Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Appeals Minutes e'.. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1982 3:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Daniel Goldthwaite, Anne Hintz, Oliver LaLond Harry Luebke and Norman Miller, Chairperson STAFF PRESENT: Phil Rosenquist, Associate Planner Nancy 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 February 3, 1982 were approved as submitted. I. Appeal of Darwin Kienert, owner of 1259 Harney Avanue, (R-2 Zone) proposes to convert a single family home into a two family home. The existing lot is 4995 sq. ft. in area, whereas 6000 sq. ft. of lot area is required. William Manske, Attorney for the petitioner, explained that they were before the Board of Zoning Appeals at their meeting of February 3rd. They discussed the fact that the majority of the lots on this block have enough lot area to accommodate a duplex, but since this corner lot was reduced in depth because of the configuration of lots abutting it, it cannot meet the area requirements. The zoning of the entire block is R-2, and the subject property meets all other building and code regul~tions necessary for a two-family residence. It is felt that a hardship exists in this case, because Mr. Kienert .cannot utilize his property in the manner in which it is zoned, even though the majority of property owners on his block can use their properties as two-family residences. Mr. Manske explained that he was on the Plan Commission and City Council when Oshkosh passed this ordinance, requiring 6000 sq. ft. of lot area for a duplex. The intent of this ordinance was really for new construction, and did not take into account older areas of the City. When the City became aware that there were many property owners in the city who had converted their properties to two family homes, even though their zoning was improper, they rezoned many of these areas to R-2 to bring these homes into compliance. This would allow people to convert their older homes and receive some addi- tional income. Some of the neighbors have expressed objections, and most have objected to the proposal to provide four parking stalls for this property. This was originally requested by some of the Board of Zoning Appeals members, since Mr. Keinert first proposed to provide the required two parking stalls. He will be willing to provide four parking stalls, but perhaps the board will take into consideration that most complaints by surrounding property owners are regarding excessive parking. ~. , -" Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes February 17, 1982 Page Two Since it is Mr. Kienert's intention to provide a one bedroom upper apartment and a one or two bedroom lower apartment, there should not be a need for more than two parking stalls. Mr. Kienert would be willing to restrict the number of cars on this property, by including this restriction in his rental or lease agreements. Mrs. Hintz stated that the small number of bedrooms proposed should not encourage families, so the extra yard requirements will not be required for play area in this case. Tom D. Hannan, 1255 Harney, stated that he lived right next door to this property, and if he had known it was a duplex, he would never have moved there. He said that he objects to four parking stalls in this back yard, and that he feels the laws and ordinances should be adhered to. This property does not meet the lot area requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. LaLond asked if he would be opposed to the parking if only two cars were allowed. Mr. Hannan said that maybe he could get along with that. He said that he does not feel that his property will have as much value with a duplex next to it, if he ever wishes to sell it.. Mr. Luebke asked if Mr. Hannan still wanted a fence built along Mr. Kienert's west property line, even if only two cars are allowed. Mr. Hannan said lTyes." Mr. Miller asked if Mr. to. Mr. Hannan said lTyes." Hannan felt the ordinance should be adhered Mr. Manske asked if Mr. Hannan would object to a duplex on the other side of his property, even though it was zoned properly and would be perfectly legal. Mr. Hannan said that he would still object to this. Mr. Manske said that Mr. Kienert would be willing to provide a fence along the west property line. Mrs. Hintz made a motion to approve this variance request, with the stipulation that a maximum of two cars be allowed on this property by the tenents, and that Mr. Kienert will provide a 6' high fence from the back of his house to the rear lot line, along the west property line. Mr. Luebke seconded the motion. Mr. Goldthwaite stated that he would vote for this motion, but he did not feel the fence was necessary to screen two cars. ~ Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes February 17, 1982 Page Three The motion was carried 5-0. Mr. Rosenquist explained that the City Manager had made several comments to the City Council with regard to the 1981 Annual Report. Mr. Frueh stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals Annual Report indicated that the Board was doing a fine job in being fair in granting and denying variance requests. The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. njp Respectfully submitted, /~//' ,~, /" I f / --;/.< .-"'< /,::-:: ',* . / Phil ~~'enql{l~'t< As sofia te (Planner