HomeMy WebLinkAboutWeekly Newsletter (4)
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
November 13, 2013
PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Tom Willadsen, Dennis Penney, Kathryn Larson,
Robert Krasniewski
EXCUSED: none
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 October 9, 2013 were approved as presented. (Carpenter/Penney)
ITEM I: 1733-1757 MARICOPA DRIVE
J.S. Construction-applicant, Green Tee South Condominium Association-owner, requests the following
variance to permit a refuse enclosure structure in the required front yard setback:
Description Code ReferenceRequired Proposed
Front yard setback 30-20(B)(6)(g) 60’ & not less than 5’ 50’6” & on side
behind principal structure of principal structure
Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is
zoned R-3 Multiple Dwelling District and is being used for multi-family dwelling purposes. The property
features three principal structures with 28 dwelling units, 31 open off-street parking stalls, and a detached
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 enclosure
located on the west side of the detached garage structure fronting Maricopa Drive. The dumpsters were
previously located within the existing garage facility however the dumpsters were relocated outside due to
fire code violations requiring the new enclosure area 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 challenging for larger waste collection vehicles and its
proposed location will create the least impact on existing parking lot circulation. Staff recommends approval
of the variance with the condition that building materials and colors are reviewed and approved by the
Department of Community Development.
John Schultz, 890 E. Lone Elm Avenue, stated that the area specified is the only logical location on the
property to place the refuse enclosure structure and that a fire in the north condominium was the reasoning
for the fire code violations and relocating the dumpster outside. The Fire Department did approve still using
the condominium garage unit for storing lawn equipment. He further stated that the variance request was
necessary to construct the enclosure on the exterior of the garage structure.
Ms. Larson commented that it appeared that the dumpsters had already been relocated to this area and
questioned what material would be used for the refuse enclosure.
Board of Appeals Minutes 1 November 13, 2013
Mr. Schultz responded that the dumpsters had been relocated outside and the plans were to use six foot
composite fencing to enclose the area.
Mr. Krasniewski inquired if any photos had been submitted since the board packets were sent out as there
was no rendering supplied of what the enclosure would look like.
Mr. Muehrer replied that a rendering had not yet been submitted but the narrative describes the proposed
enclosure.
Mr. Krasniewski then inquired if the refuse enclosure would take up any parking stalls and if so, would there
be sufficient parking stalls available for the property.
Mr. Schultz responded that the enclosure would occupy one parking stall.
Mr. Muehrer indicated that there was sufficient parking on the site even with the loss of one stall and that
there was some nonconformities as the development was 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 requirements.
Mr. Carpenter questioned if the Fire Department approved 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 affirmatively.
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 staff’s recommended condition.
Amended motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit a refuse enclosure
structure in the required front yard setback with the following condition:
Board of Appeals Minutes 2 November 13, 2013
1.Building materials and colors are reviewed and approved 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 Properties LLC-owner, requests the following variance to
permit a ground mount commercial identification sign to be externally illuminated:
Description Code ReferenceRequired Proposed
Illuminated ground mount sign 30-37 Internally Externally
Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is
zoned C-2 General Commercial District and is being used for commercial purposes. The property features a
single-story office building built in 1970 with off-street parking facilities located behind the structure with
vehicular access via a single curb cut on Faust Avenue. 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 replacement sign project. The applicant proposes to replace their
existing double-faced internally illuminated ground mount commercial identification sign fronting N.
Sawyer Street with a new double-faced externally illuminated ground mount sign with a setback of 5’ from
N. Sawyer Street and 25’ from Faust Avenue. The request to remove the condition of internal illumination is
reasonable given the commercial location of the property 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 permitted 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 Kindt, a partner in the firm, were both present for questions
on the request.
Andrew Phillips stated that the variance request was necessary as the existing sign is failing and crooked and
needs to be replaced. They would like something that looks professional and in good taste and considered
the illumination effects. They felt the soft external lighting looked better and they reviewed other signage on
Sawyer Street that is larger and closer to the vision triangle than what they are proposing. Their proposed
sign will not face neighboring properties and there are no residential uses adjacent to the location of the
proposed sign.
Mr. Penney questioned what the reasoning was for the condition on the previously approved variance that the
sign be internally illuminated.
Mr. Muehrer responded that the variance was granted in 1994 and the zoning ordinance under went a major
overhaul in 1997 at which time code standards were increased to prevent nuisance signs. At the time this
Board of Appeals Minutes 3 November 13, 2013
variance was approved in 1994, it was most likely to ensure that the signage was not a nuisance or safety
issue. These concerns were addressed with the zoning 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 setback requirements.
Mr. Phillips added that they were willing to meet whatever condition was necessary to approve the variance
request.
Mr. Krasniewski requested a description of the proposed lighting element.
Mr. Phillips responded that the wattage is going to be soft and shining up and would be illuminated just
enough to see it at night.
Mr. Krasniewski commented that the Board has approved a number of signs previously that required
landscaping around the base of the structure and questioned if this was necessary in this case.
Mr. Muehrer responded negatively and stated that this sign was located closer to the street and safety and
maintenance issues would be a concern with landscaping 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 well.
Mr. Muehrer indicated that there was no need for this condition.
Mr. Phillips added that there was no way the lighting could be within 5 feet and the proposed sign would
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 clearance issue while leaving the driveway from the proposed
location of the sign.
Mr. Phillips responded that it should be better than the existing signage and there would be no vision
problems with its location.
Ms. Larson then questioned if plantings of some nature would be placed around the base of the sign.
Mr. Phillips replied that a flower bed would be planted around the sign base.
Motion by Penney to approve the request for a variance 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 4 November 13, 2013
Existing structure requires replacement.
Aesthetic enhancement to property.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:53 p.m. (Larson/Carpenter).
Respectfully submitted,
Todd Muehrer
Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator
Board of Appeals Minutes 5 November 13, 2013