Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 October 8, 2014 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES October 8, 2014 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Reginald Parson, 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 September 10, 2014 were approved as presented. (Carpenter/Penney) ITEM I: 1606 OREGON STREET David Vienola–applicant, Mathias A. Salzsieder-owner, requests the following variances to permit a detached garage in the transitional yard setbacks: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Transitional Yard Setback (East) 30-35(B)(1) 16’8" min. 3’ Transitional Yard Setback (South) 30-35(B)(1) 14’4” min. 3’ Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is zoned C-3 Central Commercial District and is used for commercial and residential mixed-use purposes. The principal structure is two-story and previously had a 16’x22’ detached garage which has been removed with vehicular access via a curb cut on Oregon Street and adjacent land uses characterized as commercial and residential. The applicant has relocated a 14’x22’ detached garage to the subject property without a building permit which has been placed in the same location as the structure that was removed. A correction notice was subsequently issued and setback variances are required as the proposed garage intrudes into the transitional yard setbacks. The parcel’s width and historical development pattern provide a degree of hardship and if the transitional yard setback standard is complied with, on-site access and maneuverability may be compromised. The variances would not be detrimental to adjacent properties and are recommended for approval. David Vienola, 1921 Nebraska Street, stated that he placed a garage where the existing one had been located and did not obtain the building permit prior to doing so. Mr. Cornell questioned if the garage was in the same location as the previous structure. Mr. Vienola responded affirmatively. Mr. Cornell inquired what the dotted lines on the site plan next to the proposed garage location represented. Mr. Muehrer indicated that it represented the location where the garage would have to be located to not require a variance for its placement. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 October 8, 2014 Ms. Larson asked to clarify that if the garage was relocated to the dotted line location, it would not need a variance. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively but stated that access would be questionable if located in this area particularly if it was a trailered vehicle as maneuvering it to this location would be difficult particularly since this site is a mixed-use commercial structure on a very narrow lot. Ms. Larson questioned if access was located on the south side of the structure and the nature of the use on the site. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively and stated that it was a mixed-use of residential and commercial nature. Mr. Vienola added that the residential use was for tenants. Mr. Krasniewski commented that the correction notice was issued in May of 2013 and the variance application was first submitted at this time and questioned why there was a 16 month delay in applying for the variance request. Mr. Vienola responded that he forgot about it and it was 100% his fault for not addressing this sooner. Mr. Krasniewski commented that the garage placed in this location was a different size than the structure that was located there before. Mr. Vienola indicated that he placed a slab for the garage over the existing slab that was already in place. Mr. Krasniewski stated that the current garage is 14’x22’ and the previous structure was 16’x22’. Mr. Vienola reiterated that he poured a new slab over the top of the existing slab. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if a building permit was required for the new slab. Mr. Muehrer replied that a permit was required but it was included with the building permit for the garage. Mr. Krasniewski commented that a contractor should know that a building permit was necessary. Mr. Vienola indicated that he obtained the garage structure from one of the building inspectors and moved it to this site. He was reconsidering if he wanted it to remain there as its condition was not as good as he anticipated but changed his mind and left it in place and things just got too chaotic and he forgot to obtain the building permit and subsequently received a correction notice. Mr. Cornell inquired if the variances for the placement of the garage were denied, whose responsibility would the expense of moving it be. Mr. Vienola responded that it would be at his expense. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the slab would also have to be removed as well if the variances were not granted. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 October 8, 2014 Mr. Carpenter stated that with the removal of the slab and structure the tenants would no longer have any garage. Mr. Vienola indicated that if the garage has to be removed, he would not be replacing the structure. Motion by Penney to approve the request for variances to permit a detached garage in the transitional yard setback. Seconded by Carpenter. Mr. Penney agreed with Mr. Krasniewski regarding the failure to obtain a building permit prior to completing the work however the Board has to consider if the variances would have been granted if they were applied for in advance. Mr. Carpenter agreed as well and commented that he would rather see a garage on site than vehicles and debris left outside. Mr. Krasniewski questioned what the penalty was for not obtaining the building permit in advance. Mr. Muehrer responded that the permit fees double if the work has already been completed. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: Unique situation with lot size. No harm to public interest. Smaller garage improves setback from previous garage. 30 foot lot is hardship. ITEM II: 2601 HUGHES STREET Orde Signs-applicant, Winnebago County Airport-owner, requests the following setback variance to permit a new commercial identification sign in the required setback: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Front Yard Setback 30-30(B)(1) 30’ minimum 5’ 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 used for government/airport related purposes. The property possesses a driveway, fenced access gate and paved internal roadways serving the airport campus hangars and is predominately government/airport and industrial uses. The applicant is proposing to remove an existing ground mount identification sign and replace it with a double-sided sign south of the existing driveway which will intrude 25’ into the front yard setback and is needed for way finding purposes. The request is reasonable given the abnormal width of the adjacent right-of-way and proximity to the airport campus area and to place it outside of the setback area would make the proposed sign difficult to read from Hughes Street. The proposed sign would be place outside the vision triangle area and the location appears to be the safest and most practical alternative and the variance is recommended for approval. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 October 8, 2014 Peter Moll, 525 W. 20th Avenue, representing Wittman Airport, stated that the airport wants to remove the existing sign that is not illuminated with one that is illuminated and requested the variance due to a change in the right-of-way by the Winnebago County zoning office. The airport desires to relocate the sign to make it more visible which would be beneficial with better visibility and security. Ms. Larson questioned if the right-of-way was miss marked. Mr. Moll responded that the right-of-way standard was 60 feet for the road and he was not sure why it changed and it may have been an error on the Winnebago County zoning map. Ms. Larson inquired if the street was not located in the middle of the right-of-way. Mr. Moll responded that it was possible. Ms. Larson then inquired what the traffic count was in this location. Mr. Moll replied that he was not sure but they have 60 hangers rented for both private and commercial use and there was a significant amount of traffic with both the airport use and Oshkosh Corporation use and the deliveries made to their site as well. Ms. Larson questioned if most of the traffic was related to the airport use. Mr. Moll responded that a lot of the traffic was more related to the Oshkosh Corporation facility. Mr. Cornell stated that the request indicates the sign would be internally illuminated and questioned if it would be sensored to be on in darkness only. Mr. Moll responded affirmatively. Ms. Larson inquired if the proposed sign would have any flashing lights or reader board included. Mr. Moll responded negatively. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit a new commercial identification sign in the required front yard setback. Seconded by Carpenter. Ms. Larson questioned if there was any principal structure on the lot. Mr. Muehrer indicated that this was the driveway entrance leading to the internal roads of the airport facilities and the fencing and sign is the only structures nearby as this primarily is the perimeter road. Mr. Krasniewski inquired as to the location of the Aviation Industrial Park compared to this location. Mr. Muehrer responded that the industrial park was south of W. Waukau Avenue, in the Medalist Drive and W. 33rd Avenue area. Oshkosh Corporation was the only other property owner in this general vicinity. Motion carried 5-0. Board of Appeals Minutes 5 October 8, 2014 Finding of Facts: Mapped right-of-way creates hardship for setbacks. Primarily used for vehicles associated with business use of property and signage needs to be clearly placed. No harm to public interest. ITEM III: 2225 MINNESOTA STREET SDE Consultants–applicant, Oshkosh Corporation-owner, requests the following variances to permit an off- street parking facility in the required setbacks: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Front Yard Setback (South) 30-30(B)(1) 30’ minimum 5’ Front Yard Setback (West) 30-30(B)(1) 30’ minimum 5’ Side Yard Setback (North) 30-30(B)(2) 20’ minimum 5’ 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 used for manufacturing purposes. The lot possesses triple frontage on three different streets with a principal structure serving as a light manufacturing facility with the general area characterized as mixed commercial-industrial in nature. The applicant is proposing to improve the existing non-conforming gravel off-street parking lot with access via a curb cut on W. 23rd Avenue to prevent gravel from being tracked in the streets and storm sewer. The property’s nonconforming width and size are creating justifiable hardships and the proposed setbacks would allow for practical implementation of the parking lot while creating sufficient separation from adjacent properties. No vision clearance issues are anticipated and the variances are recommended for approval as the overall improvements will benefit the immediate area and public interest. Chris Murawski, 5921 Harbor South Drive, Winneconne, stated that Oshkosh Corporation is looking to pave the