Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES November 28, 2001 PRESENT: Carl Ameringer, Cheryl Hentz, Joel Kluessendorf, John Schorse, Chairman Don Krueger EXCUSED: 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 November 14, 2001 were approved as mailed. Hentz/Ameringer. Unanimous. Assistant City Attorney, Lynn Lorenson, addressed information on ethics involved when a citizen wants to talk to a Board member on a specific issue prior to a Board of Appeals meeting. Her recommendation was to encourage the person to attend the meeting, to state their concerns before the entire Board, so as not to ask a Board member to become an advocate for their position. She noted if there is communication with a citizen, a good policy would be to share with the other Board members the discussion that took place. Attorney Lorenson said staff discourages situations where you discuss information prior to acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, such as an appeal, because in those situations you need to base your decision on what you hear at that hearing before the Board. She noted any conversations would not be in violation of the open meeting laws and is not improper, it is simply not the best practice. She added, if there are ever any questions, the Board is welcome to contact the City Attorney’s office. I: 2850 JACKSON DRIVE Nolte’s Northside Service is requesting a variance to allow for a graveled parking lot area, whereas Section 30-36(C)(3)(a)(1) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires all driveways and parking areas shall be surfaced with asphalt or concrete, a dust free surface. Matt Tucker introduced the item presenting a site plan. Keith Mustain, 624 Chestnut Street, Neenah, applicant, said he wanted to clarify because this business is a lot different than other similar operations. He said he does not want the entire lot graveled, a portion could be blacktop. He said his concern is not the fluids that leak, because most of that has already leaked out at the sight of the accident, but rather the suspension parts and the frames gauging into the blacktop. He presented a drawn picture of the area he would like to practice in for raising semi trucks and tractors. Mr. Mustain displayed a map, depicting the areas he would like to be gravel and the areas he would like to be blacktop. He note, in the storm of June 11th, 2001, their business raised 3 semi tractor-trailers off from Highway 41, while the competitor did 1 with another company. He stated it is important to have this training area so they are able to practice the maneuvers necessary to clear the roads quickly and efficiently. He added experience is only obtainable by training. He presented pictures denoting the areas for ticketed vehicles, junk vehicles, and wrecked vehicles. Mr. Mustain said the parcel is 470’ x 470’ large enough to accommodate these areas and the fencing is designed to hide the unpleasant sights. Chairman Krueger asked the size of the area requested to be gravel. Mr. Mustain replied 91’ x 120’ and a small strip around the outside. Discussion continued on the location of the gravel area and the fact that the spades from the trucks would destroy the blacktop. Mr. Ameringer asked if Nolte’s currently has a practice area and where it is presently located. Also, if accident vehicles were parked on gravel at Nolte’s current location and if so were there ever any citations issued. Mr. Mustain noted at the present location, Nolte’s is all gravel in the back and that is the area used for training. He said accident vehicles are now parked in gravel and there have been no citations issued. Mr. Tucker explained in his conversations with the DNR (Department of Natural Resources) he learned that spill cleanup is a self-policing ordinance. Mr. Tucker added when a person goes to sell a property with this type of use, one must verify through environmental clearance of the property, that the property is not contaminated. Discussion continued on the size and location of the area, the fencing involved, the neighboring properties, the zoning of the area, the future development of the area and the number of vehicles stored. Other alternatives for paving were discussed. Mr. Mustain said the training would consist of perhaps one weekend a month and noted the City Fire Department is interested in participating in the training. He added there is also a wrecker outfit in Ripon that would like to work with them. He said this training would allow them to be at the top of their business. Mr. Mustain said he would like to have an area of about 100’ x 100’ square for the practice area. Board discussion followed with Mr. Ameringer stating that the applicant offers a unique service and he would be in favor of an area for the tipping operation, but questioned if there would be another type of surface preparation that would be suitable, which would take care of the leakage problem. Chairman Krueger said that there would be drippings from parked vehicles, which over a period of time becomes a mess. Mr. Tucker said the DNR requires auto-wrecking establishments, a different use, to have a separation system in their storm water running off their site. He said this one falls into a gray area because it is a temporary storage area. Mr. Kluessendorf noted a concern with the containment of dust. He said he favored Ordinance Section 30-36. Mr. Tucker said the area is a tipping area not a parking area. He added staff would recommend favorably for a smaller area to be used for that purpose. Mr. Kluessendorf asked if that was germane to this issue. Mr. Tucker said the site plan, that was submitted for the building permit, identifies the entire area as a gravel lot. He said it could be designated that there be a small area for the tipping and practicing, which staff would be supportive of, because staff understands the applicant’s needs. Ms. Hentz said she would be willing to support a small area, 100’ x 100’ on the interior, provided that the perimeter was either asphalt or paved. Chairman Krueger noted that an area of 100’ x 100’ would be an adequate size. Mr. Kluessendorf stated a concern about the leaking fluids. Chairman Krueger responded a condition could be made that no vehicles be parked in the practice area, and then it would become an enforcement issue. Chairman Krueger said he could support the practice area, but has a difficult time with leaving a gravel strip around the area. Mr. Schorse said, in his opinion, the 100’ x 100’ is a good compromise and he is in support of the Fire Department and Nolte’s joint training. Discussion continued on the location of a 100’ x 100’ area being moved further east to the back of the lot. Chairman Krueger said he would like to eliminate the parking along the practice area and tuck the practice area as far back in the southeast corner as possible. Mr. Tucker said this would also make it easier as a code enforcement issue because it could easily be seen from Jackson Street. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to allow for a graveled parking lot area with the following conditions: 1.) The 100’ x 100’ practice area be located in the far southeast corner of the property. 2.) All other areas be paved per Section 30-36(C)(3)(a)(1) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance 3.) No vehicles be parked in the practice area. Kluessendorf seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Unanimous. Findings: It was stated the business is unique so it required a unique solution to the problem. It was stated that future environmental concerns were addressed as well as trying to address the applicant’s present needs. It was noted because of the large size of the property there will be no adverse impact on surrounding properties and the hardship is when a service is performed the blacktop would be carved up. II: LOT 1, PATRIARCH’S SUBDIVISION 3378/3380/3382/3384/3386/3388/3390/3392/3394/3396 ISAAC LANE Garry Decker, owner and applicant, is requesting a variance to allow the use of stacked parking, located within the 25’ front yard setback, for a multi-family development, whereas Section 30- 36(C)(3)(e) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires parking spaces be located out of the setback area. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated pictures of the proposed condo units, a copy of the initial plan as approved, and the final site plan submitted for building permit purposes. He added there are potential options; to have the developer re- record the subdivision and request an appeal to the 110’ setback for an initial 10’. Discussion consisted of the fact that there would be one parking space in the garage and one parking space in the driveway for each unit. It was noted that the structures will not have substandard setbacks and there would be a berm along the east side of the development, screening the condos from the highway. Garry Decker, 1113 Oregon Street, mentioned four hardships; the railroad tracks on the west, Highway 45 on the east, the two acre wetland on the south, and the problem in the north west corner of the property due to a run way located within one mile of the property. He noted the greatest hardship is that the DOT (Department of Transportation) requires a 110’ setback from HWY 45, therefore pushing the buildings to the west. He presented a diagram of elevations proposed for the buildings. Chairman Krueger asked about building marked 3396, if the deck would be located in the setback, and if there was a variance required for the setback. Mr. Tucker clarified that the map is an overall plan for the three buildings, and the substandard setback that was observed for the deck on the northernmost 4-init will not be allowed in the setback. Mr. Decker responded that 3396 would no longer be the first building built. He noted the first building would now be the one on the far-left marked 3378,3380,3382, and 3384. He said they would be maintaining 25’ for the setback so no variance would be requested. Board discussion stated that it is very straightforward, with the 110’ setback causing difficulties for the applicant. Motion by Ameringer for approval of a variance to allow the use of stacked parking, located within the 25’ front yard setback, for a multi-family development. Hentz seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Unanimous. Findings: It was concluded that the property has a unique shape, the setbacks were required because of the highway, which presented the hardship, and it was the least action required to meet the needs of the owner. III. 2337 S MAIN STREET Brian A. Finger, owner and applicant, is requesting a variance to construct a multi-family structure with a 10’ rear yard setback and one parking space less than the 9’ x 18’ parking stall requirements, whereas Section 30-21(B)(5)(d) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ rear yard setback and Section 30-36(C)(3)(e) requires parking spaces be 9’ wide by 18’ deep. Matt Tucker introduced the item with pictures. There was no representation for 2337 S Main Street. Brenda Gelhar, 2318 Doty Street, presented a signed petition with residents opposed to the requested variance. She stated she would like to go on record as permanently opposing the request. She noted the 10’ setback would result in a privacy issue for her. Mrs. Gelhar said this area is used as a corridor for Fugleberg Park, and voiced a concern about the safety issue with an increase in traffic. Mr. Ameringer inquired about the response to question 2 in regard to the property now being an eyesore to the community. Mrs. Gelhar responded the only time it is an eyesore is when the grass is not cut. She said, in her opinion it is not an issue. Tim Reichenberger, 2323 Doty Street, said, in his opinion, it is not as much an eyesore as having a multi-family apartment building. He said the proposed building is an inappropriate size for the lot. Discussion continued on the fact that a multi-family home could be constructed there without requiring variances. It was noted the property is zoned properly for multi- family and the lot has the required lot area. A property owner would have the right to construct a multi-family structure on site, with a different design. Board discussion followed with Ms. Hentz stating she had a problem supporting this because it is too large a project for this small piece of property when you factor in four units, garages, and driveways. Mr. Ameringer and Mr. Kluessendorf were in agreement. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct a multi-family structure with a 10’ rear yard setback and one parking space less than the 9’ x 18’ parking stall requirement. Schorse seconded the motion. Motion denied 0-4. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tucker inquired from the Board members whether there would be a quorum for the next scheduled meeting of December 26, 2001. It was determined there would not be a quorum so the meeting was canceled. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 4:40. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld