Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES June 9, 2010 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Robert Krasniewski, Jane Cryan EXCUSED: Dennis Penney, Mark Nielsen STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of April 14, 2010 were approved as presented. Carpenter /Cryan 3 -0. Mr. Cornell noted that the minutes indicated that the discussion regarding disclosure matters and requesting in advance miscellaneous items to be placed on the agenda concluded with the item being requested to be listed on the next agenda with the City Attorney to be present to discuss this matter further. He questioned why it was not placed on this agenda. Mr. Muehrer responded that the City Attorney was not able to attend today's meeting and since this topic was at the request of Ms. Hentz who is no longer a member of the board, he was not sure if other board members desired to further discuss the issue. Mr. Carpenter stated that he did not feel there was any need to pursue this matter further. Ms. Cryan agreed. DISCUSSION OF BOA PROCEDURES BOARD REORGANIZATON Mr. Cornell opened the floor for nominations for Chairperson. Motion by Carpenter to nominate Mr. Cornell. Seconded by Cryan. As there were no additional nominations for Chairperson, the floor was closed for nominations. Mr. Cornell accepted the nomination for Chairperson. Motion carried 3 -0. Mr. Cornell opened the floor for nominations for Vice - Chairperson. Motion by Cornell to nominate Mr. Carpenter. Seconded by Cryan. As there were no additional nominations for Vice - Chairperson, the floor was closed for nominations. Board of Appeals Minutes 1 June 9, 2010 Mr. Carpenter accepted the nomination for Vice - Chairperson. Motion carried 3 -0. Mr. Krasniewski arrived at 3:42 pm. Mr. Cornell suggested that the other items of discussion on the agenda be moved to the end of the meeting. ITEM L• 3090 HAYWARD AVENUE Randy /Amy Montgomery- applicant /owner, request a variance to permit a principal structure with a 17' rear yard setback. Section 30 -17 (B)(3)(d) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: R -1 Single Family Residence District requires a 25' minimum rear yard setback. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He commented that the home was built in 1999 and the owners were previously granted a variance to construct an uncovered parking space along side the attached garage with a 20' rear yard setback in July 2000. This request is to remove the existing off - street parking stall and construct a 312 square foot building addition onto the existing attached garage which would intrude 8' into the required 25' rear yard setback. The petitioners state the proposal would improve the look of the property and is due to the neighborhood experiencing vandalism recently. Justifiable need and hardship do not appear to be present in this case and it appears to be a self - created hardship due to the implementing of the variance request to construct the open off - street parking area. Randy Montgomery, 3090 Hayward Avenue, stated that he felt he had a hardship due to the vandalism in the neighborhood and did not wish to store vehicles outside. He further stated that he was satisfied in 2000 when he was granted the variance for the off - street parking space but felt that his situation was unique as he was on a corner lot which makes his side yard his back yard. He further stated that his adjacent neighbors do not have an issue with the proposed addition which will cost about $17,000 and will increase his tax base. He does not want to be afraid to leave vehicles outside as his boat motor had been recently damaged. He commented that he appreciated the variance for the off - street parking area which was nine feet and he would only need an additional three feet to enclose the area and resolve the problem. Mr. Cornell stated that the zoning ordinance governing the Board of Appeals process restricts variances from being granted due to financial issues and that they needed to be based on criteria involving unnecessary hardship and if it would result in harm to the public interest. Ms. Cryan questioned if the building addition could be constructed on the existing 9 foot slab. Mr. Montgomery responded that it was not possible as the addition would be required to be 12 feet wide to be able to install a door on it and the existing slab could not be used as it would require footings to support the structure. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the boat could be stored off site. Mr. Montgomery replied that he stored the boat at a family member's house in Van Dyne in winter however this situation was not convenient in summer. Mr. Krasniewski inquired how the addition would affect the driveway and sidewalk. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 June 9, 2010 Mr. Montgomery responded that the driveway would be reconstructed without as steep of an angle as what currently exists and it would have no effect on the driveway opening or sidewalk. The Board members further discussed the possibility of constructing the garage addition on the existing slab and determined that this was not feasible as it would not provide sufficient room for a practical opening to accommodate a door. They also discussed the criteria necessary to grant a variance and determined that these conditions were not present in this request. Motion by Carpenter to approve the request for a variance to permit a principal structure with a 17' rear yard setback. Seconded by Cryan. Motion denied 4 -0. Finding of Facts: It is a self - imposed hardship. The property does not have unique limitations. ITEM IL• 459 N. WASHBURN STREET Arthur E. Pommerening - applicant /owner, requests variances to permit a ground sign and exterior light fixtures with a 0' front yard setback. Section 30 -34 (D)(4) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Highway 41 Corridor Overlay District requires signs to be setback 25' minimum from the right -of -way and Section 30 -35 (K)(4)(c): Additional Standards and Exceptions requires light fixtures to not be located within the required setbacks. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the site. He explained that the property was currently developed with a strip mall and associated improvements. He further stated that the existing pylon sign and exterior parking lot lighting fronting N. Washburn Street had to be removed due to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation acquiring 35 feet of frontage in order to widen N. Washburn Street leaving only a 5' wide green area between the parking lot and right -of -way. He noted no portion of the lighting fixtures or proposed sign will be allowed to extend into the right -of -way. The land acquisition created a unique situation for the property owner and to meet the required setbacks for placement of the sign and exterior lighting fixtures would result in a loss of parking spaces with would be detrimental to the site. The requested variance should not create any vision clearance issues and will not be detrimental to adjacent property owners. Attorney Russ Reff, 217 Ceape Avenue, representing Art Pommerening, stated that this was an older strip mall and the property owner was attempting to minimize the impact of the loss of 35 feet of his frontage as much as possible. The owner has currently lost half of his parking stalls and wished to replace the existing sign as signage is important in both obtaining and keeping tenants in the mall. He further stated that there was no other practical location for the signage and that all the other commercial properties in this area have signage in the right -of -way as well. He felt that the staff s recommendation for approval of the variance was appropriate. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the proposed sign would be lighted. Mr. Muehrer responded that the sign would be internally illuminated and the other lighting fixtures discussed were for exterior lighting for the parking lot. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 June 9, 2010 Mr. Cornell inquired if the site plan on page 8 accurately depicted what the site would look like if the variance was granted. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively and reiterated that the signage and lighting would be located on private property and would not extend into the right -of -way. Motion by Cryan to approve the request for a variance to permit a ground sign and exterior light fixtures with a 0' front yard setback. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 4 -0. Finding of Facts: It is a hardship created by the State of Wisconsin. No harm to the public interest. ITEM III: 3465 MOSER STREET Jon Martzahl, Great Northern Corporation - applicant, GNC Oshkosh LLC- owner, request variances to permit an off - street parking area with an 8' side yard (south) setback and an internal access drive with a 6' rear yard setback. Section 30 -30 (13)(2) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: M -3 General Industrial District requires a 20' minimum side yard setback and Section 30 -30 (13)(3) requires a 25' minimum rear yard setback. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the site. He explained that the property is currently developed with a 60,000 square foot manufacturing facility and the Great Northern Corporation is proposing to construct a 14,400 square foot building addition on the southwest side of the existing facility. This addition is designed to add raw material storage needed for a new production line and the location was strategically chosen due to work flow within the facility. The petitioner is also requesting a second driveway and internal truck access proposed north of the existing primary entrance on Moser Street. This is to enable the facility to create additional off - street employee parking to accommodate additional employees anticipated to be hired and the truck access is necessary for semi tractor trailers to safely maneuver on the premises as depicted by the plans submitted demonstrating the truck maneuvering templates. A hardship would be imposed without the variances as the semi tractor trailers would be unable to safely maneuver on the premises and alternative placement of the infrastructure would be unnecessarily burdensome due to anticipated future growth to the north. Jon Martzahl, Director of Manufacturing Services for Great Northern Corporation, was present as well as the president of the StrataGraph facility, to discuss the variance request. Mr. Martzahl presented a large site plan for the Board to review and stated that they purchased the facility in 2005 and reviewed the area where the addition was proposed to be located to accommodate the new production line. He further stated that the addition was necessary for the storage of materials and the location was chosen due to future plans of expansion on the site. He reviewed the current and proposed driveway accesses to the loading docks and explained their concern for possible rollover incidents created by the present access and the sharp turns necessary to maneuver. He commented that semi tractor trailers have increased in length over the years and the currently models are 75 to 78 feet long. He also noted that there was a typographical error in the application material that referred to 86 feet long when it should have been 76 feet. He also reviewed the layout of the plant and explained the reasons that the facility could not be reconfigured to locate this addition to another area. He also stated that there would be no adverse effects on neighboring properties and referenced emails from both Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and Bemis Company supporting this Board of Appeals Minutes 4 June 9, 2010 statement. A representative from Wisconsin Public Service stated that their only concern was if there would be any issues with stormwater runoff from the site. Mr. Cornell asked for the proposed routes for semis to enter, load and leave the site to be demonstrated with and without the variance. Mr. Martzahl displayed the proposed routes as requested. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the stormwater runoff concerns raised by Wisconsin Public Service Corporation would be an issue. Mr. Muehrer responded that the plans would be required to go through the Site Plan Review Committee prior to commencing construction and any stormwater issues would be resolved at that time. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if the detention area on the site would only drain this parcel and if the proposed improvements would be constructed with concrete or asphalt. Mr. Martzahl replied that the detention pond drains both properties and may be required to expand to encompass the additional impervious surface on the site. Also, the parking and driveway improvements would be constructed of asphalt other than the driveway apron and loading docks, which would be concrete. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit an off - street parking area with an 8' side yard (south) setback and an internal access drive with a 6' rear yard setback. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 4 -0. Finding of Facts: Safety issues on site and roadway. No harm to the public interest. ITEM IV: 2957 FOND DU LAC ROAD Kurt/Karie Sharratt- applicant /owner, request variances to permit a 48'x 47'gravel off - street parking area with a 22' front yard setback and no rear yard screening. Section 30 -36 (C)(1) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Off - Street Parking Facilities requires a 25' minimum front yard setback as well as a solid fence, solid wall or dense hedge /evergreen shrub border at least 5' high along all lot lines abutting a residential district, except in the required front yard. Additionally, Section 30 -36 (C)(2) requires all driveways and parking spaces to be graded and surfaced so as to be dust -free (i.e. asphalt or concrete) and properly drained. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the site. He explained that the home was built in 2004 and the gravel parking area on the north side of the structure was installed some time after April 2009. The owner feels the variances, if granted, would not have an adverse affect on surrounding properties as he has made significant landscape improvements to screen the parking area from view and also feels the property is unique because the home is developed on a principal arterial with heavy traffic and increased vehicular speeds. The owner also feels a hardship will be imposed if the variances are not granted because the family's safety would be jeopardized. Mr. Muehrer further stated that he feels there is no unique circumstances that would prevent the owner from moving the parking area over 3 feet to comply with the necessary setback or to prevent the parking area from being screened with either a solid fence or hedge to Board of Appeals Minutes 5 June 9, 2010 meet code requirements. City codes also require the driveway and parking area to be graded and surfaced so as to be dust free and properly drained. Kurt Sharratt, 2957 Fond du Lac Road, stated that he felt his request was due to a safety issue as the speed limit goes from 35 to 45 mph at the corner. He stated that he required the turn around parking area for his camper and he also needed a parking area for company visiting his home. He stated that this was a dangerous road and that he was willing to be flexible with his variance request and that he wanted the situation to be safe for his family. He would be willing to have the parking area surfaced with asphalt if necessary, however he did not desire to install fencing or hedges on the rear side of this area as both his children and the neighbor's children played in this area. He further stated that there were no sidewalks in the neighborhood and that the children needed a safe place to play. He also commented that he was in the process of installing mounds for screening on the site as he does not feel he has a good view from his home. Mr. Carpenter stated that there appeared to be adequate room to exit the driveway in a forward motion without the variance to create the additional parking area. Mr. Sharratt responded that he had a full -sized truck and it was difficult to make the turn to exit out of the driveway in a forward motion. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if the owner had a problem with moving the parking area back 3 feet to meet the necessary setback requirements and paving the area. Mr. Sharratt replied he did not. Discussion followed regarding the required screening of the parking area and where it would be necessary to be located and what type of hedges would be adequate to use in lieu of fencing. Mr. Muehrer suggested several species that would provide sufficient screening and stated that the code was flexible on the matter. There was also some discussion regarding the location of railroad tracks to the property, but it was determined that they are not adjacent to this site and have no effect on this request. Mr. Sharratt stated that he did not desire to install any type of fence or hedge closing off his backyard area and that he had neighbors present at the meeting that support his request. Mary Duellman, 40 Sennholz Court, stated that she was present in support of Mr. Sharratt's request. She further stated that her grandchildren play at his house because it is a safe area and that installing a fence or hedge would not be beneficial. Mr. Sharratt also distributed a letter from Roxanne and Earl Nelson, 28 Sennholz Court, who were not present at the meeting but supported his variance request as well. Dave Schmalz, W5884 Sweet William Drive, Appleton, was present on behalf of his mother, Helen Menacher, 2911 Fond du Lac Road. He stated that his mother recently sold a portion of her property to the north to the property owners at 28 and 40 Sennholz Court that extends their lot line to the same extent as Mr. Sharratt's. He also explained how property owners lost 8 feet of property years ago to additional right -of- way when the road was widened and agreed with Mr. Sharratt that it is a dangerous and heavily traveled street. He supports Mr. Sharratt's request and commented that the play area on his property serves all three families in the neighborhood and screening it with hedges or fencing would hinder the open area that currently exists as a safe haven for the children. He also suggested that the gravel parking area be left to settle for one year before requiring the paving be completed. Board of Appeals Minutes 6 June 9, 2010 Mr. Muehrer inquired when the gravel area on the site was installed. Mr. Sharratt responded that it was installed in April of 2009. Mr. Muehrer commented that the gravel has already had a year to settle and should not be an issue to pave at this time. Board members discussed the distance between the lake and Mr. Sharratt's property and if there would be any issues with the DNR concerning the creation of additional impervious surface and how the drainage is handled from the roadway. It was determined that the property is not close enough to the lake to have any shoreland setback issues and the roadway is drained via the storm sewers. There was also discussion regarding the property owner parking a camper, ice shanties, and other recreational equipment in this area which the homeowner stated was for his convenience for use. It was determined that these items are considered vehicles by code standards and are required to be parked in an approved parking area. More discussion followed regarding if the property owner could feasibly meet the required setback area and whether the current neighbor's support should be considered as neighbors, in time, change. It was determined that Mr. Sharratt was willing to move the parking area back 3 feet to satisfy the 25' front yard setback and was willing to have the area paved. He still wished to pursue the variance for the screening of the parking area. Mr. Sharratt suggested that a condition could be added to the variance, if granted, to allow the parking area without the required screening and if new neighbors moved in and did not like the unscreened parking area, he could install a fence /hedge at such time. There was further discussion of where the screening would be located and how visible this area was to neighboring properties. It was determined that the issue was a technicality that City staff could not approve the parking area without the required screening and the Board would have to decide if the ordinance should be upheld or if a variance should be granted for the screening to not be required. Board members decided to split up the three separate variance requests and vote on each item individually. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if the owner would be allowed to wait a year for the gravel to settle before installing the paving if this portion of the variance request was granted. Mr. Muehrer stated that the work would be required to be completed with 18 months of the commencement of the construction. Mr. Sharratt stated that the gravel area was installed in April of 2009 which would allow him until October of 2010 to complete the paving. Motion by Carpenter to approve the request for a variance to permit a 48x47' off - street parking area with a 22 'front yard setback. Seconded by Cryan. Motion denied 4 -0. Motion by Carpenter to approve the request for a variance to permit a 48x47' gravel off - street parking area. Seconded by Cryan. Motion denied 4 -0. Motion by Carpenter to approve the request for a variance to permit a 48x47' off - street parking area with no rear yard screening. Seconded by Cornell. Motion carried 4 -0. Board of Appeals Minutes 7 June 9, 2010 Finding of Facts: It is a safety factor. No harm to public interest. DISCUSSION OF BOA PROCEDURES Mr. Cornell stated that he had spoken with Mr. Nielsen recently regarding his attendance of the meetings as he is now a full member filling the unexpired term of Cheryl Hentz whose term will expire June 1, 2011. Mr. Nielsen stated that he would not be available to attend any meetings in June, July, or August and if there was another interested party willing to serve that would be more consistent with attendance, he would be willing to resign from the board. Mr. Muehrer stated that he had received an email from an interested person recently who was considering applying for the current opening as an alternate on the board which would bring the number of members back up to capacity. Board members also discussed the process of reappointment to the Board of Appeals when your term expires and it appeared there was some confusion in the process as members were not contacted this year in advance of the reappointment to ensure they wished to continue to serve. Mr. Muehrer stated that he would contact the City Manager's secretary regarding the process. There was also brief discussion regarding comments by the mayor recently relative to not necessarily reappointing members to boards to enable the City to have "new blood" on boards or commissions rather than continuing with long -term members. There was also a brief discussion on another board who discussed matters that were not noticed on the agenda recently. It was determined that the occurrence was in error and items of discussion should be noticed on the agenda by contacting Mr. Muehrer in advance of the preparation of board packets to ensure the item is placed on the agenda. Mr. Krasniewski questioned why the board meets at 3:30 instead of later in the evening. It was determined that this time was selected to enable contractors to be able to attend the meeting as often times they are involved in the variance request. The meeting time also works well for both staff and board members. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. (Krasniewski /Carpenter). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 8 June 9, 2010