HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 November 13, 2013 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES November 13, 2013 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Tom Willads en, Dennis Penney, Kathryn Larson, Robert Krasniewski EXCUSED: none STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Admin istrator; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declare d present. The minutes of October 9, 2013 were approved as pre sented. (Carpenter/Penney) ITEM I: 1733-1757 MARICOPA DRIVE J.S. Construction-applicant, Green Tee South Condom inium Association-owner, requests the following variance to permit a refuse enclosure structure in the required front yard setback: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Front yard setback 30-20(B)(6)(g) 60’ & not less th an 5’ 50’6” & on side behind principal structure of principal struc ture Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed phot os of the subject site. He stated that the propert y is zoned R-3 Multiple Dwelling District and is being u sed for multi-family dwelling purposes. The proper ty features three principal structures with 28 dwellin g units, 31 open off-street parking stalls, and a d etached garage facility with 13 units and a single curb cut on Maricopa Drive. The general area is comprised of low and medium density residential uses. The applicant is proposing to construct an 8’x18’refuse enclosur e located on the west side of the detached garage str ucture fronting Maricopa Drive. The dumpsters were previously located within the existing garage facil ity however the dumpsters were relocated outside du e to fire code violations requiring the new enclosure ar ea for proper screening. The historic development pattern of the parcel is creating justifiable hardship and although an alternative location for the enclosure area is possible, practical access to the area would be cha llenging for larger waste collection vehicles and i ts proposed location will create the least impact on e xisting parking lot circulation. Staff recommends approval of the variance with the condition that building ma terials and colors are reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development. John Schultz, 890 E. Lone Elm Avenue, stated that t he area specified is the only logical location on t he property to place the refuse enclosure structure an d that a fire in the north condominium was the reas oning for the fire code violations and relocating the dum pster outside. The Fire Department did approve sti ll using the condominium garage unit for storing lawn equipm ent. He further stated that the variance request w as necessary to construct the enclosure on the exterio r of the garage structure. Ms. Larson commented that it appeared that the dump sters had already been relocated to this area and questioned what material would be used for the refu se enclosure.
Board of Appeals Minutes 2 November 13, 2013 Mr. Schultz responded that the dumpsters had been r elocated outside and the plans were to use six foot composite fencing to enclose the area. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if any photos had been sub mitted since the board packets were sent out as the re was no rendering supplied of what the enclosure wou ld look like. Mr. Muehrer replied that a rendering had not yet be en submitted but the narrative describes the propos ed enclosure. Mr. Krasniewski then inquired if the refuse enclosu re would take up any parking stalls and if so, woul d there be sufficient parking stalls available for the prop erty. Mr. Schultz responded that the enclosure would occu py one parking stall. Mr. Muehrer indicated that there was sufficient par king on the site even with the loss of one stall an d that there was some nonconformities as the development w as constructed a number of years ago. He further stated that there was off street parking stalls as it was a campus-style setting and there has been no off street parking issues in the area. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the enclosed dumpster area in the garage was originally part of the development. Mr. Muehrer responded that the enclosed refuse area was a permitted structure that was added after the original development and he believed the issue was the contents being stored in the unit. Mr. Krasniewski commented that he would like to see a rendering of the proposed refuse enclosure and inquired what the building code review mentioned in the staff report entailed. Mr. Muehrer replied that the plans would be double checked for building code compliance to ensure that the structure met both building and zoning code require ments. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the Fire Department app roved of this proposal. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if there would still be adequate room for parking. Dolly Green, 1755 Maricopa Drive, responded affirma tively. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit a refuse enclosure structure in the required front yard setback. Seconded by Carpenter. Ms. Larson questioned if the motion included the st aff’s recommended condition. Amended motion by Krasniewski to approve the reques t for a variance to permit a refuse enclosure structure in the required front yard setback with t he following condition:
Board of Appeals Minutes 3 November 13, 2013 1. Building materials and colors are reviewed and appr oved by the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: No harm to public interest. Hardship created by Fire Department. Limitations of property. Most practical location. II. 141 N. SAWYER STREET Andrew J. Phillips-applicant, Oshkosh Attorneys Pro perties LLC-owner, requests the following variance to permit a ground mount commercial identification sig n to be externally illuminated: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Illuminated ground mount sign 30-37 Internally Externally Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed phot os of the subject site. He stated that the propert y is zoned C-2 General Commercial District and is being used for commercial purposes. The property feature s a single-story office building built in 1970 with off -street parking facilities located behind the struc ture with vehicular access via a single curb cut on Faust Ave nue. The general area is predominately mixed use. The subject site received a setback variance in 1994 to permit a ground sign with a 5’ front yard setback with the condition that the sign be internally illuminated. The applicant is proposing to remove the condition the sign be internally illuminated as part of their replacem ent sign project. The applicant proposes to replac e their existing double-faced internally illuminated ground mount commercial identification sign fronting N. Sawyer Street with a new double-faced externally il luminated ground mount sign with a setback of 5’ fr om N. Sawyer Street and 25’ from Faust Avenue. The re quest to remove the condition of internal illuminat ion is reasonable given the commercial location of the pro perty and safety will not be compromised as the proposed sign will be located outside of the vision triangle and the lighting elements will not be per mitted to create a nuisance based on current code standards. Staff is recommending approval of the variance as requested. Andrew Phillips, 816 Bavarian Court, and Chris Kind t, a partner in the firm, were both present for que stions on the request. Andrew Phillips stated that the variance request wa s necessary as the existing sign is failing and cro oked and needs to be replaced. They would like something th at looks professional and in good taste and conside red the illumination effects. They felt the soft exter nal lighting looked better and they reviewed other signage on Sawyer Street that is larger and closer to the visi on triangle than what they are proposing. Their pr oposed sign will not face neighboring properties and there are no residential uses adjacent to the location o f the proposed sign. Mr. Penney questioned what the reasoning was for th e condition on the previously approved variance tha t the sign be internally illuminated. Mr. Muehrer responded that the variance was granted in 1994 and the zoning ordinance under went a majo r overhaul in 1997 at which time code standards were increased to prevent nuisance signs. At the time t his
Board of Appeals Minutes 4 November 13, 2013 variance was approved in 1994, it was most likely t o ensure that the signage was not a nuisance or saf ety issue. These concerns were addressed with the zoni ng code update. Mr. Cornell questioned if there was a difference if the illumination was in or out of the setback area . Mr. Muehrer replied that the spot lights themselves would have to be out of the setback but from the rendering submitted, it should meet the same setbac k requirements. Mr. Phillips added that they were willing to meet w hatever condition was necessary to approve the vari ance request. Mr. Krasniewski requested a description of the prop osed lighting element. Mr. Phillips responded that the wattage is going to be soft and shining up and would be illuminated ju st enough to see it at night. Mr. Krasniewski commented that the Board has approv ed a number of signs previously that required landscaping around the base of the structure and qu estioned if this was necessary in this case. Mr. Muehrer responded negatively and stated that th is sign was located closer to the street and safety and maintenance issues would be a concern with landscap ing and the lighting would be appropriately hooded if necessary. Mr. Penney inquired if a condition should be added that the illumination was to be within 5 feet as we ll. Mr. Muehrer indicated that there was no need for th is condition. Mr. Phillips added that there was no way the lighti ng could be within 5 feet and the proposed sign wou ld look better and not be a nuisance. Mr. Muehrer commented that the lighting is usually contained within the frame of the structure. Ms. Larson questioned if there was any vision clear ance issue while leaving the driveway from the prop osed location of the sign. Mr. Phillips responded that it should be better tha n the existing signage and there would be no vision problems with its location. Ms. Larson then questioned if plantings of some nat ure would be placed around the base of the sign. Mr. Phillips replied that a flower bed would be pla nted around the sign base. Motion by Penney to approve the request for a varia nce to permit a ground mount commercial identification sign to be externally illuminated. Seconded by Larson. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: No harm to public interest. Least variance necessary.
Board of Appeals Minutes 5 November 13, 2013 Existing structure requires replacement. Aesthetic enhancement to property. There being no further business, the meeting adjour ned at 3:53 p.m. (Larson/Carpenter). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator