Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 August 13, 2014 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES August 13, 2014 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 9, 2014 were approved as presented. (Penney/Krasniewski) ITEM I: 2436 HICKORY LANE Description Code Reference Required Proposed Accessory Structure location 30-1(A)(2) Rear or Side Yard Front 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 used for single family residential purposes. The principal structure is a single-story plus home with a detached garage that fronts and is accessed via a curb cut on Hickory Lane and the general area is comprised of low-density residential uses. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 16’x20’ detached garage and replace it in the same location however a variance is necessary as the zoning ordinance requires all accessory structures to be located in the rear or side yard. The lot configuration and historical development pattern of the parcel are creating justifiable hardships as the lot possesses a substandard width and overall area and was developed in the Town of Oshkosh and annexed in 1999. The lot is traditional “lake front-style” development with the dwelling unit setback closer to the waterfront and the accessory structure closer to the street frontage. The proposed location is consistent with the remaining portion of the neighborhood and no harm to the public interest will occur by granting the variance. Jim Erdman, D&J Quality Construction, 2415 Hickory Lane, stated that he also is an adjacent property owner to the subject site as his residence is located at 2431 Hickory Lane. He further stated that there are not a lot of other options for placement of a garage on these lots and he brought the building plans for the proposed garage for review if the Board felt it was necessary. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the 2 ½ foot setback would trigger the requirement for the fire-proof dry wall. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively and stated that would be addressed by the building code when the permit is obtained. Mr. Cornell commented about the “Lakeshore Overlay” district that was referred to in the staff report and was being implemented in other parts of the city and questioned why this standard was not applied to this particular area. Mr. Muehrer replied that this overlay has been implemented in the southern portion of the city and this area is targeted to further expand the overlay district in the future. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 August 13, 2014 Ms. Larson commented that there is no other location for placement of the proposed garage and with the overall development of the area, there is not any other options. Mr. Penney questioned how long the property owner has lived at this residence. Mr. Erdman responded that he has lived there for many years. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit a detached garage in the front yard. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Carpenter commented that he felt it was a unique situation as with the other houses in this area that have frontage on the lake, all the garages are located by the street. Mr. Erdman inquired about what they need to obtain from the Planning office to get the necessary building permit issued. Mr. Muehrer indicated that staff would be notified that the variance has been granted prior to the close of business today so the permit could be obtained as soon as tomorrow morning. Finding of Facts: Unique situation. No harm to public interest. Limited traffic. Uniqueness of lot. ITEM II: 1687 OHIO STREET Description Code Reference Required Proposed Transitional Yard Setback (north) 30-35(B)(1)(c) 19’2” 3’ Rear Yard Setback (west) 30-25(B)(3)(b)(i) 25’ 5’ 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 used for commercial and residential purposes. The property possesses a single-story structure with vehicular access via one curb cut on Ohio Street and one on W. 17th Avenue with an existing detached garage located northwest of the principal structure. The general area is a mix of commercial and low-density residential uses. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 360 sq. ft. detached garage and replace it with an 800 sq. ft. detached garage with setback variances required along the north and west lot lines. The existing residential use is “grandfathered” for this property because current ordinance standards do not permit this use in the C-2 district by-right and any new accessory structure on the property will be regulated as commercial. The increased commercial setbacks are intended to protect the surrounding residential land uses from the impacts commercial structures generally provide and although the initial intent may be to use the proposed garage for residential purposes, nothing would prevent the current or future owners from using the building for commercial purposes once the variances are granted. Due to increased noise associated with commercial use of a structure, the impact to surrounding Board of Appeals Minutes 3 August 13, 2014 properties would be exacerbated if setback variances were granted to allow the accessory structure closer to the property lines as proposed. The petitioner has the available rear yard area to construct the detached garage without any variance being required other than the applicant’s personal preference. The variance requests run contrary to the purpose of the zoning restrictions and would be detrimental to adjacent properties if granted and staff recommends denial of the variances as requested. Nathan Mueller, 1687 Ohio Street, stated that they live there and use the property mainly for residential purposes; however, the southern portion of the structure is used for commercial use as a photography studio by his