existing gravel parking lot as the gravel is getting dragged into the street and creating debris issues. The company wishes to put in a hard surface that will improve drainage and extend the lateral with a sump on site to drain to the middle of the parcel instead of on to the sidewalk. He further explained that there is lighting on the north edge and they would like to move the light pole to the north so it will not be located in the parking lot. This was not included in the original variance submittal. Mr. Muehrer stated that this situation has occurred in the past and it could be addressed by adding it as an additional condition. Mr. Krasniewski requested more information about the light as to where it was proposed to be located and what it would consist of. Mr. Murawski indicated that it would be on the north edge of the lot right on the edge of the pavement and would be two feet in diameter with a 90 degree cut off fixture. The light would not shine over the property line and would be 18 feet in height and would meet the City’s lighting standards. The existing structure is 17 feet and they would be adding new lighting fixtures to the building and there would also be a light pole on the south side of the parcel. He apologized for not including it in the original submittal but the issue did not come up until after the application had been completed. The project would be an improvement to public safety and would resolve a maintenance issue with the gravel surface. Ms. Larson questioned what the required number of parking spaces was for the lot. Board of Appeals Minutes 6 October 8, 2014 Mr. Muehrer responded that it was based on the number of employees. Mr. Murawski stated that he was not aware of how many employees there were at this site. Mr. Parson inquired if the applicant was requesting M-2 setbacks on an M-3 zoned property. Mr. Murawski indicated that it would reflect more of the M-2 setback standards but the employees currently park up to the back of the walk and reconstructing the lot would provide for a more controlled parking area. Mr. Muehrer added that the parking is very stacked at this location and the road was just paved last year and Oshkosh Corporation is attempting to make improvements to the site. Mr. Cornell questioned if the lot to the north was residential. Mr. Muehrer replied that there was an auto service facility and a vacant manufacturing site to the north and the parking lot was required to have a minimum amount of lighting but cannot impede over the property lines. Mr. Cornell inquired if the reconstruction of the lot would increase the amount of parking on the site. Mr. Murawski responded that it would decrease the amount of parking stalls. Mr. Muehrer added that the lot in its current condition has volume but not functionality and this reconstruction would correct these issues. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the proposed new surface would be black top. Mr. Murawski responded affirmatively and stated that they would also be adding curb cuts to the site. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if they were moving anything involving the power poles. Mr. Murawski responded negatively. Motion by Penney to approve the request for variances to permit an off-street parking facility in the required front and side yard setbacks. Seconded by Carpenter. Ms. Larson stated that she would like to see the area look better that it currently does. Mr. Krasniewski commented that the street looks better since it was reconstructed and the parking lot improvements would be even more beneficial to that area. Motion by Larson to amend the original motion to include the light on the north property line be allowed with a substandard setback with the approval of the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Krasniewski. Motion carried 5-0. Board of Appeals Minutes 7 October 8, 2014 Finding of Facts: Improvement all the way around with gravel and parking situation. No harm to public interest. Variance required because lot’s substandard size and not large enough to accommodate. IV: 1222 W. SOUTH PARK AVENUE Aaron Johnson-applicant, OPT Properties LLC-owner, requests the following variances to permit a new commercial identification sign in the required setback and residential zoning district: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Front Yard Setback 30-17(B)(3)(c) 25’ minimum 13’ Commercial ID Sign Height 30-37(F)(1)(a) N/A 6’ high Commercial ID Sign Area 30-37(F)(1)(a) N/A 72 sq. ft. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is split- zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District and M-3 General Industrial District and is used for manufacturing purposes. Vehicular access to the property occurs via a 23’wide drive aisle on W. South Park Avenue with the general area characterized as a residential neighborhood with commercial development. The petitioner is proposing to remove an existing non-conforming ground mount commercial sign and install a new sign on the west side of the existing access drive relocated to reduce vision clearance issues. Variances are required as the new sign will intrude into the front yard setback and is located in an R-1 district which does not allow signage by-right. The parcel’s configuration and split-zoning are unique circumstances creating justifiable hardships and the access drive is obscured by landscaping and meanders 200’ before reaching the facilities. Safety hazards are created without an identification sign viewable from the street and no harm to the public interest should occur as the proposed sign is clear of the driveway vision triangle clearance area. To ensure no detrimental impact occurs to adjacent properties, it is recommended the sign not be internally illuminated and the variances are recommended for approval with conditions. Aaron Johnson, 918 E. New York Avenue stated that Oshkosh Plating owns the property which has been at this location for 35 years and that there was a change in ownership in 2013. He explained that the sign has been somewhat of an issue as it is hard to see the sidewalk when exiting the lot and there had been an issue with a bicyclist being struck by a vehicle recently. There were no injuries due to the incident but the City had requested that the owner move the sign to a different location to improve visibility. He further explained that with the split zoning on the site of M-3 General Industrial District and R-1 Single Family Residence District it was creating a justifiable hardship and that the applicant does not have any plans to illuminate the sign. Ms. Larson inquired if the under sign clearance would not be an issue in this case due to its placement. Mr. Muehrer responded that the sign would be out of the vision triangle. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the applicant had a rendering of the proposed sign for the Board to review. Mr. Johnson responded that the sign would be the same they are just moving the location. He further stated that the new sign would be “V”-shaped so it would essentially be like two signs. Mr. Parson suggested the use of a sign depicting a truck entrance that would serve as a caution or slow down warning could be added to the proposed sign to avoid any future incidents. Board of Appeals Minutes 8 October 8, 2014 Mr. Johnson indicated that some type of feature could be added to the completed sign if the variance was approved and gave further details on the incident with the bicyclist. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if the sign that was on the site currently was a nonconforming sign. Mr. Muehrer replied that it was in the vision triangle and within the setback however he had not checked to see if the sign had a building permit but it has been at this location for a long time to his knowledge. From a nonconforming standpoint, the sign was in a bad location. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the property was zoned as R-1. Mr. Muehrer explained that where the sign was located was an R-1 zoning classification however where the business’s structure was located was zoned M-3. He reviewed a map of the parcel depicting the areas that were R-1 and M-3 and explained the lot’s unique configuration. Mr. Parsons inquired if his future plans could include a stop or yield sign by the driveway access to improve safety. Mr. Johnson responded that they could put one up and that if the variance was granted, the sign would be erected in the next week and a yield sign could be placed there at the same time. Mr. Krasniewski stated that he would support the variance to relocate the sign with the exception that the sign should not be illuminated at any time either externally or internally. He did not feel any lighting for the sign was necessary and since the Board did not have any rendering of the proposed sign and although the applicant stated that the sign was not going to be illuminated, he wanted to ensure that this does not change after the variance is granted. Ms. Larson agreed that illuminating the sign was not appropriate as so much of this area is residential and in close proximity to the sign’s location. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the business was open during the evening hours. Ms. Larson stated that if it was, it should have been brought up at some time during the hearing. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for variances to permit a new commercial identification sign in the required front yard setback and in a residential zoning district with the following revised conditions: 1. Sign shall not be illuminated at any time. Seconded by Larson. Mr. Carpenter stated that he had concerns about the owner illuminating the sign and he does not know if this is necessary depending on the hours of operation. Mr. Muehrer responded that if the owner decided he wanted to internally illuminate the sign at a later date, they could come back to the Board and request an amendment to the variance. The visibility was the main issue and it was not ideal to have an illuminated sign adjacent to residential homes. Board of Appeals Minutes 9 October 8, 2014 Ms. Larson commented that she felt the sign was evident without illumination. Motion carried 5-0. Findings of Fact: Improvement for safety matters. Required setbacks of residential district would not serve by location of business. Two signs will improve identification of driveway. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Cornell questioned if a quorum was obtained for the Board to hold a special meeting on October 22nd. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively. Mr. Krasniewski requested to have a discussion regarding the Old Dominion development at 1880 Stillman Drive who received a variance for their fencing some time ago and did not appear to meet the other requirements that were part of the conditions of approval. Mr. Muehrer indicated that he would be meeting with the manager of Old Dominion on site next week to discuss the matter and the manager had stated that the necessary improvements that were required had been completed. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. (Larson/Krasniewski). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator