HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 9/05/1984
:EPARD OF ZONING APPEAIS MfNUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 1984
PRESENT:
Elaine Cartwright, Dan Goldthwaite, Anne Hintz, Harry Luebke,
Tam King
STAFF:
Catherine Porter, Associate Planner; Darlene Matulle, Recording
Secretazy
Chairrlan King called the rreeting to order. Roll call was taken and a qoorurn
declared present. '
A mtion was made, seconded and carried UIlaIl,inpU$ly to approve the minutes
of August 1, 1984.
I. Appeal of Earl Rogge, owner of the property located a~ 937 W.
South Park Ave., proposes to construct an. c':i9d:Ltiont9 an ,
~S1:ll1g' accessory building . The property is fronted on the
north_by W. South Park Ave. and on the south by Erie Ave.
Therefore, front yard setbacks for accel;soxy buildings are
applicable and the appellant requests the following: A 53'
front yard setbackfran Erie Ave. i,s proposed; whereas accessoxy
buildings must be setback 601 from.the front lot .lin~!!,
Ms. Porter stc':ited the appellant proposes to const,r:\lct an a4dition ,i::o an. existing
garage. The area is currently occupied by a lean__'t:o On a slab, which will be
denolished. since the . property is fronted on the ,nor:t:h. by W. South Park Ave. '
and Erie Ave. on the south, and since front yard s$tba.cks for accessoxy buildings are
applicable, . a variance . is required.
Mr._Earl Rogge, 937 W. South Park Ave., indicated ,he also proposes to put in a
concre~,. driveway.
Mrs. Hintz felt the proposed addition will be an, i.,Irproverrent over the leaI'l:::t9and
no further infringenent will occur. The house al~o pre-dates the Ordinance.
M:>tion by Anne Hintz to nove approval. M::>tion seq0nde9. by Elaine Cartwright.
M::>tion approved 5-0.
Regarding the findings of fact, Mrs. Hintz felt the,~iance requested, is ~l
and reasonable. No additional green ~ace will ~. 1o.st d.'qe to. theadqi1:::ion~,n.
She felt it wou:Ld be a hardship to inpose construQttOn of anaCkiiti(m t:J:l,ctt:.'Vl2HJ..d
not fit in with the ~sting garage.
II. Appeal of WilliamWerba,agent for ~Re!gJ.ty Corp., owner of
the property located at 155 N. Sawyer Street, proposes to erect an
identification sign and requests the following: A 9' front yard
setback is proposed; whereas a 251 fJ:t)n't, yard setback is required.
Ms. Porter stated the appellant proposes to constl;Uct an identification sign and
requests a variance to the front Yard setback requirerents. If the appellant were
to COIrq;>ly with the Ordinance, visibility requ:irenents would ,force him to construct
a sign taller than the building.
"
BOARD OF ZONING APPF.ALS M1Nt1rES
SEPT.ElvmER 5; 1984 ~1EEI'ING
PAGE T'".^O
';'
Mr. William Werba, agent for Danarcar Realty Corp., stated the proposed sign
will be triangular and visible to traffic flow to the north and south. The
sign. will be 71 high, have an 8' x 8' x 10' center post, and made of treated
lumber. Mr. Werba indicated there are presently 3 areas on the building that
have signs. The proposed sign will eliminate the three existing signs.
Mrs. Hintz irquired if the sign is setback 25' fran the property line, where
w:)uld it be located?
Mr. Werba replied the sign would be in the handicap parking stall.
Mrs. Hintz inquired if the signwou1d be visible from the north if setback 25 I ?
Mr. Werba replied no because of the location of ~ building. Mr. Werba wished
to point out that at sette tin'e in the future, there may be lights below the sign
for visibility at night.
M:>tion by Elaine Cartwright to rrcve the appeal. M:>tion seconded. by Anne Hintz.
M:>tion approved 5-0.
Regarding the findings of fact, Mrs. Cartwright felt it w:)uld :be a practical
difficulty to loca.tethe sign. 25' fran the lot lin~. This solution is preferrable
to aesthetics t:hap. a taller sign. that wou1d be nec~sary for visability. Mrs.
Cartwright also felt this privilege has been granted to others.
III. APpeal of Henry Kimberly, owner of the property 10cated at 234 N.
Canpbell Road, proposes"to construct anopei faced lumber storage
area at the rear of the' property. The storage area is adjacent
to a resid.entic':il district and the following .variances are required:
(I) A 2' rear yard setback is proposed; whereas a 25' rear yard
setback is required. (2) A 2' side yard setback is proposed; whereas
a 5' side yard, setback is requiredo
Ms. Porter stated this appeal was denied at the l~t rreeting. In reviewing the
appeal, Ms. Porter fe1t a number of issues need to. be considered as indicated
in the ttem::>randum. "
Mr. Roger Siever, Manager, and Mr. Tan Kimberly appeared before the Board.
Mr. Kimberly gave a brief sumnary of the site and proposed project. He indicated
the storage area wil1 be behind the existing building and away from the road. At
this location, it will also reduce noise that may :be crea'ted to the condominium
project. Mr. Kimberly also felt this ioCF1tion wilJ. act as security for the OsPkosh
Building Center. The proposed bui1di.ng also neets 'all State of Wisconsin ~.
Mr. KiInber1y pointed out this location w:)uld also j;)enefit the cx:mmunity by allowing
for 1andscaping in the parking lot. The a1ternate' location would be in full view
of CanpbellRoad.
Mr. King inquired if there are any changes in the appeal from the previous presen-
tation?
Mr. Kimberly replied no.
OOARD OF ZONING APPEALS M!NtJ1'ES
SEPTEMBER 5, 1984 MEE1'ING
PAGE 'lliREE
Mr. Terxy Eisch, owner of the adjacent property, felt the alternate location
could be detri..naltalto the landscaping proposed for that area. Since Campbell
R:>ad is a nice ~ 'drive and having a park like' ,setting on each side of the
property, Mr. Eisch 1iid not feel the alternate location would look aesthetically
pleasing. The proposed location will act as a buffer strip and will have trees
behind it. Mr. Eisch pointed out that the trees will also provide drainage
for this area. .
Mrs. Hintz inquired if the ,storage area was proposed on the original plan?
Was Mr. Eisch aware of it?
Mr. Eisch :replied he was aware of it.
Mrs. Cartwright felt that if the prOposed storage area does not take away
or affect the residential area, there'shou1d not be a problem.
M:>tion by, Dan Goldthwaite to grant the appeal. r-btlon seconded by Ha;ny Luebke.
M:>tion approved 5-0. '
Regarding the findings of fact, Mrs. Hintz felt a 'special set of circumstances
exists since there is planned rede-velopm:mt of twp areas. As indicated, the
proposed location with the infringements ,into, the setbacks , benefits both the
residential and rnanlJfacturing areas., M:rs. Hintz did not feel the proposed loca-
tion would be a hazard to public welfare, health or safety.
IV. Appeal of Helen Schuster, agent for the V.A. Regional Office, owner
of the property located at !ll Ma~n..".,S~~t, proposes to c:onvert
an existing ,single family ~ "'to a dUplex and requests" the following:
(l) An 8' front yard setback exists; whereas a 25' front yard '
setback is required. (2) An 8' rear yard s~tbackexists; whereas a
25' rear yard setback is required. (3) 3,8'62 square feet of lot area
exists; whereas 6,000' square feet of lot, ~a is :required.
Ms. Porter stated the appellant prOposes to conveJ:'t an ~sting single family
h.<::lne to a duplex and requires variances for ~sting front anCi rear yard setbacks,
and existing lot area.' '
Ms. Helen Schuster, agent for the V.A. Regiona1 O:efice, stated she is a, :real
estate agent representing Century 21 Real Estate. She continued the V.A. has
recently claimed this property. The home, is currently a single family bane and
has been vacant for about one' year. She indicated the V.A. has listed the l1prce
and has not been able to sell it.
Mrs. Hintz felt that variance II and #2wou1d not be unusual because of "th" e loca, -
. . I .. >" "",,':'.,.,:'--",',' ,',"", "
tion in an older part of the City. However, the square footage deficiency is
enoJ:IIOUS .
Mr. Goldthwaite in;!uired if the V.A. will be co~ the bane or sorreone else?
Ms. Schuster replied a prospective buyer will be converting the bane.
Mrs. Cartwright felt the property in question is t!n5uited for Cl duplex. She could
see no hardship to the property.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEAIS mNUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 1984 MEETING
PAGE FOUR
Ms. Marie Albright, 23l~itt Avenue, stated she' has no carplaints as long
as she could put up a fence on her property. HoWever, she did feel there is
not enough room for two families OIl this property.
A telephone call was received from Mr. Richard Wilkins, who owns the property
located at 227 M:J:i'itt Avenue, indicating he objected to the conversion because
he did not feel there is a.dequate roan on the lot.
Mr. King stated that in all likelihood, visitors w:)uld not have room to park on
the street. They would have to parking in the "Y" parking lot or any of the
other adjacent parking lots.
:r-t>tion by Anne Hintz torrove the appeal.M:>tion seconded by Elaine Cartwright.
M:>tion lost 0-5.
Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. Goldthwaite fe1t there is too big a
discrepency between what exists and what is required for a dupl~.
Mrs. Hintz felt that no hardship has been shown~
V. Appeal 9:f Jielen pc:hlJstex"' agent for [Pnna Zetek, owner of the. prOperty .
located<itll7 E. -New yOrk Avenue, prOposes' to convert an existing . .
single family hone to a dup1ex and requests. the following: .....5,466 square
feet of lot area exists; whereas 6,000 square feet of 'lot area is
required.
Ms. Porter stated the appel1ant proposes to converl: an existing single family
hone to a dq;>1ex and requests a variance 'for existing lot area.
Ms. Helen Schuster, agent for Donna Zetek, stated Ms..Zetek ProJ?05eS to sell the
property and if the variance is obtained, the property could be sold easier.
Mr . King inquired of Ms. Schuster what ha,rdship exists?
Ms. Schuster stated she is tJ;ying to sell the property for Ms. Zetek. There are
also a number of duplexes in the area.
Mr. King inquired if the property is unsuited for .~,i.ngle family usage'?
Ms. Schuster replied the property is : not unsuited ;for single family usage but
felt it w:)uld sell nore readily if a duplex. She indicated a P:tt>SPective buyer
w:)uld like to convert the property to a duplex.
Mrs. Hintz irquired how old the house is?
Ms. Schuster replied nore than 50 years old.
Mr. Luebke inquired if there are any additions othE:r than the proposed stai.:tway
indicated on the plot plan?
Ms. Schuster replied no.
Mrs. Cartwright inquired if there is any reason why the property cannot continue
as a single family hone?
BOARD OF ZONING APPElU,S MrNtJI'ES
SEPTEMBER 5, 1984 MEEmNG
PAGE FIVE
Ms. Schuster replied the offer to buy is contingent upon conversion of the
property, otherwise it will go back on the market.
Mrs. Hintz felt the property in question is larger than new single family
hoInes constructed today.
Mr. Janes Hanoke, representing Mr. Luvern Wheeler who owns property on E. New
York Avenue, stated this area, is single family residential and Mr. Wheeler is
concerned al:out, seeing the area shift to duplexes. Mr. Mmske did not believe
there are :many duplexes presently in this area. ae reiterated that tnea1;"ea in
question is mainly single 'fa:mily'arid should remain as such. Oshkosh contains
many large older hones. Mr. Manske stated he w:)u1d not like to see them all
converted just because they are older and large hones.
Mr. Joe Wiatrowski, owner of the property at 1135-l139 Mt. Vernon, felt the
property in question should ranain as a single farrlily hone.
M:>tion by nan' Goldthwaite to npve the appeal. M:>tion'seconded by Anne ,Hintz.
M:>tion lost 2-3.
Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. Goldthwaite, stated he voted against the
appeal because he fai1ed to see ,a hardship.
Mrs. Cartwright stc':ited she agrees with ,1.tI::' . Go1dt:hwaite .
Mr. King, who also voted against the, appeal, felt only an econanic harQ.ship has
been denonstrated. In order for the, variance to qe granted, the hardship must
be particular to the land.
Mr. Luebke stated he voted in favor of the appeal because aIr:! one who wants '
to inVest today, looks for two fami1y ho.nes. This is an R-2 zone with other
two farnily horres in the area. All setbacks ar.~,,~t. except for existing square
footage. Mr. Luebke did not see any reason why the Eoard denied the variance.
Mrs. Hintz, who voted in favor of the appeal, stated the majority of dup1exes
do not rreet the Ordinance. The deviation. il; SO ,small, Mrs. Hintz did not feel
it w:)uld be a problem.
VI. Appeal of Michael M:rkes, ,owner of the property located at 614 E.
Parkway Avenue, proposes to convert a portion of an existing porch
to a bathroom and requests the following: (l) A 7 1/2' front yard
setback exists; whereas a 25' front yard setback is required. (2)
A 6' rear yard setback exists; whereas a ,4~ t rear yard setback is
required. '
Ms. Porter stated the appellant proposes to convert ,a., portion of an existing porch
into a bathroom and requests variances to existing fron't and rear yard setbacks.
This is an existing hare in a C-l district which is adjacent to a residential
district. '
Mr. Michael Merkes, 614 E. Parkway Avenue; stated the existing bathroom is quite
small and rrcre room is needed. Be indicated thel}ouse is about 50 years old.
Mr. King inquired if any exterior changes are needed?
OOARD OP' ZONING APPEALS mNtJrFS
sEPTEMBER 5, 1984 MEETING
PAGE SIX
Mr. Merkes replied no.
Mrs. Hintz felt ~ structural i.,IrproveneIlts ~uld . require a variance.
M:>tion by Dan Goldthwaite to nove the appeal.: M)tion seconded by Elaine
Cartwright. I-btion approved 5-0. .
Regarding the findings of fact, Mrs.. Hin~. f~lt .;;i hardship would be' inposed
if no .inprovem:mts weJ:'e permitted. The appellant has indicated there will be
no exteri.ox:- changes ,<:miy intex:-ior. No special privileges have been granted
that others do not enjoy.
Mr. King felt a hardship has been shown because the house pre-dates the Ordinance.
. VII. Appeal of Bob S1ater, agent for Tan Sawicki, owner of the vacant
cor.ner lot located at thenort:heastco:rner of cenb:alSt. and w.
Melvin .Ave., proposes' to construct a single! family dwelling on a
vacant comer lot and requests the following: (1) A 24' front
yard setback is proposed; whereas a 25' front yard setback is required.
Ms . Porter stated the appellant proposes to construct a single family hone. on
a vacant <x>rner lot qnd requests a variance to th~ front yard setback requirerent.
She continued that since the lot.is a lot. of .:r:eco:rd at th~ tine . the. .~
was adopted, the only variance required 'Is for a front yard setback. .'
Mr. Bob Slater, agent for Tan Sawicki, appeared before the l36ard.
Mrs. Cartwright inquired why the harce cou1d not ~ setbac:k l' rrcre and rreet
the front yard setback requ.i.rerent?
Mr. Slater inQi.catedbewoul.d not, l:ll?h~..ab~~.to rceet!~. :r~ yard setback require-
nent. He contin~ed tlw.t:, h~ .~ prefers the proposed location.
Mr. King inquired about constructing the hone l' sn:cl.ler.
Mr. Slater stated he has spoken with contract:orsand ready made hares are avail....
able that are 24' x 481. He continued it is easier to work with materials that
are available. A1so, theinside.,di.m::msi~ .will tJeeas:ter .wt1:;!1 the proposed size.
Mrs. Hintz .felt it is sc:nrewhat'.qf .g, .hcgdship to force the appellant to construct
a hone snaller than what:, is; proposed.
Mr. Slater pointed out the attached garage will be 24' x 24 I. The attached garage
is preferred because of cost factors.
Ms. Porter pointed out that an a~so:ry bui1din9 would be an alternative, but
it wou1d cause clutter on the, lot. .
Mr. Paul Ehrfurth,Planning Director, stated that. accessoxy buildings would have
to adhere to principal. .building setbacks. In thil; case, an accesso:ry building
wou1d create .nore problems.. .and x:-equire nore variances.
MJtion by Dan Goldthwaite....to. Itl?ve..the appeaJ.. M:>tion seconded by Anne Hintz.
M:>tion approved 5-0.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEAIS .MJ:N{]r.ES
SEPTEMBER 5, 1984 MEm'ING
PAGE SEVEN
Regarding the findings of fact, Mrs. Cartwright felt, the variance requested is
very small and the proposed setback will, ~" greater than the adjacent harre..
As pointed out, other options are not viable for this'lot. Ms. cartwright
did not feel this would be a detriIrent to the health, safety and welfare of
the neighborhood. Also, the width of the lot presents a hardship.
VIII. & IX. Appeal of Russ Young, agent for Janes Ban:y, owner of the
properties located at 1355 M:>reland' Street and 1375 MJreland
Street, proposes to oonstruct accessoxy buildings and requests
the following variance: An ll' rear yard setback ,is proposed
on each property; whereas a 25' rear yard setback is required.
Mr. King inquired of the Board if there was any objection to taking up appeal
41:8 and i9 together? It was the consensus of the I;k>ard to bE;cu;,the twQ", appeals
together .
Mr. Russ YOtnlg, agent for James Barry, stated he has constructed garages and
4-m.i.t apart::Irents on the adjacent lots. He indicated he w:)u1d like 'to "'align
the two proposed garages with the existing ones on the adjacent lots. He felt
the intent of the Ordinance is to proteCt the rear yard' of adjacent lots, but
in this case, the new Shapko store is to the rear o;f tl1e properties in question.
He indicated it would be a waste of area and land to neet the .Ordi.nance and
less green space \\Ou1d be available. Mr. Young distributed pictures of the
adjacent lots indicating the garages. (Said pictUres were not ma.de part of
these minutes.) ,
M:>ti<:m by Anne Hintz to nove appeal i8 and i9. MJtion Seconded by Harry Luebke.
M:>tion approved 5-0.
Regarding the findings of fact, Mrs. Hintz felt a special set of circumstances
exists because of the Copp' s and ShoPkO stOres at, the rear of the properties
in question. Sl)e ,felt it \\Ouldbeahardghip to force the appellant to rreet
the Ordinance. Nospecia1privl~ges have been granted that others do not enjoy.
Mrs . Cartwright wished to pomt out that the netPtandum mentions that other
garages on the block have an ll' rear yard setback. She' felt this is not a
good reason to grant the variances lbecause the otJ;1ers were' c.onstructed,llOt to
rreet the ordinance.
x. Appeal of Michael BOber, owner of the property located' at 509 W.
Irving Ave., proposes to construct an uncoveu-eqC!eck andr:equests
the following: (1) An ll' 1" :front yard sei:l;)ack exists; whereas ,a
25' f:tt>nt yard setback is required. (2) A 3' side yard setback is
proposed; whereas a 7 1/2' side yard setback is required.
Ms. Porter stated the appellant proposes to construct an uncove~ ~~.c:ind,~s
requesting variances to an ~stingfront yard setback arid a proposed side yard
setback. She continued there is ,litt1eUsable;:~ yard because of the existing
, garage and fenced in area. .
Mr. Michael Bober, 509 W. Irving Ave., referring to the site plan, stated the
area he is rrcst interested in is the hexagon' area' because his family spends a lot
of their tine in that area. He indicated that if he went with an 8' area
instead of the l5' proposed, he \\Ould have an unulsable space. He continued there
will be steps going from the hexagon area to the deck.
BQi.\RD OF ZONING APPEAIS MINUI'ES
SEP'I'EMBER. 5, 1984 MmrING
PAGE EIGHT
Mr . Hintz felt that variance' *l is a fonnaIity beCause any str\lctural cl1aI'l.ges
would require a variance. Variance #2 is required because of the proposed deck.
Mr. King inquired if a patio were constructed 12" off the ground instead of a
deck, would a variance be required.
Ms. Porter replied a patio does not require a variance.
M::>tion by Elaine Cart:Wright to rrcve the appeal. M::>tion seconded by Dan Goldthwaite.
M::>tion approved 5-0.
Regarding the findings of fact, Mrs. Hintz felt tl)e appeal is a minor request.
Variance *1 is a techniCc':i1ity because any structural changes ,would require a
variance. Variance #2 is veJ:y minor beca1..lSe the area wi11 be a recreational area,
not living ~ce. By <.;ranting the variances, public welfare is not infringed on.
Mrs. Cartwright felt the Zoning Ordinance was not .neant to preclude this struc-
ture.
XI. Appeal of W.B. Sarmons, owner of the property located at
3062 Fond dut.ac Ibad.
Mr. King inquired ofMr .Sanm:>ns was present," Since Mr. Sarcm::>ns was not present,
the appeal was laid over until the next ri'eeting. .
M.r. John 8amster in:;ruired if it would be possible to be heard on this matter
because he cane from Milwaukee and did not know if he could attend the ~
neeting.
:tt was the consensus of the :eoard to hear Mr. Sams:ter's corments. '
Mr. John Samster stated he owns property at 3062 Fond du Lac Road, which is
adjacent to the property in question. He indicated he opposes an 8' fence..
He inquired why Mr. Sarmons wants an 8' fence and what type of fence will it
~? One that needs routine maintenance? Is it a "spite fence"? Mr. Samster
indicated that he did sene construction work this sunrner on his hom= ,on the
side adjacent to Mr. Saranpns ' property. Mr. Samster indicated that either Mr.
Sarcm::>ns or his son stated that if he continued with the w:)rk, they would build
a fence so high that, he (Mr. Samster) wou1d not ~ a}:)le to see the lake.
Mr. utech, 3062 Fond du Lac Road, also wisheQ to be heaJ::'d on this mat'ter. He
stated that Mr. Sa1nsterl~ addition was an i1rprovanent to the area. Mr. Utech
stated he cannot see why Mr. Sanm:>ns would oppose ,it. He felt that if everyone
put up an 8' fence, the property in this area would decrease in value.
Mrs. Hintz stated she could not see the odds of granting an 8' fence and a
hardship for granting it. She suggestec1that..Mro 'samster and Mr. Utech ~
with Mr. Sarmons to convince him to construct'ii 01 fence which is pemitted.
Mr. King, pointed out that the Board will also accept written. e<:;I!t1'IUnications
regarding this appeal.
BOARD OF ZONlNG APPEAI.S MINtJI'ES
SEI?TEMBER 5, 1984 MEF.:I'lNG
PAGE NINE
XII. Appeal of Va1ley Bank, agent for Deerfield Properties, owner
of the property located at 2005 Oregon Street, proposes to
erect an identification sign for a TY.ME machine. The proposed
sign. will be supported by an existing, identification sign and
placed be10w the existing logo. Appellant !:equests the following:
1\ 3' front yard setback from Oregon Street and W. 20th Avenue
is proposed; whereas a 25'front yard setback is re:;ruired fran
each street.
Ms. Porter stated the appellant proposes to erect an identification sign for a
TYME machine. The proposed sign will be supported by an eixsting identification
sign and placed below the existing logo.
Ms. Catherine Bren1igan, 1920' Evans "Street, represehting Valley Bank, stated
the terminal is in place. There is presently no sign indicating' the ''l'YME: '
machine at this location, except for what is on the machi.n6 itse1f. The
proposed sign will be below the existing Spur sign.
Mr. King llquired if complaintS "haVe been receivedfram cust6riers aJ:x>ut' finding
the machine.
Ms. Bren1igan replied they have recei vedabout 12 ccmplaints in the past nonth.
She further stab:d the machine is" ha.:r:d to see in the day light.
Mrs. eartwrighti.nquired why the sign could not be setback 25'?
Ms. Bremigan replied because of the existing punps and the location of the
building.
Mr. Luebke felt this cOrner is very congested . and adding to the oongestion that
already exists is not very favorable. A lot of trucks coming in On W. 20th Ave.
have a problem making the 'turn. , Mr. Luebke felt th?tbecause ,of the existing
signs and the truck traffic'at this intersection, the proposed sign may rx>t be
visible.
Mrs. Cartwright stated she is concerned about signage pioblems. If another sign
is placed on the lot, this may cause problems indicating the location of the
machine.
Ms. Bremigan stated that if the sign is not erected at this location, two signs
would be required, one on ,each street, because of the existing purps.,
M::>tion by Dan GJldthwaite to nove the appeal. M:>tion seconded by Elaine Cartwright.
fution approved 4-1.
Regarding the findings of fact, Mrs. Cartwright fe1t it is an advantage to keep
signage to a m:i.n:i:mtnn. She felt:. the proposed :Location is the best way to eliminate
clutter and traffic hazard problems. The proposed location also eliminates the
possibility of needing two signs at this location.
Mr. Luebke stated he voted against this appeal. Many years ago Mr., Luebke stated
he drove a truck and signs and buildings were right at the corner and it was hard
to make a turn. Mr. Luebke stated he has seen the, congestion on this corner with
trucks having to go onto the sidewalk tomakenthe turn. He stated he would object
to any sign that is too low for visabili ty .
BOARD OF' ZONING APPEArS MINCJIF.S
,SEP'I'EMBER 5, 1984 MEETING
PAGE TEN
XIII. Appeal of Tom RuSch, owner of the property located at 824 W. 20th
Ave., has constructed a 22' x 42' accessoxy building and requests
the following: A 17.25' rear yard setback exists; whereas a 25'
rear yard 'setbaCk' is required.
Ms. Porter stated the appellant has constructed an accessory building with a 'l7. 25'
rear yard setback. The necessity for this appeal was caused by a misinterpre-
tation between. the Building Code ,which requires a 10' rear yard setback, and
the Zoning Ordinance, which requires a 25' rear yard setback.
Mr. King inqUired if a building permit was obtained. to construct the garage?
Mr. Tan Rusch, owner of the property, replied no but a pennit was obtained to
construct tJ:u;! a.part:nent building. He continued that he has constructed several
garages in the City and knew the setback was , 10 'because Mr. Reimer had infornv=d
him. Going with this infonnation, Mr. Rusctl, ,imdicated, that the mal;ODry was
at the site and infOJ::m:rl to lay the slab. Mr. Rusch stated this was rot done
intentionally to go against the law. He continued he realizes he is in the
wrong but feels he is a victi.r!1 of circumstances. '
Mr. EhrflJrth stated peoplehave failed to obtainbui,1qin9 pennits for wl1atever
reasons. The bottan question is ,whether it .is the ,Board' srel;ponsibili ty to
correct these situations. Basically, the Ordinance does not delineate any
setbacks for multiple family dwellings. At the tine the Ordinance was written,
Mr. Ehrfurth b$l;i.eved' the intent was to maintain setbacks for single family and
multiple family garages. He continued a lot of interpretation of the Orrllnance
has been done by the Building Inspector. The staf~ is atterrpting to absorb these
situations by having a review of the site plan to make interpretation consistent.
Mr. Ehrfurth, felt this responsibility should be done by one entity and indicated
it is now being done.
Mr. King inquired if a building pennit ~uld have been obtained, w:)uld the
Building Inspector have issued the pennit?
ME:'. Ehrfurth,believed it ~d have based on the interpretation.