wife. The buildings are not attached and the primary use is for their residence. He discussed the neighboring properties which have different uses with commercial uses on the corner lots and residential uses surrounding it. Their proposed garage would be consistent with other residential garages in the neighborhood and the existing garage structure is in disrepair and would be used for residential purposes. Other residential garages in the neighborhood are in the same location as their proposed plans and he felt the neighbors would prefer it in the corner of the lot as proposed. They would lose a substantial amount of green space in their yard to place the garage where it would be allowed by code requirements and although there is adequate room for the garage in this location, utilizing it would be difficult. He discussed issues he felt would occur with maneuvering to the garage if placed in a code compliant location and the two driveway accesses on the site on Ohio Street and W. 17th Avenue. He felt that using either driveway accesses would not be ideal with the placement of the garage in the location that would not require a variance and did not desire to place the drive access on W. 17th Avenue as the other driveway access on Ohio Street would then have to be removed. He further stated that commercial use of the property was not their plan and that they intended to live there as the family’s primary residence for a long time. He also discussed the feasibility of using the site as a commercial property which in his opinion was not likely. Ms. Larson questioned if the property could have the zoning classification changed to residential. Mr. Muehrer indicated that he had discussed several different options with Loren Rangeloff and Mr. Rangeloff desired to pursue the avenue of applying for the variance first. He discussed some of the other options presented to the property owner such as a zone change or applying for an adaptive reuse of the property. Both scenarios would have to go before the Plan Commission and Common Council for approval. Mr. Penney inquired if the property was assessed as one or two properties. Mr. Muehrer responded that the subject site is assessed as a single property. Ms. Larson questioned if the photography studio could be considered a residential home occupation use. Mr. Muehrer replied affirmatively and stated that this situation can be seen in other areas of the city; however, it is a separate process for other applications that would require approval. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if other areas of the neighborhood are zoned R-2 Two Family Residence District. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively and stated that the C-2 zoning classification was located on the corners of this intersection and to the south and east of the subject site. Mr. Penney questioned how far the existing structure was located from the north lot line. Mr. Mueller responded about two feet. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 August 13, 2014 Mr. Penney then questioned how far the proposed garage structure would be from the lot line. Loren Rangeloff, 3020 Oregon Street, responded that the new garage would be approximately three feet from the lot line. Mr. Penney commented that it did not appear that there would be much more infringement on the lot to the north than currently exists. Mr. Mueller stated that there was one neighbor who provided a statement objecting to this variance request. However, there were other neighbors who were in favor of the request and distributed copies of a signed petition from other property owners in the vicinity. Mr. Cornell questioned if Mr. Mueller was the party who circulated the petition. Mr. Mueller responded that his wife did. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the property owner operated the photography studio and if it had particular hours of operation or employees. Mr. Mueller responded that his wife operated the studio and it did not have specific hours of operation but was by appointment only and there were no employees. He further stated that the neighbor who submitted the objection to the variance quoted that the garage would be 5” from the lot line not 5’. Mr. Carpenter commented that it was most likely a typographical error. Mr. Cornell stated that he understood the concept of the request; however, he questioned why the owner could not build the garage where it would be allowed by code standards. Mr. Mueller replied that it would take up a large portion of their yard in this location and that the driveway access was also an issue. He felt to place the garage facing W. 17th Avenue would require them to reconstruct the driveway access to it and it would be an eyesore in the middle of the yard and to place it where they are requesting it was a lot more feasible. Board discussion ensued on the possibility of rezoning the property to a residential designation and the ramifications of such and if the property could be turned into a rental unit which was determined it could potentially be done. Mr. Penney commented that it appeared that the proposed new garage structure was being located further back than the existing structure and questioned why it could not be placed in the same location to lessen the amount of the variance setback request. Mr. Mueller responded that the corner of the house would be in the way of accessing the left side of the garage and by placing it further back on the lot it would provide more area to access the garage. Mr. Rangeloff added that he looked at the property and it is in need of a new garage and he felt that the C-2 zoning designation was not appropriate. The current zoning would allow them to build a 1200 sq. ft. garage in the center of the lot and the residential setbacks would not apply if the zoning designation was changed to C-1 Neighborhood Business District. He further commented that to rezone the property would take too long and the structure if placed in a code compliant location would take up most of the property’s green space. Board of Appeals Minutes 5 August 13, 2014 He did not think that the number of feet from the lot line should make that much of a difference in the location of the proposed garage. Discussion ensued regarding the process of changing the zoning designation on the property and what the Board had the ability to approve regarding this variance request. Ms. Larson questioned if the variance could be approved with conditions limiting the usage of the garage for residential purposes only. Mr. Muehrer indicated that he could look into the possibilities of approving a use variance; however, this would create an enforcement issue and he did not recommend it. Mr. Penney again questioned if the garage could be moved to the east somewhat to decrease the setback variance requested. Mr. Rangeloff responded that it would be pushing the limits to move it further off the west lot line and he felt that the neighbor’s house appears to be encroaching on the subject site’s property line. It could be moved further east but it would be functionally difficult and the garage door faces the other side of the house on W. 17th Avenue who submitted the letter of objection. Ms. Larson suggested the possibility of constructing a smaller garage which would provide for an increase in the setbacks from the lot line. Mr. Rangeloff responded that to demolish the existing structure would still require a variance to place it in the proposed location. Ms. Larson commented that a 24x24 size structure would decrease the setback variance requested. Mr. Rangeloff indicated that to the north of the proposed location was an existing garage and driveway so he did not see any reason to decrease the size of the proposed structure to decrease the setback variance. Mr. Carpenter stated that there were too many alternatives in this case and questioned if the appropriate thing to do would be to lay the item over until the next meeting to see if a compromise could be reached with the property owner. Mr. Krasniewski commented that the property is currently zoned C-2 and if the garage was allowed to be constructed on the site it has the potential to be used as a commercial structure and that a zone change to the property was the best option rather than granting a variance. Mr. Penney suggested that the garage structure could be placed further south of its proposed location and the driveway access could be off of W. 17th Avenue and the other drive access on Ohio Street could be removed and restored to green space. Mr. Rangeloff reiterated that the code would allow them to construct a 1200 sq. ft. garage in the middle of the yard and discussed the value to the neighborhood of not having it in that location. Motion by Penney to approve the request for variances to permit an accessory commercial structure in the required transitional and rear yard setbacks. Seconded by Krasniewski. Board of Appeals Minutes 6 August 13, 2014 Mr. Penney stated that he agrees with Mr. Carpenter in that there are too many variables to consider in this case and that the Board was looking for a way to help find a solution for the property owner; however, their attitude appears to be fixated on their original proposal. Ms. Larson commented that she understood what the petitioner wanted to do; however, this was not the appropriate purview to grant a variance. Mr. Krasniewski stated that it is a C-2 commercially zoned property and yet the owners want to be treated as though it had a residential zoning designation and you can’t have it both ways. Depending on how the property owner decides to proceed, it may change the value of the property. Mr. Carpenter commented that it appeared that the only alternative would be to vote on the variance as presented and the property owner could bring the request back at a later date with an alternate solution if the variance is not approved. Mr. Cornell discussed the various alternatives already presented as far as alternate locations for the structure, decreasing the size of it or applying conditions to the approval of the variance and concluded that the issue is about the variances requested and the zoning code standards and if the property should have a zoning designation of C-2 or R-2. The Board has to follow the City and State requirements that are applicable with the property’s current zoning classification and there are other options the property owner can pursue if the variance is not granted. Mr. Muehrer reiterated the various options the owner would have such as leaving the zoning classification as is and maintaining the existing garage structure, petition to have the zoning designation changed from commercial to residential and establishing a home occupation for the photography studio, or drop the residential use and go to a full commercial use on the site, or apply for an adaptive reuse of the property. He further explained that all these options have already been presented to the petitioner and they were aware that any modifications to the site would require adhering to the current code standards. He also discussed the possibility of down zoning the property from C-2 General Commercial District to C-1 Neighborhood Business District; however, this option would still require the owner to maintain certain transitional yard setbacks. He further discussed the options available and the process of approval that would have to be pursued. Motion denied 5-0. Finding of Facts: No hardship to property. Other options available. Unique situation with zoning classification. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. (Penney/Krasniewski). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator