Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES May 8, 2013 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Kathryn Larson, Jane Cryan, Robert Krasniewski EXCUSED: none STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; David Praska, Assistant City Attorney; 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 March 13, 2013 were approved as presented. (Carpenter/Penney) ITEM I: 1880 STILLMAN DRIVE Di Renzo & Bomier on behalf of Sentry Security Systems, LLC-applicant, Old Dominion Freight Line Inc.- owner, requests the following variances to permit 8’ & 10’ high fencing in the minimum front and side yard setbacks: Description Code Reference Minimum Proposed Front (north) yard setback 30-30 (B)(1) 30’ 1’ Front (south) yard setback 30-30 (B)(1) 30’ 24’ Side yard setbacks 30-30 (B)(2) 20’ 1’ Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that a similar request was made January 9, 2013 for 10’ high fencing and was denied. The revised variance request reduces the front (north) yard fencing from 10’ to 8’ in height along W. Fernau Avenue with the remaining perimeter to be 10’ high. The subject site is located in the city’s North Industrial Park and is zoned M-3 General Industrial and is used for commercial freight and warehousing purposes. The applicant is proposing to construct 8’ and 10’ high electrically-charged fencing 12” inside the existing fencing that encloses the perimeter intruding into the minimum front and side yard setbacks. The applicant feels the fencing is necessary due to the threat of crime; however, only one report of theft is documented for the site. The Oshkosh Police Department prepared a “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design” (CPTED) analysis providing numerous recommendations to improve security of the premises. An aerial photo analysis of the site and submitted site plan shows inconsistency on where the existing fence is located. The aerial photo depicts the existing fence approximately 30’ from the north property line which would not require a variance. However, the submitted site plan shows the existing fence near the north property line and infringing on the setback. The aerial photo also demonstrates the pavement required for access and maneuverability around the facility is located outside of the required setback areas illustrating that relocating the existing fence to meet setback requirements would not cause any circulation issues. The circumstances presented in the application are hardships unique to the property owner rather than the parcel and denial of the variances as requested is recommended. Board of Appeals Minutes 1 May 8, 2013 Jeff Berzowski, Di Renzo & Bomier, Two Neenah Center, Suite 701, Neenah, introduced the issues and referred to the aerial photos provided by staff. He stated that Old Dominion purchased the property with the 6’ fence in place and it has not been moved. The property was purchased as a trucking terminal and operates as such. Since the break in December of 2012, the company is obligated to take some action to deter future incidents or they will be exposing themselves to liability issues. He described the six foot electrified fence that was erected following the break in and stated that five additional strands of wiring on posts was being requested for the electrically charged fencing and the previous variance was denied as staff determined that the property possesses no unusual physical limitations and the need for the variance was self imposed. He contested the fact that the property does not have physical limitations as moving the fence 20 feet on either side would affect the turning radius of the rigs accessing the site as the employee cars parked on the site would be in the way. He further stated that with snow storage in winter, the trucks would not be able to get in and out of the site if the fence was moved out of the setback area. The company wants to prevent further break ins and they are requesting reconsideration of the denial of the variance because of the physical limitations of the property just described. Aesthetics was also an issue at the last hearing and he stated that the additional wires would barely be visible and the Oshkosh Corporation property adjacent to the subject site has a fence in excess of ten feet therefore he felt the aesthetics issue was not relevant. He commented that in the recent break in, one of the rigs opened had guns in it and the company was looking to use the most effective deterrent possible to prevent future incidents. Mr. Penney questioned if the company had taken any steps in consideration of the Oshkosh Police Department CPTED report recommendations such as landscaping, lighting, and alarms. Geoff Stephany, 500 Old Dominion Way, Thomasville, North Carolina, responded that they have looked at the CPTED report and were considering some additional lighting however the number one deterrent for thefts was the electrified fencing. He further stated that security guards and landscaping were not effective methods for deterring thefts and that the electrified fencing and lighting were the best deterrents. He also felt that cameras were not an effective method as the perpetrator was usually not identifiable. Ms. Larson questioned why the height of the fence was essential. Mr. Stephany replied that the six foot high chain link fence was already in place and the additional four feet of fencing was more effective. Ms. Larson inquired if there was a way to install alarms on the trucks. Mr. Stephany responded that this would be extremely costly as there are 32,000 rigs and 319 terminal locations and the alarms would be $1000 each plus a reoccurring monthly fee. He also explained the freight transfer process which involves these rigs going to 20-30 businesses in the area. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if anyone has spoken with the Oshkosh Police Department since the last meeting regarding their recommendations. Mr. Stephany responded seven to eight times relative to this theft. Mr. Krasniewski commented that no one had contacted the Police Department at the last hearing. Mr. Stephany indicated that his job was to protect their service centers and he has to look at more complex methods of deterrence than what was suggested in the CPTED report. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 May 8, 2013 Mr. Krasniewski questioned if he had discussed the recommendations in the CPTED report with the Police Department. Mr. Stephany responded negatively. Cindy Gsell, 121 Executive Center Drive, Suite 230, Columbia, South Carolina, commented that the Police Department was contacted to do the analysis they provided however they disagree with the recommendations. They suggested maintaining landscaping, moving the materials out of the trailers and into the buildings, and installing alarms on the buildings. They are only asking to raise the height of the fence as they feel this would resolve the issue without any of the other recommendations being necessary. Mr. Krasniewski then questioned if they had requested cooperation from the Police Department in this matter. Ms. Gsell responded negatively. Ms. Cryan asked for further explanation why the trailers could not be off loaded when at the terminal. Tim Behling, 1880 Stillman Drive, terminal manager for Old Dominion, explained their transport process which involved loading and unloading materials from the trailers which amounted to about 600,000 pounds daily and their need to protect the trailers at the terminal without off loading everything into the buildings. Ms. Cryan asked for clarification that this business was a transfer point for shipments. Mr. Behling confirmed that the nature of the business was that freight is brought to the terminal and transferred from one trailer to another for delivery. Ms. Cryan then questioned if the buildings on the site were not secure enough. Mr. Behling responded that the buildings were not constructed to be warehouses. Ms. Larson commented that the request has the fence at a reduced height of eight feet on Fernau Ave and questioned why the eight feet would be adequate on this side however they required the ten feet in height in other areas. Mr. Berzowski responded that it was proposed to be lower for aesthetic purposes. Ms. Gsell added that the lower height on Fernau Avenue was acceptable as this was a well traveled road and they felt the sides of the site were more vulnerable as police patrols were less than frequent on nights and weekends. She further stated that the perimeter fence was never electrified and the proposed electrified fencing would deter perpetrators from hopping over the perimeter fence as you cannot grab on to the electrified strands which is also the reason that the electric fence needs to be taller than the perimeter fence. Mr. Penney questioned if the only security deterrent being considered for the site was the electrified fence. Geoff Stephany responded that security guards were less than effective from their experience as three-fourths of their locations had thefts when that method was in use. Since they have started installing the electric fencing instead, they have only had one theft in Houston since that time. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 May 8, 2013 Mr. Penney commented that a perpetrators desire and ability to commit thefts could still gain them access to the property. Mr. Stephany agreed that any system could possibly be breached. Ms. Gsell stated that the perimeter fencing is also a burglar alarm that will call the company if the fence is breached and it is a pulsed system that is not lethal and will not harm any individuals. Mr. Berzowski requested that Mr. Behling address the issues with the turning radius of the trucks on the site. Mr. Behling stated that the trailers were 28-53 feet in length and described the turning radius necessary for the trucks to maneuver on the site. He also stated that moving the fence back would place it in the area that the employees are currently parking their vehicles. Moving the fence 20 feet would not be feasible. Mr. Stephany added that if you view page 4 of the staff report, the photo depicts the close proximity that the trailers are parked to each other and described the pick up and delivery system used at the terminal. He also described the pup trailers that are combined for transport which makes them 60 feet in length. Robert Gluth, 1870 Stillman Drive, owner of the Corrin Company, adjacent to the subject site, stated he has seen the fence that is currently in place and he has no objections to additional wire being added to it. Mr. Krasniewski inquired what the surface of the lot was comprised of. Mr. Behling replied that it was asphalt. Mr. Krasniewski commented that it appeared on the aerial photos that a section had been added to the west of the terminal into the setback area. Was this work permitted? Mr. Muehrer explained some of the history of the site and its past owners which had a long record of violations on the site. He discussed some of the violations and stated that he had contacted Mr. Berzowski and informed him that it appeared that the site plan submitted with the application was erroneous as it does not depict the fence in the same location as the aerial photo which shows the existing fence is setback 30’ from the north property line and would not require a variance to increase the height in this location. He suggested that the petitioner pull the request and submit a revised plan including a truck turning radius template which could change the recommendation by staff. At this time, nothing has been submitted regarding the truck turning radius for the Transit Department to review and the property would also need a variance for the hard surface added to the site as well as the fence issue. He further commented on the previous fence installation which was not by code as it exceeded six feet but was apparently overlooked by Inspections staff. Mr. Berzowski stated that it was not feasible for the trucking terminal to be able to operate with the relocation of the fencing to meet setback requirements as they are using every piece of the property to have the necessary room to maneuver the trucks in and out of the site. Mr. Muehrer responded that he was not arguing the facts regarding the amount of room necessary for the trucks to maneuver on the site but would require review of the site plan on paper with the aforementioned truck turning radius template to follow the standard process. Board members can proceed as they choose. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 May 8, 2013 Mr. Penney questioned if the truck turning radius required the additional room in regards to the fence placement, if it would change the staff’s recommendation for this variance. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively. Mr. Berzowski commented that the terminal is utilizing every inch of space possible on the site and as this issue was just brought to his attention on Friday, they did not have adequate time to respond. Mr. Cornell questioned if the variance could be approved on the basis that the turning radius was necessary and a site plan with the requested turning template be submitted at a later time. Mr. Muehrer did not recommend this approach. Mr. Carpenter commented that it concerned him that the owner and applicant have not made any effort to meet with the Police Department to discuss the matter and their recommendations for securing the site other than to pursue the variance request for the fence which appears to be their fix all solution for the theft issue. Mr. Behling responded that the site has adequate lighting and he did not feel the other recommendations were feasible for their site. Mr. Stephany added that the CPTED report is a standard boilerplate report and he would not reach out to the Police Department as a result of it. He discussed the internal and external factors regarding thefts and what recommendations make the most sense. He further commented that the cameras suggested will not protect the perimeter of the property and the electrified fence was the most prohibitive measure they can utilize. Ms. Larson inquired if the City allows ten foot fences in any other areas. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively as long as the fence meets the required setback for the zoning district. Mr. Penney questioned if the request could be postponed for 30 days to allow the petitioner to provide the truck turning radius report discussed. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively. Mr. Carpenter questioned why a higher fence was allowed for the adjacent site owned by Oshkosh Corporation. Mr. Muehrer indicated that the higher fence was allowed as it met the required setbacks in the front of the property and the side yards are at six feet. Mr. Berzowski stated that if the board was considering denying the request a second time but would reconsider it if they supplied a site plan depicting the necessary turning radius for the trucks, he would propose to lay the request over until next month to allow them to provide this information. Mr. Muehrer indicated that if staff could verify that the trucks required the additional room to make internal movements on the site it could change the staff’s recommendation on the request. A site plan with the truck turning radius imposed over it could give staff the necessary information requested to verify these facts. Mr. Berzowski replied that he felt Mr. Behling’s testimony should be sufficient. Board of Appeals Minutes 5 May 8, 2013 Board members continued discussion on the location of the employees cars on the site and if moving the fence would impact this or whether the site had physical limitations that would allow the variance to be approved. The amount of tractor trailers currently on the site compared to the time of the aerial photos was discussed and if the gravel area was intruding on the setback areas. Mr. Berzowski stated that it was hard to tell how the facility operates without being on site and additional lighting would not be effective if no one is present. He did not feel that there was a lack of cooperation with the Police Department and further discussed the parking location of the employees vehicles. After further discussion, it appeared that the employees were parking their vehicles in the setback area which was another issue however it was occurring due to the trucks needing ample room for their turning radius. Ms. Gsell commented that the other issue they had concerns with was the distance between the perimeter fence and the electrified fence as to move the fence out of the setback area would create 20 feet of no mans land. Mr. Krasniewski stated that they were discussing moving both fences back 20 feet so there would not be 20 feet in between the two fences. Mr. Berzowski responded that this was not feasible regardless of which fence was moved. The property was purchased as a trucking terminal and they needed to utilize every inch of the area for movements of the trucks on the site and the loss of 20 feet would make the property unusable to Old Dominion. Some discussion ensued on the size of the truck trailers utilizing the site and if the size of the trailers had increased over time and what the standard size of the trailers was. It was determined that the current trailers were anywhere from 28 to 53 feet in size. One size is parked on one side and larger ones parked on the other. Mr. Behling commented that they were good neighbors and their business had grown from 20 to 50 employees over the years and that they were looking to protect their customer’s property and employees. He felt that it goes further than just the fence issue and the electrified wiring would hardly be noticeable and not harmful to the public. Ms. Cryan felt that the business was located in a remote area and the public would not be harmed by allowing the variance for the fence as requested. She looked up the taxes paid by the property owner and felt that the City should give some leeway in this case. Mr. Berzowski agreed. Motion by Penney to approve the request for a variance to permit 8’ and 10’ high fencing in the minimum front and side yard setback. Seconded by Cryan. Mr. Krasniewski commented that we all pay property taxes and receive City services in return therefore that cannot be part of the decision when considering granting a variance. He felt it was a unique situation and that the City has lost control of what was being done on the site and he felt we should have all the facts prior to making a decision on the matter. He agreed that there should be fencing around the site however he felt that they should take advantage of a discussion with the Police Department regarding their recommendations. Board of Appeals Minutes 6 May 8, 2013 He felt the turning radius for the trucks was a vital issue and although he was leaning towards voting to deny the request at this point, with the submission of the proper information, the request could be approved. Mr. Carpenter stated he was in favor of voting for a continuance on this request and would like to have a representative from the Police Department present for the meeting. Mr. Muehrer indicated that he did request a representative from the Police Department to attend today’s hearing however they were unable to make it. Mr. Penney stated that if we don’t do everything we can to prevent crime, it does harm the public interest and he did not feel that a report diagramming the turning radius of the trucks will change anything. He would vote to support the variance request if a continuance would not be granted. Ms. Larson stated that she understood that the trucks need a lot of room to maneuver and that she was not denying that the space may be necessary for them to operate properly and that ten foot fences are allowed in some industrial sites particularly with outside storage. They made a good argument for their business needs however monetary issues could not be taken into consideration when granting a variance. Mr. Cornell questioned if a continuance could only be granted if the variance was denied. David Praska, Assistant City Attorney, responded that the board could make a motion to adjourn and continue the hearing next month which means they will be willing to accept additional facts relating to this case. He further stated that it has to be clear as to what will happen at the next hearing and that no other facts should be introduced at this point in today’s hearing. Ms. Larson commented that the Police Department’s report was very generic and that was possibly why the petitioner did not feel it was necessary to address the issue further with them and requiring a representative from the Police Department be present for the next meeting may not be necessary. Ms. Cryan also felt it was a boilerplate report. Mr. Penney did not feel that the turning radius report was really necessary as it would not change anything. Board members briefly discussed if they should vote on the variance request as presented or continue the hearing next month as well as if another motion was necessary to continue the hearing. Some members felt that it was necessary to see the turning radius report with the templates applied and possibly the lighting on the site as well as more interaction with the Police Department regarding their report. More discussion ensued on the proper way to handle the issue if voting for a continuance. Mr. Praska stated that the underlying motion stays on the table but for clarity, the board should let the petitioner’s know what is expected at the next hearing and what particular information should be provided. Mr. Krasniewski felt they should provide the site plan with the truck turning radius information as recommended by staff and also hold a consultation with the Police Department prior to the next hearing. Mr. Praska stated that once the board makes the applicant aware of the issues that need to be addressed and concerns have been stated, the petitioner has the opportunity to present or not present the requested information at the next meeting. The Police Department is not required to be present for the hearing and the applicant is not required to submit what is being requested, they can submit what they choose as they see fit. Board of Appeals Minutes 7 May 8, 2013 Motion by Penney to continue the hearing until the second Wednesday in June of 2013 for the variances to permit 8’ and 10’ high fencing in the minimum front and side yard setbacks. The board is requesting the petitioner provide the appropriate site plan with a truck turning radius template and hold a consultation with the Oshkosh Police Department. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 3-2. (Ayes-Carpenter/Cornell/Krasniewski. Nays- Penney/Cryan.) There was a brief discussion on Ms. Cryan’s resignation from the board that will be effective June 1, 2013 and how this will possibly affect the next hearing. It was determined that her participation on the board could not be extended for an additional month and that the board will still have a sufficient number of members to vote on the request at the next hearing even without a new member being appointed. Mr. Cornell thanked Ms. Cryan for her service on the board. Ms. Cryan commented that she enjoyed her time on the board both working with staff and other members. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. (Krasniewski/Carpenter). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 8 May 8, 2013