Mr. Frank Larson, 825 Eckardt Court, stated he lives iJ:rmediately behind the
property in question. He indicated there are t\<<) garages to the west of this
property 'that have garages closer than the 2$' set;pack required. He stated he
has no objection to granting this variance. His only concern is excessive drain-
age from W. 20th Avenue on his property because of the fill.
M:>tion by Anne Hintz to rrcve the appeal. M:>tion s~nded by Dan Goldthwaite.
M:>tion approved 5-0.
Regarding the findings of fact, Mrs. Cartwright stated her vote in favor was based
on the fact that this situation will not ari~~ again.
Mrs. Hintz stated she was grateful the devic':ition is less than 8'. Also, due to the
confusion, Mrs. Hintz stated she COu1d not vot~against the appeal and see the
structure torn down.
XIV. Appeal of Tom Verkuilen, agent for LakesideMarirla, owner of the
property located at 902 Taft Avenue, proposes to construct a
30' x 102' boat storage building and requests the fol1owing:
appellant does rot propose to fill or floodproCif the proposed build-
ing; whereas fill or floodproofing is required.
OOARD OF ZONING APPFALS MINtJTES
SEl?'l'EMl3ER 5, 1984 MEEI'ING
PAGE ELEVEN
Ms. Porter stated the appel1ant, proposes "to "construct a mai:;, storage building
adjacent to an existing building without prOper fill or. iloodProofing.
Referring to the the site plan, Ms. Porter stated the existing building is
at regional flood level. The proposed building will be 2" lower than the
existing building and regional flexxl level. ' , ,
Mr. Tam Verkuilen, agent for lakeside Marina, stated the previous request f<;>r
boat storage buildings has been tabled for about one year due to ccmplications
with Wisconsin Public Service. "He indicated this sane variance, for the sarre
location, was requested about 2 years ago.
Mr.. King stated the building will only be used for bOat.' storage. Is that correct?
Mr. Verkuilen replied yes. He continued all ofi::he eX:i.stlng,buildiI19's are in
the floodpl.:iin. The proposed building will be lower than the" existing building
to make it easier to nove boats. The existing building has steps that are
used which make it difficult to rrcve boats. ' He indicated that to construct the
building out of theflOC>dp1.a.in is riOt feaSible. ' ' ,"
Mrs. Cartwright stated the hardship is the ,present b~lding 1:'~uires ,a ran'{' to
nove boats. If the proposed. building is built . lower thari the existing building,
it will be easier to nove the boats. Is that correct?
Mr. Verkuilen stated if the:proposed buildiiigis atthe"sarre leveloratx)vethe
existing building, , there will be problems. He reiterated that the road and a11
buildings are in the fJ.cX:>dplain.
Mr. Russ YOl,:lIlg' stated he is familiar with thesi tuatiOl1. If Mi-. verk.uilen has
to raise 4' above the f100d level, this would create Unnecessaxy costS to the
project.
M:>tion by Dan Go1dthwaite to nove the, appeal. M:>tion seconded uby Harry Luebke.
M::>tion approved 5-0. "
Regarding the findings of fact, Mrs. cartwright felt there is a certain hardship
in using the land for boat storage and rreeting the'FloodplainOrdinaI'lce. She
felt there willbe little possibility of problems with having boats in the
floodplain.
vx. Appeal of Betty Freid, owner of the property located at306W~
9th Ave. , ,proposes.. to retain an existing sign in, a~sidential
district for a hare occupation; whereas' si.gns advertismg nc.ate'
occupations are not pennitted in residential districts.
Ms. Porter stated the appel1ant p~es to keep an ~sting sign advertising
a hate occupation. She pointed out thatthi.$ came to the staff 1 s attent:ion
throUgh a <:ntplaint.
Ms. Betty Freid, 306 W 9th Ave., stated the sign has been there for about 10
years and she ~d like to continue to have the f;lign. She felt if the sign
is rem::we<:l, it might look like she is oUt:,o:f businesl;., She continued.~tl:ental
properties surround. her hon'e, not owner occupied horres. She indicated that s1;e
has spoken with a gentleman down the street and, c':i party across the street; neJ. ther
have any objection to keeping the sign.
BQ2.'UID OF ZONING APPEALS MINtJI'ES
SEPTEMBER 5, 1984 MEETING
PAGE 'n'ELVE
M:>tion by Dan Goldthwaite to grant the',appeal. M:>tion seconded, by ,Hatty
Luebke. lot:>tion lost, 3-2.
Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. Luebke,' who voted in favor of the appeal,
;;tated the sign has been there for 10 years and maybe there should be a statute
of limitations on renoving it. He felt the sign is very unobtrusive and does
not create a hardship for any of the riei.ghbors.
Mr. Goldthwaite, who voted in favor of the appealr felt the sign would not
create a hardship to anyone else. He also felt MS. Freid has the right to
identify herself and that it is better than being on welfare.
Mr. King stated he voted in favor of the appeal because of the duration of the
sign. Ifit ~uld have been a new sign, he indicated he would have objected.
Ms. Freid has relied on the' sign and to have to rerrove it ~ur.d cause a J.1a.rQship.
Mrs. Cartwright stated she voted against the appeal because Ms. Freid has a well
established business and clientele and, ordinary advertising ~uld be sufficient.
Mrs. Cartwright did not feel that because the sign has been there for 10 years
that there is justification for approving it now.
Mrs. Hintz stated she voted against the appeal because this <:x>u1d set c':i. precedent
for other people having hone occupations and wanting to identify themselves.
XVI. Appeal of Phil Ruedi.nger, agent for Harold Dawson, owner of the
property located at 1005 Rugby Street, proPoses to inprove a non...
conforming use to ncre than 50% of its ~sessedvalue: whereas
i.,Irprovemants to a non-COnfonning use cannot exceed 50% of the
assessed value.
Ms. Porter stated the appellant proposes to inprove a ncn-confonning use to rrcre
than 50% of its assessed value and <:x>ntinue to us~ the property as a restaurant.
Ms. Porter suggested that if the Board shou1d approve the variance, it could be
contingent upon continued use of the property as a restaurant so that no other
o::mmercial use could be introduced in the future..
Mr. King inquired of the appellant if there are any objections to the stipulation?
Mr. Phil Ruedinger, ,contractor, stated ,he did not, see any problem with the
stipulation as long as they do not have to <:XJma back, tp the Boc;rd eqc:h ti.ne the
owner wants to make 'inprovemmts.
Mr. Jeffrey Jansen, prospective buyer of the property, and Attorney Robert
Jansen, representing Mr. Jeffrey Jansen, appeared before the Eoard.
Attorney R. JanSen stated the essence of the request is that r1r. J ~ Jansen wants
a variance to continue the existing use as long as it is a restaurant. Attorney
R. Jansen felt the conCiition shou1<i)::>e placed on the variance and indicated there
is not objection to it.
Mr. Ruedinger stated over a period of years, probably 5 years, Mr. J. Jansen
will be putting over$lOO ,000 ' into. . the buiJding to i.Inprove it.'1'his wUI be
necessaxy to continue to up-date the building as tine, goes by. At present,
Mr. J. Jansen proposes to put on new siding, andinprove the kitchen and bathroom.
Mr. Ruedinger distributed pictures of the property. (Said pictures not made part
of these minutes.)
"
OOARD OF ZONING APPEAIS M1Nt1rES
SEPTEMBER 5, 1984 ME:ETING
PAGE 'l'HIR1'E:EN
Attomey R. Jansen felt that if the variance is not granted, it would prevent
Mr. J. Jansen fran keeping up with the trends, which would cause a hardship. Mr.
J. Jansen is going to invest a substantial arrount of rrcneY with the purchase
of this property. If he ,cannot expand or inprove the property, and have to use
it in its present condition, Mr. J. Jansen would have a h.:irdship because the
highest and best use of this property could not be obtained without i.nproverrents.
Attomey R. Jansen felt the building needs a "face lift" to make it a rrcre
w:)rkable piece of real estate. The proposed plans will give Mr. J. Jansen a
better working place. Without the irrproverrents, Attomey R. Jansen did not feel
Mr. J. Jansen w:)uld be able to get the rrcst efficiency out of the heating,
air conditioning and ventilating in the building.
Without the :inpmvenents, Mr. King in;tuired if Mr. J. Jansen cou1d operate a
oonpeti ti ve restaurant?
Attomey R. Jansen did not believe so. Without the variance, Mr. J. Jansen
\\1Ould only be able to expend about $12,000 without exceeding 50% of its
assessed value.
Mr. J. Jansen stated he CMnS a restaurant on Bowen Street and several of his
custaters have indicated they would like to see the property in question open
again as a restaurant.
M:>tion by Dan Goldthwaite to grant the variance with the condition that the
property continue as a restaurant. ~tion seconded by Elaine cartwright.
M:>tion ,approved 5-0.
Regarding the findings of fact, Mrs. Hintz felt the deterioration of the
building without i.,Irprovem:mts, would be a detrinent to the neighborhood.
XVII. O'l"ImR BUSmESS
Mr. King info:r:mad the Board that he is resigning effective today.
The Board wished to express their Lhanks to Mr;'. King for his leadership and
guidance during the past years.
There being no further business, the rreeting adjourned at approximately 5: 50 PM.'
--
--
CATHERINE W. RrER
Associate' PlaI'lI1.er