HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 October 9, 2013 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES October 9, 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 August 14, 2013 were approved as pre sented. (Penney/Krasniewski) ITEM I: 440 W. SOUTH PARK AVENUE Lorenz L. Rangeloff-applicant/owner, requests the f ollowing variance to permit a detached garage in th e front yard: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Accessory Structure Location 30-1(A) Rear or Side yard Front yard Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed phot os of the subject site. He stated that the propert y is zoned R-2 Two Family Residence District and is bein g used for institutional purposes. The existing principal structure was built in 1896 and has an op en off-street parking lot north of the structure fr onting W. 12 th Avenue. The general area can be characterized as low density residential in nature. The applicant has placed an 18’x22’ detached garage northwest of the existing principal structure in the existing off-st reet parking lot and since the subject parcel has double -frontage, the proposed location is defined as a fr ont yard necessitating the variance request. The double-fro nted lot configuration of the parcel is creating a justifiable hardship and the proposed location will create the least impact for the surrounding neighborhood, park ing lot drive aisle circulation and stall arrangement. Cit y of Oshkosh Inspection Services has indicated the proposed location is compliant with building code requiremen ts and staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. Lorenz Rangeloff, 3020 Oregon Street, stated the ch urch was in need of an outside storage facility and he was proposing to place the structure in the corner of the parking lot behind the church. Mr. Cornell questioned if the structure was already built. Mr. Rangeloff responded that the garage was donated to the church and already moved onto the site as t he party donating the structure needed it moved from h is property immediately. He discovered that a vari ance would be necessary after it had been placed there a nd he came in to obtain the building permit. Mr. Carpenter inquired if the garage would remain i n the location that it currently existed. Mr. Rangeloff responded affirmatively.
Board of Appeals Minutes 2 October 9, 2013 Mr. Penney commented that he understood the circums tances of how the garage was located on the site without a building permit. Mr. Krasniewski questioned what the garage was curr ently sitting on. Mr. Rangeloff replied that he cannot construct the foundation for it until he is able to acquire the b uilding permit and he will place it on a proper foundation once he knows the result of the variance request. Mr. Krasniewski also questioned what Mr. Rangeloff’s relationship was with the church organization and if the garage structure would be brought up to code st andards if the variance was granted and a building permit issued. Mr. Rangeloff responded that both he and his wife w ere board members of the church and the structure would be brought up to code once the permit is issu ed. Ms. Larson inquired if the three lots had been comb ined into one parcel. Mr. Muehrer responded that they had been recently c ombined however the mapping system had not yet been updated to reflect the recent change. Ms. Larson then questioned how far back the garage would be located from the church structure. Mr. Rangeloff responded it would be approximately f ive feet. Ms. Larson inquired if this distance would meet cod e requirements. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively. Mr. Cornell inquired if the setbacks from the lot l ine on the site plan were accurate. Mr. Rangeloff responded affirmatively. Terrie Kragenbrink, 426 W. 12 th Avenue, stated she was a neighbor to the north of the church property and questioned why the variance was being requested aft er the structure had already been placed there. Sh e further stated that she does not want to see a shan ty town in the parking lot of this property and the garage does not blend well with the church structure. She understood the need for a storage facility but did not wish to see this type of property maintenance continue a s the garage structure looks like an after thought and is not enhancing to either the neighborhood or the church property. She stated that the variance should have been requested and approved prior to the structure being placed on the site and this was the second time th is year she has been notified that Mr. Rangeloff has reques ted a variance after he already completed work that should have required a building permit. Mr. Carpenter inquired how she would suggest changi ng the appearance of the garage to blend better wit h the church structure. Ms. Kragenbrink responded that the garage does not look like it belongs with the church structure and appears to look foreign to the site.
Board of Appeals Minutes 3 October 9, 2013 Mr. Carpenter commented that the alternative to hav ing no storage facility on the site would be to sto re the equipment outside which would also not enhance the property. Ms. Kragenbrink stated that she was not objecting t o the variance being granted for the garage but she does not want to see other structures placed on the site as it possesses a very large parking lot area. Ms. Larson commented that the Board is not likely t o approve the placement of any other structures on this site. Mr. Krasniewski inquired about the color of the exi sting garage. Ms. Kragenbrink responded that it is a tan color an d the church is white. Mr. Penney commented that he did not know what else could be done with the garage to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Krasniewski commented that this was the second time that this applicant has been before the Board requesting a variance without applying for a buildi ng permit first and suggested that the property own er could consider installing new siding on the garage as it may be an improvement. Ms. Kragenbrink stated that she was hoping that the site would be kept in good condition as the church was an attractive and very old structure. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the church was on the h istorical register. Mr. Muehrer responded that he believed it was howev er there were no issues with adding an accessory structure to the site. Mr. Carpenter inquired if Mr. Rangeloff would consi der painting the garage white to help it blend in w ith the church structure. Mr. Rangeloff replied that the siding was vinyl whi ch was not recommended to paint and that he would b e replacing the missing pieces of siding and the gara ge was in good condition with a new roof. Discussion ensued on the possibility of adding land scaping or planter boxes to soften the effect of th e garage and it was determined that details such as this are not required for other garage structures so it wou ld not be appropriate to require it in this circumstance. Mr. Krasniewski reiterated that the property owner should have obtained the necessary building permit prior to moving the garage structure onto the property. Motion by Penney to approve the request for a varia nce to permit a detached garage in the front yard. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: No harm to public interest. Unique situation with lot possessing two front yard s.
Board of Appeals Minutes 4 October 9, 2013 There being no further business, the meeting adjour ned at 3:53 p.m. (Penney/Krasniewski). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator