tucker also presented the Winnebago County/Town/County Zoning Ordinance Manual. Mr. Tucker added there is not a State Shoreline Zoning Ordinance and that is a problem, there are only model ordinances that local units of government use as guidelines when drafting their individual ordinance. Ms. Hentz asked for clarification concerning the diagram from Midwest Engineering Services, which was submitted by the applicant. She inquired as to why there are so many proposed items listed on the diagram. She asked what the proposal was in its entirety. Board of Appeals Minutes - 4 - March 27, 2002 Al Drum, agent of MES, answered that the applicant is proposing to extend the existing building. He said the original plan was to start with a small building, see how it filled up and then go forward with an addition and the asphalt apron would be added along with the building extension. He said in the future Mr. Zolkoske would like to add two additional buildings. Mr. Drum added that two years ago they thought everything was fine because they were in excess of the setback requirement. He added it has been determined that a 35’ width is the minimum requirement necessary for the maneuvering of trailers. Discussion continued on the interpretation of the ordinance. Discussion also ensued on drainage issues and a storm water detention plan at the subject site. Chairman Krueger said he was comfortable with allowing the applicant’s request. Ms. Hentz said she was also comfortable with approval for the variance request. She added she has a problem with the DNR’s interpretation of ordinances and stated the ordinance needs to be updated when there are changes in interpretation. Ms. Hentz said rules need to be adhered to and it makes the Board’s job difficult when there is no clear direction for them to follow. Discussion continued on the wording in the Winnebago County/Town/County Zoning Manual, which ison file in the Department of Community Development, indicating that driveways are considered structures. The Gazebo Rule was also discussed. Mr. Tucker explained that the DNR advises the City as to the interpretation of the ordinances and the DNR mandates that the City enforces the ordinance. It was noted that complications arise when there are changes in the interpretation from the DNR. Discussion continued on whether approval of the variance would be consistent with the County Ordinance. Mr. Tucker noted that what the DNR is saying the ordinance should cover and what the County is now using for enforcement are different interpretations. He said it is the DNR’s interpretation that nothing is permitted in the 75’ setback except items pertaining to the Gazebo Rule. Discussion continued on what the ramifications could be for the applicant if the variance was approved and the DNR challenged the Board’s decision. Discussion also continued on how to obtain clarification from the DNR relating to future issues. Mr. Kluessendorf voiced a concern regarding the statement from the staff report stating that “Approval of the variance may also set precedent that within the City of Oshkosh, the 75’ setback requirements to navigable streams are considered flexible by developers.” He said the guidelines for the Board have always been to treat each case that comes forward as an individual item and he questioned why this issue was different. Chairman Krueger said, in his opinion, this case is different because the applicant has already laid out part of the building, which met the setbacks at that time, and now to change that setback and make him move the building would limit the use of the property and would create a hardship. Mr. Tucker stated he included that statement because the staff report was also sent to the DNR representative. Mr. Drum asked if there was a time schedule involved with the variance. Chairman Krueger said the applicant has six months to obtain a permit for the activity. Mr. Wilusz questioned whether it was better to make the motion general or more specific. Chairman Krueger stated the issue could be clarified in the findings if the item was approved. Board of Appeals Minutes - 5- March 27, 2002 Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to extend an access apron, which will have a setback of 64 feet from the ordinary high water mark of a navigable stream. Seconded by Ameringer. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: Ms. Hentz noted the decision was based on verbiage contained in the Winnebago County/ Town/County Zoning Ordinance Manual. Chairman Krueger added that the applicant had started construction on the site in the same general area and it would be unfair to the applicant at this point not to allow him to proceed with the construction and to limit the use of the property. Mr. Ameringer added that the Board’s interpretation today is consistent with the interpretation of the DNR when the property owner began the project in the year 2000, and in fact is consistent with the DNR’s interpretation as indicated by staff up until two months ago. Mr. Kluessendorf noted that there was no representation from the DNR at the meeting. It was also stated there would be no adverse impact on neighboring properties. III: 617 POPLAR AVENUE Kay Eslinger, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to construct a 26’ x 30’ (780 square foot) detached garage with a front yard setback of 51.5 feet, whereas Section 30- 19(4)(b)(ii) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance require that detached garages in the rear yard have a front yard setback of 60 feet. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated pictures. He said the property does have code violations in regard to the parking of vehicles and the owner is trying to resolve these issues. He noted an error in the Staff Report stating the subject property should be combined with the vacant lot to the west, not the east, as was stated. Kay Eslinger, 617 Poplar Avenue, stated there are no objections from the neighbors in addition they feel it would be an improvement to the area. She stated the property to the west would be the yard area. Motion by Ameringer for approval of the variance to construct a 26’ x 30’ (780 square foot) detached garage with a front yard setback of 51.5 feet with the following condition: 1)The subject property be combined with the vacant lot to the west, Parcel 8-0084-00-00. Seconded by Hentz. Motion approved 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded the property was unique because it fronts onto an improved alley and it was split from a larger lot, therefore it does not have the lot depth required of current lots. It will improve the condition of the property and it will correct current building code violations, it will also remove a deteriorating structure and provide more parking, which will improve the appearance. Board of Appeals Minutes - 6 - March 27, 2002 OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Hentz requested all pertinent information, such as building permits, etc., be included with the Staff Report rather than presented at the meeting. This would allow members to review the information in advance. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld