Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES August 11, 2010 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Robert Krasniewski, Dennis Penney, Janet Duellman, Jane Cryan EXCUSED: 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 July 28, 2010 were approved as presented. Penney / Krasniewski 5 -0. ITEM L• 201 PEARL AVENUE Jeff Pauly & James Larson - applicants, City Center Associates LLC- owner, request a variance to permit a commercial parking lot without landscape islands at the ends of all parking rows. Section 30 -36 (E)(8)(c) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Off - Street Parking Facilities requires new commercial parking lots with more than 20 parking spaces to install landscape islands at the ends of all parking rows. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is zoned C -3 Central Commercial District within the Downtown Overlay District, is irregular in shape and has been divided into commercial condominium units with associated common elements. He further stated that the property was developed in 1970 and the ownership group is proposing to construct a new 73 stall off - street parking lot in the northwest corner of the parcel near the intersection of Division Street and Pearl Avenue which is currently undeveloped. The proposed parking lot would supplement the off - street parking needs of the City Center and would have vehicular access via two existing curb cuts on Pearl Avenue and Division Street. He reviewed the proposed layout of the parking lot and conceptual landscaping. Requiring the installation of landscape islands at the end of all proposed parking rows appears to be unnecessarily burdensome in this case due to the triangular- shaped project area and seven stalls would be eliminated due to said installation. Three landscape islands are proposed internally at the south ends of the parking rows with landscaping around the perimeter and the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to adjacent properties. James Larson, 334 City Center, stated that they were attempting to maximize the number of parking stalls possible in the triangular- shaped project area and that they intended to have seven feet of landscaping surrounding the perimeter of parking lot. Mr. Penney inquired how many parking stalls currently exist on the second floor of the City Center parking area. Mr. Larson responded that he did not have an exact count, but estimated that approximately 1500 stalls exist in this area. Ms. Cryan questioned if it would be possible to save the existing mature trees on the site. Board of Appeals Minutes 1 August 11, 2010 Mr. Larson replied that they would like to save any of the trees they could but with the landscaping along the street, it was doubtful that they could be retained. Ms. Cryan then questioned if the mature trees could not be saved, if it would be possible to remove and donate them to another party for use on a different site. Mr. Larson responded that the concept could be considered however the trees may be too large to be moved. Ms. Cryan inquired if the Board would be able to view the completed landscape plan. Mr. Muehrer replied that detailed landscape plans would be required to be submitted at the time that the project is presented to the Site Plan Review Committee for review prior to the commencement of construction. Mr. Larson questioned if the City was still moving forward with the street tree project for the downtown area. Mr. Muehrer responded that he was unaware of the progress on this matter as it was handled by the Department of Public Works. Mr. Carpenter commented that this area had been used in the past for snow storage purposes and questioned how that situation would be handled if this area of the site was developed. Mr. Larson replied that they would be contracting to have the snow hauled off site if the parking lot received approval. They would like to continue to use the area for snow storage but the additional parking stalls were more crucial. Mr. Carpenter then questioned if the snow removal from the site would create problems. Mr. Muehrer responded that it was not a problem and was standard practice for many establishments in the City. Mr. Cornell commented that the site plan submitted indicated that with the approval of the variance, 73 parking stalls could be created, and questioned what was so significant about the loss of seven stalls as the 66 that could be created without the variance was not that drastic of a difference. Mr. Larson replied that they are in need of every parking stall possible as the City Center is currently more than 90% full with a number of the tenants being telemarketers who use more parking stalls than the average office use. He further stated that they were proposing this parking lot primarily for a potential new tenant who would require more parking than what is remaining on the site. He also commented that when the mall was constructed, the parking stalls were larger than necessary and they have been reduced in size to maximize the number of spaces to the fullest capacity. Mr. Cornell questioned if the parking stalls proposed in this lot would be for employees. Mr. Larson explained the parking stall use for the site with some stalls dedicated for use by the Social Security Administration office and the remaining stalls assigned to various tenants in the Center. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 August 11, 2010 Mr. Cornell then questioned if handicapped stalls would be required in the proposed new parking lot and if it would be constructed with an asphalt surface. Mr. Larson responded that they were still researching this issue to see if the number of handicapped stalls currently existing on the site met the necessary requirements and stated that the proposed parking lot would be paved with asphalt. Mr. Cornell inquired what the ratio would be of handicapped stalls to the total number of stalls in a parking lot. Mr. Muehrer stated that this issue was regulated through the State of Wisconsin and reviewed the State requirements for handicapped stalls. Mr. Cornell also questioned if lighting and storm water management plans had been submitted. Mr. Larson replied that these plans would be submitted at the time the project was presented to the Site Plan Review Committee for review and commented that the parking lot would be lighted to City code standards. He further commented that the two interior drains already exist on the site for storm water management and that the runoff was all self contained and directed to flow into the river. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if there was any issue with the storm water runoff being directed to the river. Mr. Muehrer responded that the quality and quantity of the storm water runoff on the site would also be a matter that is reviewed by the Department of Public Works. Board members further discussed the number of existing parking stalls on the site, if the situation was a self - created hardship, the proposed landscaping for the parking lot area and if seven parking stalls were significantly relevant to warrant granting a variance. Mr. Muehrer stated that the parcel had a unique configuration with existing drive aisles and its location had limited on- street parking availability. The area for the proposed parking lot was the last remaining undeveloped portion of the site and seven parking stalls were quite valuable in a core urban area such as this one. Mr. Larson added that the location of the stalls was part of the issue and explained the location in the mall that the new tenant would occupy and that the position of their office was necessitating this situation. Mr. Krasniewski questioned the purpose of the required landscape islands in newly constructed parking lots and also if the parking lot would utilize the two existing curb cuts. Mr. Muehrer replied that the main purpose for the islands was for aesthetic reasons and in some cases served a duel purpose of aesthetics and drainage issues. He also affirmed that the parking lot would be utilizing the existing curb cuts on the site for access. Mr. Carpenter commented that he would rather see less landscaping on the site than more cars parked on the street and would support the request for the variance. Motion by Carpenter to approve the request for a variance to permit a commercial parking lot without landscape islands at the ends of all parking rows. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 August 11, 2010 Seconded by Cryan. Motion carried 5 -0. Finding of Facts: It is a unique parcel. No harm to the public interest. ITEM IL• 861 WEST 10 AVENUE Jerry Fabisch - applicant, Jerry & Kelli Fabisch- owners, request a variance to permit a principal structure with a 10'6" front yard setback. Section 30 -19 (B)(3)(c) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: R -2 Two Family Residence District requires a 25' minimum front yard setback for principal structures. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the home was constructed in 1926 and the previously covered entry has been removed. Limiting the owners' ability to construct the covered front porch would qualify as being unnecessarily burdensome in this case and without the variance the covered front porch could not be established and a defining element for the home would be lost. The only feasible alternative available without the variance would be to construct an uncovered entrance platform which would affect the aesthetics of both the home and neighborhood. The requested setback is consistent with other homes in the general vicinity and the granting of the variance would not result in any harm to the public interest. Kelli Fabisch, 861 West 10 Avenue, stated that their original project began with putting siding on the house which had a front covered entry way. The existing entry way had to be removed as it was pulling away from the house and they desired to replace this feature with the proposed covered front porch as it would be more aesthetically pleasing. She further stated that the proposed porch would not obstruct the neighbors view as it would not extend any further into the front yard than the previously existing entry way and was consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Cornell stated that he inspected the subject site and questioned what the depth would be of the proposed new porch. Jerry Fabisch, 861 West 10 Avenue, responded that the depth would be six feet and that the proposed covered porch would be slightly wider than the previously existing entry way. Ms. Fabisch added that the width was extended slightly to match up with the existing windows on the home. Ms. Cryan questioned if the front entrance door could be properly centered. Mr. Fabisch replied that the door could not be relocated due to a structural beam on the interior of the home. Mr. Cornell inquired if the proposed porch would include screens or windows. Ms. Fabisch responded that it would not include these features and was just intended to be a recreational - type area. Mr. Krasniewski stated that he also inspected the subject site and felt that the proposed porch feature would fit in well in this neighborhood. Mr. Carpenter added that it was consistent with the style of other homes in the area. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 August 11, 2010 Motion by Penney to approve the request for a variance to permit a principal structure with a 10'6" front yard setback. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5 -0. Finding of Facts: No harm to the public interest. Consistent with style of other homes in area. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m. (Carpenter /Cryan). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 5 August 11, 2010