Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/3/1980 \'- BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1980 3:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Oliver LaLond, George Last, J. C. Batzner Norman Miller and Harry Luebke STAFF PRESENT: Phil Rosenquist, Associate Planner Nancy J. Pickard, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order and the roll call was taken. There was a quorum of five members present. The minutes of the meeting of November 19, 1980 were approved. I. Appeal of Roger ,Ruedinger, owner of 502 Otter Avenue, (R-4 Zone) proposes to use the second floor of the property as a second living unit. The home has been used as a duplex previously, but the use has been discontinued for more than one year. An 18' rear yard setback exists from the home, whereas a 25' rear yard setback is required. The garage has a 36' front yard setback, whereas a pO' front yard setback for the accessory building is required. Roger and Levie Ruedinger were present to answer questions. Roger Ruedinger explained that the building was built to code, but because they are seeking a building permit, the present codes must be met. The building was sold to them as a duplex and it states on the bill of sale, that it has been used as a duplex previously. The owner was placed in a nursing home and the property was not sold for over a year since it ~as vacated. Mr. LaLond asked if there would be any construction done on the exterior of the building t~at would eff~?t the existing setbacks. Mr. Ruedinger answered, "no." He stated that there is sufficient parking space for the required parking, and that they could also provide additional parking on the rear of the property off of Broad Street, if this became necessary. There is parking allowed on Broad street,which is indented to the sioewalk, and there is also a 14 x 10 garage on the property for a smaller car. He stated that they did not have any plans at this time, for expanding the garage. Mr. Rosenquist explained that the zoning ordinance requ~res 1 ~/2 p_ar:~~!lg stalls p~r family unit, in this R-4 Zone, if a multiple family apartment building were built. Howey~r, this duplex requires two parking stalls; one for each family unit~ Mr. LaLond made a motion to approve this variance request. Mr. Last seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. -1- 1-;;. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes December 3, 1980 Meeting Page Two II. Appeal of Russ Young, Inc., Agent for Luvern Kienast, owner of 232 E. Parkw_~~Ayenue" (R-~ Zone) proposes to build a duplex '"'"Oi'l'f:ni~ wJ.d~ whereas a '+ 5' wide lot is required for a duplex. Mr. Rosenquist explained that the parking is proposed to be put in the front yard, but is setback further than the 25' setback requirement. . Russ Young stated that the property is zoned R-2 Two Family Residential, so it was anticipated by the City that this lot would be used for a duplex. All of the other lots on this block are small also. He distributed a plan showing the proposed duplex. A letter was passed around and read by the Board members. It was from E. Ross Tucker, a property owner in the neighborhood, who was concerned that a new sidewalk be put in front of 232 E. Parkway to replace the previous one. However, Mr. Tucker was not objecting to the granting of this variance request. Mr. Young explained that a duplex would fit right into the neighbor- hood, since the homes on either side of this property are very large. It would be unlikely that someone would be able to build a single family home on this property, that would be as large as these older homes. Mr. Last stated that even though this parking lot in the front yard is legal, it is not very common in the City of Oshkosh. There would be room in the back for a driveway, if the building could be redesigned to accommodate parking in the rear. Mr. Young stated that he put the parking in the front yard because most tenants do not like parking in the rear yard and having to walk in the dark to the residence. It is safer to have the parking in the front yard, next to the entrance. Lloyd S. Runyon, 308 E~ Parkway, stated that he personnally did not object to this variance request. However, he felt he had a responsibility to come as a representative for Mrs. Nettie Hobbs 302 E. Parkway. Mrs. Hobbs is out of the state for a while and cannot be reached. Mr. Runyon felt she should be represented, because she has shared a joint driveway with the property at 232 E. Parkway for many years, and is dependent upon this driveway to get to her new garage on the rear of her lot. He stated that he did not know if this joint driveway were recorded in the Deeds of these two properties. " Mr. Last stated that even if it is not r~corded, it may be legally binding if she has used this driveway for 20 years. -2- ~ ..' Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes December 3, 1980 Meeting Page Three Mr. LaLond suggested that Mr. Young withdraw his variance request until he can check the Abstract of Title to see if this joint driveway is recorded. If not, perhaps he could work out some arrangement so that Mrs. Hobbs is able tpuse her garage. He also suggested that Mr. Young rearrange the design of his building, so that the parking can be placed in the rear yard, rather than in ' front. . Mr. Young stated that if this joint driveway is recorded, he would have to go along with it. He would rather not, postpone this needlessly; and requested that the Board' take action on this request at this meeting. Mr. Rosenquist pointed out that the plot plan does not show any interference with this joint driveway. The Board members could put conditions on the approval of this request, to make sure that the property owner to the east is given access to his or her garage. Mr. LaLond stated that he is against parking in the front yard. The rest of the homes in this area are well kept up and he did not feel this should be allowed in this area. Mr. Miller stated that perhaps the Board should get an opinion from the City Attorney on this front yard parking. Mr. Young stated that the City Building Inspector has interpreted this to be in compliance with the City Zoning Ordinance. A front yard of 25' is provided, before the parking starts. He stated that the whole building would hav.e to be redesigned if the parking were put in the rear yard. There is a side entrance to the bottom apartment, but the upper unit does not have an entranceway from the rear of the building. . , Luvern Kienast, owner of 232 E. Parkway, stated that he has seen the Abstract and there is no recorded easement for a joint driveway. Mr. LaLond made a motion to approve this variance request. Mr. Batzner seconded the motion. Motion was denied 4(no)-1(yes). Mr. LaLond suggested that Mr. Young put the parking in the rear yard and that he find out about the joint driveway. If it is not recorded, perhaps it has been used jointly for 20 years. III. Appeal of Jordan Jungwirth, owner of 900 W. 9th Avenue, (R-2 Zone) proposes to erect a 5' X 6' projecting sign in an R-2 District, whereas projecting signs are prohibited in the R-2 District. Mr. Rosenquist explained that this sign would be 11' above ground level and would project approximately 2 1/2' over the sidewalk. He explained that projecting signs are allowed in any of the commercial districts, except the C-4 Central Busine's's-'Dis't'rTct.--Because this property is not 'zoned commercially, this sign is not allowed. -3- , Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes December 3, 1980 Meeting Page Four Mr. Jungwirth explained that there has been a sign in this location for the past 75 years. However, the Pabst Company no longer services their signs, and so the present sign must be replaced. The Pepsi Corporation has offered to replace it with the proposed sign. Mr. LaLond asked if a smaller sign could be used, which would not project over the sidewalk. Mr. Jungwirth said he did not know if they had a smaller sign. Mr. Rosenquist explained that if the old sign had been repaired, it would have been al~owed to stay in this location. Mr. Last stated that this projecting sign is prohibited simply because it is located within an R-2Zone. Mr. Miller pointed out that there are many other similar signs in this area, however, they are not located within this R-2 District. He asked if Mr. Jungwirth could check with some of the other softdrink and beer companies to see if they would have a sign which would not project over the sidewalk. Mr. Last made a motion to approve this variance request. Mr. LaLond seconded the motion. Motion was denied 2(yes)-3(no). The meeting was adjourned at 4:36 p.m. njp ~~Ubm~tted, PHIL R~~T,~ Asso1a:;/ lanner .,..4-