Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES July 24, 2013 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Robert Krasniewski EXCUSED: Tom Willadsen, Kathryn Larson 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 10, 2013 were approved as presented. (Krasniewski/Carpenter-Penney abstained as he was not present) ITEM I: 1803 JEFFERSON STREET AT&T Wisconsin-applicant, Victoria/Joseph Kolonich-owners, request the following variance to permit telecommunication structures in the minimum front yard setback: Description Code ReferenceMinimum Proposed Front yard setback 30-19 (B)(4)(g) 15’ 1’ Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is zoned R-2 Two Family Residence District and is being used for single family dwelling purposes. The existing principal structure was built in 1945 and the general area can be characterized as low density residential in nature. The applicant is proposing to install a telecommunication cabinet immediately adjacent to a supplemental power ped which will intrude 14’ into the front yard setback area. The majority of these cabinets are located in the public right-of-way however the existing right-of-way along E. Murdock Avenue cannot accommodate said cabinets and therefore private property easements are being acquired. The limited right-of-way and terrace areas available are creating a justifiable hardship and the structures are located outside of both vision corners and adjacent driveways upholding pedestrian and vehicle safety. Approval of the variance is recommended. Dan Boettcher, representing Mi-Tech Services, stated that there was an existing cabinet there now and adequate room for the proposed cabinet. He further stated that they are requesting the variance to allow it to be placed in this location as they do not want to cause any disruption as there is a fence in the direct vicinity. They have a signed easement from the property owner to allow this installation if the variance is granted. Mr. Carpenter questioned if it was an issue if board members were customers of AT&T. Mr. Cornell responded negatively. Mr. Krasniewski inquired about the dimensions of the easement for the cabinet installation as the site plan appeared to be different than the photos submitted. Chuck Bartelt replied that the correct dimensions were 12’ by 16’ in width. Board of Appeals Minutes 1 July 24, 2013 Mr. Krasniewski also commented that the easement area was larger than the equipment to be placed there and questioned why they could not use the existing easement on the site. Mr. Boettcher responded that there was an existing fence extending through the existing easement area. Mr. Krasniewski inquired about the distance between the fence and the sidewalk. Mr. Boettcher replied that it was about 6 ½ feet. Further discussion ensued regarding the amount of area required for placement of the new cabinet and the ability to place it in the existing easement area where the other cabinet is located. It was determined that it was not possible as they needed clearance between the cabinets to allow room for the doors on the cabinets to be opened for maintenance of the equipment. Mr. Penney questioned who owned the fence in the easement area. Mr. Boettcher indicated that it was the property owner’s fence. Mr. Krasniewski asked to reaffirm that the fence extends through the existing easement area. Mr. Boettcher responded that it did and he did not know if the fence was located there prior to the easement for the cabinet being obtained. Mr. Bartelt commented that the proposed easement location was at the request of the property owner. Discussion continued regarding if the new cabinet could be placed in the same location as the existing easement and cabinet were and it was determined that there was not adequate area as the technicians required sufficient room to stand while accessing the equipment. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if the company could not obtain an easement from the City, what the option would be if this request was not allowed by the property owner. Mr. Boettcher responded that they would approach another property owner to place it on their property. Motion by Penney to approve the request for a variance to permit telecommunications structures in the minimum front yard setback. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 4-0. Finding of Facts: No harm to public interest. Least variance required. th ITEM II: 2541 W. 20 AVENUE AT&T Wisconsin-applicant, Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. Oshkosh-owner, request the following variance to permit telecommunications structures in the minimum side yard setback: Board of Appeals Minutes 2 July 24, 2013 Description Code ReferenceMinimum Proposed Side yard setback 30-30 (B)(2) 20’ 3’6” Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is zoned M-3 General Industrial District and is being used for light industrial/manufacturing purposes. The existing principal structure was built in 1984 and the general area can be characterized as low density residential and industrial in nature. The applicant is proposing to install a telecommunication cabinet immediately adjacent to a supplemental power ped which will intrude 16’6” into the side yard setback area. The majority of these cabinets are located in the public right-of-way however the existing right-of-way along W. 20th Avenue has placement limitations and therefore private property easements are being acquired. The limited right-of-way limitations available are creating a justifiable hardship and the structures are located outside of vision triangles at industrial use driveways upholding pedestrian and vehicle safety. The proposed placement addresses aesthetic concerns and approval of the variance is recommended. Mr. Boettcher stated that he had met with the property owner regarding the location of the cabinet and proposed several different options for location. The area was chosen by the staff at the Pepsi Cola Bottling Company as it offered the least disruption to their property. Mr. Krasniewski requested clarification where on the site this installation would be located. Mr. Muehrer explained where the location would be on the aerial photo which was near the western most th driveway which extends onto 20 Avenue near the existing fence. Mr. Krasniewski then questioned if that section of the property was about 30 feet wide. Mr. Muehrer indicated that it was and directed the board members to page 3 and 4 for reference and stated that this location would have a minimal impact on the property. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit telecommunications structures in the minimum side yard setback. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 4-0. Findings of Facts: No harm to public interest. Least variance required. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m. (Krasniewski/Carpenter). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 3 July 24, 2013