Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWeekly Newsletter MINUTES SUSTAINABILITY ADVISORY BOARD July 1, 2013 PRESENT: Kim Biedermann, Aaron Campbell, Margy Davey, Jan Scalpone, Nikki Stoll EXCUSED: Bob Breest, Michelle Bogden Muetzel, Samara Hamze, Tom Pech STAFF: Robin Leslie, Principal Planner, David Patek, Public Works Director CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 4:15 p.m. by Chair Margy Davey. Chair Davey introduced the newest member of the Board, Nikki Stoll. APPROVE MINUTES Motion by Jan Scalpone and second by Aaron Campbell to approve the minutes from the last meeting as amended. Motion carried. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Motion by Jan Scalpone and second by Aaron Campbell to nominate/elect Margy Davey and Kim Biedermann to serve as co-chairs and to not nominate/elect a vice-chair. Ms. Davey and Ms. Biedermann both accepted nomination. Motion carried. SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS Motion by Aaron Campbell and second by Kim Biedermann to rename the current Energy and Efficiency Subcommittee to Climate Change Subcommittee and the current Environment Subcommittee to Environmental Resources Subcommittee with the following assignments: Climate Change Subcommittee: Aaron Campbell, Chair Margy Davey Michelle Bogden Muetzel Environmental Resources Subcommittee Jan Scalpone, Chair Aaron Campbell Nikki Stoll Kim Biedermann Samara Hamze REVIEW OF 2013 GOALS/ACTION PLAN The Board discussed the current implementation schedule for the 2013 Sustainability Plan Action Plan and directed staff to update the document to reflect the status of work items. CENTRAL GARAGE UPDATE Public Works Director David Patek gave an update on the City of Oshkosh Central Garage project and handed out Focus on Energy conservation strategy documentation and LEED scoring information. He pointed out specifics of the site plan like landscaping and berms, stormwater management and bioswales, and the decorative fence. He stated the new approximately 150,000 square foot building will use the same amount of utilities as the current 1945 building, which is about a third of the size of the new building. He stated that the roof would not be built as a green roof and wind turbines will not be included because the payback for those projects is not feasible. He did state the roof was built to hold photovoltaic panels but the equipment is said to only last 20 years with a 30 year payback. These will be considered in the future. He also stated the fuel island will include compressed natural gas in the future because they would like to get away from purchasing it from vendors. He informed the Board the bids were opened at the end of April and the bids will be awarded the following week. He hopes the project will start in August and continue to 2015 as the project will be completed in phases. SHORELAND RESTORATION GRANT UPDATE Ms. Davey informed the Board that they were not granted the requested Community Foundation grant for Millers Bay plantings. INTERN UPDATE Robin Leslie informed the Board that the SAB intern would not be replaced at this time. NEXT MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 5th Chair Davey reminded the Board of the next meeting. ADJOURN Motion by Kim Biedermann and second by Nikki Stoll to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:00 pm. Respectfully submitted, Robin Leslie Principal Planner 2 | July 1, 2013 Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES August 14, 2013 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Kathryn Larson, Robert Krasniewski EXCUSED: Tom Willadsen 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 24, 2013 were approved as presented. (Penney/Krasniewski) ITEM I: 449 DOVE STREET Keith Doxrude-applicant/owner, requests the following variance to permit a porch in the minimum front yard setback: Description Code ReferenceMinimum Proposed Front yard setback 30-17 (B)(3)(c) 25’ 23’11” Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District and is being used for single family dwelling purposes. The existing principal structure was built in 1925 and the general area can be characterized as low density residential in nature. The applicant is requesting a variance to reconstruct a covered porch that would project 1’1” into the required front yard setback. The work commenced as part of a siding project on the home but a building permit was not obtained and a correction notice was subsequently issued. It was determined that due to building code standards the proposed covered porch would need to be altered or removed altogether in order to meet zoning setback standards. While an alternative exists, it is not preferred as the home would lose an important aesthetic feature and negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. Keith Doxrude, 449 Dove Street, stated that when the project was started, he was intending to install siding on the home only; however, he discovered that the porch was decaying and the concrete and brick underneath it were not in good condition. At that time he decided to reconstruct the porch and placed new footings around the concrete base and thought it was included with the building permit he already obtained. Subsequently, he received a correction notice from the City and has been working with both Todd Muehrer from the Planning Services office and Nicole Krahn from Inspection Services to rectify the matter. He stated that both staff members have been very helpful during the process. Steve Martell, 442 Dove Street, stated that he lived across the street from the subject site and would like to see the project completed as it would look so much better when it was done. David Raddatz, 445 Dove Street, stated that Mr. Doxrude had spent a lot of time and money on this project and he had no problem with it and was in favor of the variance being granted. Board of Appeals Minutes 1 August 14, 2013 Carol Dehn, 452 N. Lark Street, agreed with Mr. Raddatz and stated that she would like to see the project completed as well. Jane Riley, 1307 Rush Avenue, stated that her backyard was adjacent to Mr. Doxrude’s property and she also was in favor of the variance being granted. Ms. Larson questioned if the project was going to be finished with a roof in place. Mr. Doxrude responded that the porch would not have a roof but would be completed as an open deck as after researching it he discovered it would cost a lot more money for it to have a roof. He was planning on installing railings around the open deck and installing siding on it only. Mr. Penney commented that financial issues cannot effect the variance decision. Mr. Krasniewski stated that the application materials indicated that the porch would have a roof installed and since that has changed, how does this affect the variance request. Mr. Muehrer responded that it exceeds the 4 by 6 standards and would still require the variance. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the deck would have steps extending down to the ground level. Mr. Doxrude responded affirmatively. Mr. Krasniewski commented that he would like to see drawings of the porch showing what it would look like since the plans have been changed; however, if it was only a deck it should be okay to proceed without seeing revised drawings. Mr. Penney questioned what the height of the deck would be and if it would be enclosed by railings. Lisa Doxrude, 449 Dove Street, responded that it would be approximately 3 ½ feet in height with railings. Motion by Penney to approve the request for a variance to permit a porch in the minimum front yard setback. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: No harm to public interest. Least variance necessary. TH ITEM II: 1602 W. 9 AVENUE AT&T Wisconsin-applicant, Roger D. Russ Trust-owner, request the following variances to permit telecommunications structures in the minimum front & side yard setbacks: Description Code ReferenceMinimum Proposed Front yard setback 30-17 (B)(4)(g) 25’ 10’ Side yard setback 30-17 (B)(3)(d) 25’ 1’6” Board of Appeals Minutes 2 August 14, 2013 Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District and is being used for single family dwelling purposes. The existing principal structure was built in 1920 and the detached garage in 1993 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 into both the side and front yard setback areas. The majority of these cabinets are located in the public right-of-way however the existing right-of-way along W. 9th Avenue has placement limitations due to a lack of adequate area 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 vision corners at street intersections upholding pedestrian and vehicle safety. No detrimental impact will occur to adjacent properties and approval of the variance is recommended. Matt Grimm, 2005 Pewaukee Road, Waukesha, representing AT&T, stated that they have an existing easement on the site; however, they do not have adequate room for placement of an additional cabinet. He further stated that they could not locate an area for the new placement without requesting a variance and the area selected was at the property owner’s recommendation. This area should be adequate to place both cabinets. Chuck Bartelt, 70 E. Division Street, Fond du Lac, indicated that AT&T had several requests last month and he was not sure how many more they would have in the future as they were still in progress of expanding their services in Oshkosh. Mr. Muehrer added that the company had numerous placements in the community that met code requirements and did not need to request variances for the placement of those cabinets. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit telecommunications structures in the minimum front and side yard setbacks. Seconded by Penney. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Krasniewski commented that this request was not increasing the width of exposure for this placement and would not have a negative impact on visibility. Findings of Facts: No harm to public interest. Least variance necessary. ITEM III: 1631 JEFFERSON STREET Clarity Care Inc.-applicant/owner, requests the following variance to permit a detached garage in the front yard: Description Code ReferenceRequired Proposed Accessory Structure Location 30-1(A) Rear or Side yard Front yard 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 group home purposes. The existing principal structure was built in 1976 and the detached garage in 1993 and the general area can be characterized as low density residential in nature. The applicant is proposing to construct a detached garage north of the existing principal structure and since the subject parcel is a corner lot, the proposed location is Board of Appeals Minutes 3 August 14, 2013 defined as a front yard where all accessory structures are to be located in the rear or side yard. The historical development pattern of the parcel is creating a justifiable hardship as the location of the principal structure leaves the north side as the only practical alternative to place a detached accessory building. The structure would aesthetically compliment the surrounding neighborhood and will be screened by matured landscaping along the north lot line. Staff is recommending approval of the variance as requested. Jim Marvin, 1414 Lake Breeze Road, stated that he was the maintenance manager for Clarity Care which was a group home facility and passed out photos of a rendering of what the proposed garage would look like. He further stated that it would be a 24’ by 28’ structure and would be constructed with the help of Fox Valley Technical College if the variance was approved. The facility needed the accessory structure for storage use and the issue requiring the variance was that the property was a corner lot. Jeff Stark, 1215 Maricopa Drive, stated that the building is a licensed community based residential facility and the outdoor storage on the site was an eyesore in the neighborhood and the garage would also provide a safer way to enter and exit the facility. Mr. Krasniewski questioned what the setback for a structure was. Mr. Muehrer responded that it would be 25 feet for a principal structure and that the issue in this case was the fact that it was a corner lot and the placement of the principal structure left no alternatives for placement of an accessory structure. Mr. Krasniewski then questioned what the structure to the west of the subject site was. Mr. Stark responded that it was another assisted living facility which used to be the Centennial Inn. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if they would be utilizing the existing driveway. Mr. Stark replied that the driveway could not exceed the width of the garage and they would adjust it accordingly to meet code standards but they would utilize the existing curb cut. Ms. Larson questioned if the dimensions on the site plan were accurate since the photo distributed looked different. Mr. Marvin indicated that the dimensions on the site plan were accurate. Mr. Carpenter inquired if the applicant could also place a sidewalk leading to the garage from the facility. Mr. Muehrer responded that they could place a sidewalk to connect the two structures no more than 4 to 5 feet in width providing that it was not utilized for parking purposes. Mr. Cornell questioned if no vehicles would be parking in the garage as the application stated that it was for storage use. Mr. Marvin replied that they have multiple care givers working at the facility and using the garage for storage of the equipment and garbage receptacles would allow for more parking on the site and ease some of the on street parking issues. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 August 14, 2013 Motion by Carpenter to approve the request for a variance to permit a detached garage in the front yard. Seconded by Cornell. Ms. Larson stated that she felt it would be an improvement to have a protected parking area and the garbage receptacles inside as well as relieving the parking on the street issues. Mr. Penney commented that he felt the placement situation for the garage was unique to the property. Mr. Cornell felt it would be an improvement to the site. Motion carried 5-0. Findings of Facts: Unique property and limitations. Significant improvement to the property. ITEM IV: 711 & 715 WASHINGTON AVENUE Paul & Janet Eberhardy-applicants/owners, request the following variance to permit a 6’ high solid wood fence in the minimum front yard setback: Description Code ReferenceMinimum Proposed 6’ high solid wood fence 30-35 (E) 25’ 4’ Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the properties are zoned R-4 Multiple Dwelling District with 715 Washington Avenue being used for single family dwelling purposes and 711 Washington Avenue being used for recreational/open space purposes. The existing principal structure and garage were built in 1947 and the structures on 711 Washington Avenue were razed in 2009. The general area can be characterized as low density residential in nature. The applicant has constructed a 6’ high solid fence along the south lot lines of the subject parcel with a 4’ setback and is requesting a variance as the zoning ordinance requires fences 6’ high to be placed as far back or farther back from a front property line as the principal structure. The applicant submitted a site plan and was informed that it did not meet code requirements and would require a modification or the granting of a variance prior to construction. The fence was subsequently installed without a building permit and a correction notice was issued. By-right permitting alternatives are present and the placement and height of the fencing is a personal preference that will have a negative impact on neighborhood aesthetics and sightlines and would be contrary to the public interest. Staff recommends denial of the variance as requested. Janet Eberhardy, 715 Washington Avenue, stated that they previously pulled a building permit for a parking pad by their garage and since they were replacing an existing fence they thought that a permit was not necessary. She further stated that she thought there was some miscommunication as the fence brochure from the City stated that fences 6 foot high or less may be installed on any part of the lot so they felt their placement was within code requirements. She stated that there were beautiful homes going toward the lake but the homes located in the area going toward Main Street were less desirable and their lot was being used as a cut through from the bars downtown. They were tired of picking up trash in their yard and the fence blocks people from cutting through their property and makes the neighborhood safer. A 4’ fence would not be adequate in height to keep people off their property and they needed a safe environment for their child. Board of Appeals Minutes 5 August 14, 2013 She claimed that their efforts to improve their property had inspired other neighbors in the area to make improvements to their property as well. Paul Eberhardy, 715 Washington Avenue, stated that pedestrian safety was not an issue as there are no sidewalks on Shawano Avenue and the fence does not protrude any further out than their yard markers. Ms. Eberhardy commented that they purchased the adjacent lot for use as a side yard and the houses in this area are situated very close to the street. She further stated that she would understand the reasoning for these requirements if they owned a corner lot. Mr. Krasniewski stated that the property owner had requested a building permit with their initial site plan and were told by City staff that modifications were necessary to receive approval and questioned when the fence was installed. Mr. Eberhardy responded approximately April of 2013. Mr. Krasniewski commented that the fence was installed essentially after the property owner was told they could not have it. Ms. Larson stated that the property owner should have called the City to clarify the regulations if the brochure was not understood. Ms. Eberhardy reiterated that she interpreted the brochure to mean that this requirement for a setback was only applicable if the fence was greater than six feet. Ms. Larson responded that they should have contacted City staff to verify this before proceeding. Mr. Muehrer stated that the handout she was referring to is an informational brochure and not the official ordinance and further explained the code requirements which are different for front yards and side or rear yard areas. He also stated that the work proceeded without a permit after they were informed that the fence they desired to install was not allowed. Mr. Eberhardy indicated that he did not think a permit was necessary because they were replacing an existing fence. Mr. Muehrer replied that a building permit was still required for the replacement. Discussion ensued on why fences were different than other structures and why there were no sidewalks on Shawano Avenue. It was determined that the lack of sidewalk was due to the limited right-of-way in this area. Mr. Carpenter questioned what the property owners could do to comply at this point. Mr. Muehrer responded that the fence height would have to be reduced by two feet and be modified to be picket-style rather than solid. Ms. Eberhardy stated that it would waste too much of their yard and it was not detrimental to the neighborhood to leave the fence as constructed. Board of Appeals Minutes 6 August 14, 2013 Mr. Carpenter commented that the adjacent neighbor’s fence was shorter and picket style as code requires and he felt it would initiate other variance requests if this one was granted. Mr. Penney inquired how long they have owned this property. Mr. Eberhardy responded they purchased it in 2003. Ms. Larson suggested that the height be reduced and remove every other board and plant landscaping features along the fence between the openings. Ms. Eberhardy reiterated that there were safety issues in their neighborhood. Mr. Carpenter commented that fencing in an area gives people a place to hide and the openness is a safer environment. Ms. Eberhardy disagreed and stated that they need security for their bedrooms as it was a one story home. Ms. Larson stated that the property owners have referred to Shawano Avenue as an alley but it is streetscape to the adjacent property owners in this area. Ms. Eberhardy felt that the fencing cuts down on noise and was a wind block as well. Mr. Penney questioned if the police department had ever been contacted about her safety concerns. Ms. Eberhardy responded negatively. Mr. Carpenter inquired how much the street was widened when it was reconstructed. Mr. Eberhardy responded two to three feet. Discussion ensued on where the fence would be located if moved to meet the required 25’ setback and where the additional fencing would be located to enclose the remainder of the yard. Ms. Eberhardy objected to this concept as they would lose the practical use of their yard and trees and the additional expense to move the fence from its current location. Discussion continued on various concepts of where the fence could be located. Mr. Penney commented that if safety issues were the main concern in this matter, have they checked with the Oshkosh Police Department for a record of arrests in this area. Ms. Eberhardy responded that they did not check on arrest incidents however she had seen squad cars on Shawano Avenue more than once and suspects there may be drug activity. Mr. Penney stated that they should have applied for the variance prior to installing the fence if it was for safety reasons. Ms. Eberhardy replied that they did not think the fence was going to be an issue. Board of Appeals Minutes 7 August 14, 2013 Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the property owner did not receive the phone call from City staff that the placement of the fence as proposed was not allowed. Ms. Eberhardy responded that they did receive the call but she felt it was a miscommunication verbally and that she had interpreted the brochure correctly. She further stated that the other party requesting a variance today did not get a permit either and their variance was approved. Mr. Cornell indicated that the board cannot consider other cases when making a decision as each variance request has to be reviewed as a single item. Ms. Eberhardy commented that she has only been in Oshkosh for three years and wants a safe neighborhood for both them and others. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit a 6’ high solid wood fence in the minimum front yard setback. Seconded by Carpenter. Board members continued discussion on the safety issues and whether fencing would make the area safer or create more places to hide. Mr. Krasniewski stated that there were other areas to gain access to the yard if someone has the desire and that he did not want to see neighborhoods surrounded by six foot fences and does not want to set precedence by approving this request. Ms. Larson commented that the City has neighborhood watch programs for safety purposes and the property owners were requesting something not allowed for others. She further commented that she did not want to see homes surrounded by privacy fences in this community. Motion denied 0-5. Ms. Eberhardy questioned if she could place bird feeders or other objects on the four foot fencing. Mr. Muehrer responded that it would be allowed as long as the requirement that it remains 50% open is still met. Findings of Facts: Harm to public interest. Self created hardship. Creates a more dangerous situation. ITEM V: 440 W. SOUTH PARK AVENUE Lorenz L. Rangeloff-applicant/owner, requests the following variances to permit two ground signs in the minimum front yard setbacks: Description Code ReferenceMinimum Proposed Front yard setback (south) 30-19 (B)(2)(c) 25’ 9’ Front yard setback (north) 30-19 (B)(2)(c) 25’ 7’ Board of Appeals Minutes 8 August 14, 2013 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 institutional purposes. The existing principal structure was built in 1896 and has an open off-street parking lot north of the structure fronting W. th 12 Avenue. The general area can be characterized as low density residential in nature. The applicant has constructed two non-illuminated identification signs within the front yard setbacks without a building permit and subsequently a correction notice was issued. The proposed sign fronting W. South Park Avenue possesses a degree of hardship as the principal structure is setback 25’ from the south lot line and alternative placements would not be desirable as it will not be readable from the street or would negatively impact a th historically significant property. The proposed sign fronting W. 12 Avenue does not possess a hardship as a by-right permitting option is present and the public interest and adjacent properties would benefit most by requiring this sign to be altered to meet code standards. Staff is recommending approval of the 9’ front yard (south) setback variance and denial of the 7’ front yard (north) setback variance as requested. Lorenz Rangeloff, 3020 Oregon Street, stated that this was an old neighborhood and the structure has been there since 1890 and the homes in the area do not meet the required 25’ setback either. He felt that people were having problems finding the church and parking lot and if the signs were not high enough they would not be seen when snow was on the ground. He further stated that the parking lots go up to the sidewalk for other churches in the area as well. Mr. Krasniewski questioned who installed the signs and why a building permit was not obtained. Mr. Rangeloff responded that he manufactured and installed them himself and did not know that a permit was necessary. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the property owner would be allowed to have two smaller signs in the back of the structure (north side). Mr. Muehrer indicated that two smaller signs would be allowed by code standards. Mr. Krasniewski inquired how tall and how wide the sign was in the back. Mr. Rangeloff replied about 2 ½ feet tall and about 15 square feet. He stated that he could lower it a foot but it would not be as visible with snow cover. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the property owner would be satisfied with keeping the sign in the front of the structure and replacing the sign in back to two smaller signs. Mr. Rangeloff responded that he could reduce the height of the sign in the back. Ms. Larson commented that the visibility issue could be maintained by the party who handles the snow plowing of the lot. Mr. Rangeloff stated that the visibility was crucial as people were not able to find the church. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if the church had newcomers on a weekly basis. Mr. Rangeloff responded affirmatively. Board of Appeals Minutes 9 August 14, 2013 Board members briefly discussed how to handle the voting on this item since there were two variance requests involved. It was determined that they should have two separate votes on the request. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit a ground sign in the minimum front yard setback (south) and the minimum front yard setback (north). Seconded by Penney. th Motion by Larson to drop the 12 Avenue sign (north) from the motion and vote on the South Park Avenue sign (south) only. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Ms. Larson commented that all churches have identification signs and a more visible sign is required and appropriate in this neighborhood. Motion carried for the approval of the ground sign in the front yard setback (south) 5-0. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit a ground sign in the minimum front yard setback (north). Seconded by Carpenter. Motion denied 0-5. Findings of Facts for approval of the sign in the south setback: No harm to public interest. Unique physical limitations. Findings of Facts for denial of the sign in the north setback: No variance is required to identify the parking area with revisions to the signage. No harm to public interest. Applicant willing to work with City to resolve issue. Mr. Carpenter commented that he appreciated the well written staff reports that are prepared by Mr. Muehrer for the variance requests. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. (Penney/Carpenter). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 10 August 14, 2013