Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA Minutes - 09/10/1997 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES PAGE 2 SEPT 10, 1997 Mr. Bluemke noted that the deck is about 3 ft. above grade. If the deck were constructed at less than a foot above grade, it could have been constructed with a 2 ft. side yard setback. This is a corner lot and due to the location of existing structures on the lot, this would appear to be the only practical location for a deck. Ms. Goers inquired if there were any communications from the neighbors to the north. Mr. Bluemke replied no. Mr. Baudhuin felt an 8 x 16 deck is a reasonable size, and as previously noted, if the deck would have been constructed less than a foot above grade, it could have been constructed without a variance. Mr. Roehlig felt that reducing the deck size to 6 'V2 ft. would seem unreasonable. Motion by Baudhuin to move approval of a variance for a deck attached to the dwelling with a 3 ft. side yard setback. Seconded by Schorse. Motion carried 6 -0. Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. Roehlig stated reducing the size of the deck would make it unusable and it does not appear to have an impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Baudhuin noted that due to the location of existing structures on the lot, another location for the deck would be impractical. III. APPEAL FOR INTERPRETATION 1225 -1227 1239 W. South Park Avenue Steve Clarke, applicant, Mark Lee, owner, are requesting an interpretation by the Zoning Administrator that combining an existing lot occupied by a two family dwelling with a vacant lot and constructing a multi family dwelling on the new lot is not allowed as stipulated in Section 30- 35(D)(1) of the Ordinance. The applicant has indicated the appeal is based on (1) Section 30- 35(D)(1) being unclear, and (2) it was previously represented that this type of combined use was allowed. Mr. Mark Lee, owner, Mr. Steve Clarke, architect, and Mr. Duke Schneider, co- owner, appeared before the Board. Mr. Lee stated that about 4 months ago he met with City staff with a plan to combine these Lots and construct a multiple dwelling structure, and was informed this could be done. Based on that meeting, he proceeded with architectural plans for the structure. Apparently that staff person is no longer employed with the City and now he is being told this is not permitted. They would like to have a total of 6 new units constructed and leave the duplex as it is. Based on the new interpretation, however, Mr. Lee stated he was informed he could build 3 new units on the vacant lot and add additional units to the existing duplex. He felt the square footage would be the same either way and reiterated that he wanted to leave the duplex as a duplex. He noted that due to the quarry across the street, this lot is not desirable to a lot of people. He also indicated he has talked to the neighbors and is not aware of any objections. Mr. Schorse inquired why the lots need to be combined. Mr. Lee replied he needs the square footage for the proposed 6 units. Mr. Roehlig noted 4 units could be constructed on the vacant lot without combining the lots. BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES PAGE 3 SEPT 10, 1997 Mr. Lee stated that is true, but based on what he was originally told by City staff, he invested a lot of money in architectural plans for a 6 unit structure. Mr. Bluemke noted that more than one multiple family structure is permitted on a lot, but not when a lot contains an existing duplex. A duplex is not a multiple dwelling structure. Ms. Marlyn Supiano, 1191 Blossom Ct., and Ms. Mariam Haebig, 1193 Blosoom Ct., stated they were concerned about density, safety for children, and the small green area. They inquired how large are the units? Mr. Lee noted they are 1 bedroom apartments and not intended for families. Mr. Schneider stated they are being targeted for senior citizens. Mr. Dahl inquired if the Board agrees with staffs interpretation, what is the next step? Mr. Bluemke noted options are available to the applicants. They could make the duplex a 3 unit and then combine the lots and construct the new building, or develop the vacant lot with fewer units. Mr. Husman inquired if the lot with the existing duplex has enough room for 3 or more units. Mr. Bluemke stated he was not sure. He would have to review the site relative to parking, setbacks, etc. Mr. Roehlig noted that a yes vote would mean the Board agrees with staffs interpretation; a no vote would mean you disagree with staffs interpretation. Motion by Husman to vote on the request; yes agree with staff; no disagree with staff. Seconded by Goers. Roll call was taken. AYES: 5 NAYS: 1. Mr. Roehlig noted the Board agrees with staffs interpretation. IV. 1018 WEST SOUTH PARK AVENUE Rein Roehlig, applicant on behalf of Ameritech, Ron Gartman, owner, requests a variance to construct an Ameritech substation with a 22.5 ft. transitional side yard; whereas Section 30- 30(b)(3) states that in a M -3 district, a 20 ft. side yard setback is required except when adjacent to a residential district, the side yard setback shall be 50 ft. Mr. Roehlig noted he would be voting present on this item because he represents Ameritech. Mr. Roehlig stated the exterior of the 22 x 11 building will be masonry stone prefab type material. Access will be from the existing driveway that serves the property. Motion by Goers to move approval of a variance to construct an Ameritech substation with a 22.5 ft. transitional side yard. Seconded by Dahl. Motion carried 5 -0 -1 (PRESENT: Roehlig). Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. Schorse noted that due to the adjacent residential zoning/use, a greater setback is required. Mr. Husman did not feel the proposed structure would have an adverse impact on the area. STAFF REPORT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS SEPTEMBER 10, 1997 ITEM III: APPEAL FOR INTERPRETATION: COMBINING TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE AND MULTIFAMILY USES; 1239 SOUTH PARK AVENUE Mark Lee, Owner GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The appellant is requesting the Board of Zoning Appeals to review the interpretation that combining an existing lot occupied by a two family dwelling with a vacant lot and constructing a multifamily dwelling on the new lot is not allowed as stipulated in Section 30 -35 (D) (1) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. The appellant has indicated that the appeal is based on two counts: 1) Section 30 -35 (D) (1) is unclear; and 2) It was previously represented that this type of combined use was allowed. The property subject to the ruling by the Zoning Administrator consists of 1225 -1227 West South Park Avenue which is a separate 12,758 square foot lot on which a two family dwelling has been constructed. The second lot involved in this appeal is 1239 West South Park Avenue which is a vacant 14,462 square foot lot that abuts 1225 -1227 West South Park Avenue. The owners proposed to combine the lots via a quick claim deed and construct a new six unit apartment building on the newly created lot, which, because of combining the lots already would have a two family dwelling located on the new lot. The square footage of the lot at 1225 -1227 West South Park Avenue is being used to increase the number units on the vacant lot over that which would be allowed on the vacant lot by itself. The properties are zoned R -3 Multiple Dwelling District. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION Per Section 30 -6 (B) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Board must decide if the true intent of the Codes and rules adopted have been correctly interpreted. The Section in question, Section 30 -35, Additional Standards and Exceptions,(D), Number of Structures Per Lot, (1) reads as follows: Multi Family, Motel, Hotel, and Institutional: There may be two (2) or more related multi- family, hotel, motel or institutional structures on a lot; provided that (a) the required yards be maintained around a group of structures, and (b) structures that are parallel, or that are within forty -five (45) degrees of being parallel, be separated by a horizontal distance that is at least equal to the height of the highest structure. Integral to this interpretation is the definition of multi family and two family dwellings which are defined in Section 30 -1 (A) (43) and (45) as follows: Section 30- 1(A)(43) DWELLING, MULTIPLE OR APARTMENT BUILDING: A residential structure, or portion of a structure, containing three (3) or more dwelling units served by a common entrance, or a structure designed for occupance by three (3) or more families. Section 30- 1(A)(45) DWELLING, TWO FAMILY: A structure on a single lot containing two (2) dwelling units, each of which is totally separated from the other by an unpierced wall extending form ground to roof or an unpierced ceiling and floor extending from exterior wall to exterior wall, except for a common stairwell to both units. In looking at the above sections, it appears that the language in the Ordinance makes it clear that there may be 2 or more multiple family structures on a single lot, and the definition of a multiple family structure is also clear in stating that a multiple family structure is a structure that contains 3 or more dwelling units. It would appear that the Ordinance basic intent to protect the integrity and use of properties that are being used for 1 and 2 family residences, by not providing for the introduction of a multiple family use on the same lot. A basic tenet of zoning is to keep more intensive uses separate from less intensive uses, and not allowing multi- family dwellings on a lot occupied by a single family or two family dwelling per Section 30 -35 (D) (1) exemplifies that tenet of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on the above, staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals find the Departments interpretation of Section 30 -35 (D) (1) is proper and that staff acted within their jurisdiction in not allowing the appellant to put another principal use (multi family dwelling) on a lot already occupied by a two family dwelling. In their second count for the appeal, the appellants contend that this type of use was previously represented as being allowed. 615 -621 W. Lincoln was cited as a similar development that has been allowed, however, it would appear that the house that originally occupied the lot has at least three units 621, 623a and 623b. This would make it a multi family structure and per Section 30 -35 (D) (1) the construction of another multi family would have been allowed under the standards of the Ordinance at that time. However, of more consequence in regard to this issue is the legal principal which basically states that if a previous decision was made in error, that does not mean that all subsequent decisions have to be made in the same manner. In fact the decision must be made in accordance with applicable standards of current Codes. So whether or not there were errors in previous decisions, if the Board finds that staffs interpretation of Section 30- 35 (D) (1) is correct, this second count is a moot point, and is of no consequence. Please Tvgfarprint in BLACK III Return to: Department of Community Development 215 Church Ave., PO Box 1130 CITY OF OSHKOSH Oshkosh, WI 54902 -1130 APPLICATION FOR v-irwrilri1 E AP,°6,1 V Please write legibly with black ink and also submit a complete renrodncible (maximum size 11" x 17 site plan. (A complete site plan includes, but is not limited to, all structures, lot lines and streets with distances to each.) There is a 525.00 fee for each variance application. The fee is payable to the City of Oshkosh and due at the time the application is submitted. Address of Parcel Affected: 12.34 sritestm4 of3oM Owner (if not petitioner): i4 At2 6 g ,A.Z. Home Phone: el 2 40 4 2 Z14 Owner's Address: t 2-2 7 \1✓. -r -1 t J4 -CssV• •Aeft Work Phone: x'00 -4z.G -1 4-$7 Signature: i` Date: Oaa Applicant or Agent (if d' t from owner): S7 1 Q C4y,E Home Phone: 1247 Z-33 Applicant's Ad C lark Work Phone: Signature: p Date: O 7.- Gr) In order to be granted a variance, each applicant must be able to prove that an unnecessary hardship would be created if the variance is not granted. The burden of proving an unnecessary hardship rests upon the applicant. The attached sheet provides information on what constitutes a hardship. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary, to provide the information requested. Additional information may be requested as needed.) ov►i S' rt-o i-44 i4H- "fit. 1. Explain your proposed plans and why you are requesting a variance: C ©itA t 2zS t ZZ'7 Aukt, 12.307 W. 06egra 194614 At rip 86NL -1:::) A a 41 <1.. WE .a+' E_i .4-1c► .6ft•3T. S3 36 -3S to) 6, 65 l,J WA-5 1 PJMN/i0t r 2. Describe how the variance would not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties: 0414,44- r r jit 5 ,A-1;3 s!t.1.4 z v 1s Typ►c G. 6? 7 �i t �.r- y z`= -�•i Art.-14 /VAAL I a �r �►I D s' ��i: A 3. Describe the special conditions that apply to your lot or structure that do not apply to surrounding lots or structures: 756 g /SI c t. ..1;: f Zel=2 r, rr 4)2d U_, a Y '14-13.4 4. Describe the hardship that would result if your variance were not granted: 1R 47 14SA5 v7i L.1 Z. fl*# t1 t-c) PWR Qar...g hat.' 1 00A•z.�6 �trt, taf-s. g eff r it bLia d Lam z S IS Lt throt -V t -d7*- -s L1- c 1A r-.) /ter C;ar. PD P. gle At x A- 4--- pig U AD° Aga/c7 SA-Ae o r Pte? 4tes (See Reverse Side) 11.1 31 c I tli!, i LI I 1 t ir X 1111 N'c'N o I S IT '1 Q r H Z li .1 i/ ism inn k 0 ti 3 c;� 1 2 1 3 1 a y 11. i� N3 l ,i ..s/#<-.) d `ice L ,s, IL 1,, A 1 tigj If Jo 1 1 AI i Q 1 I r V t 3 L,- g ti -;1 i. ,-7-. 1 0 s. VI ja 45.411 3 N r li n a 1 19 1 //r- °O.) P 1 <2 ♦111 0 4 /4) r. 4 V 10 00\ sit< •1 SUBJECT 7\filk PARCEL S 7 7 pcycos sttx addx bldx 1:875 2/ 9, I &NfO 11)V J4 P V Aga 0 I►`... ■rul. 1170 4, v.imm.■... BLOSSOM CT 1 IIIIMMI01 mm 1 MM MIMIIIMMOII NIIIIMMIIMA Ilsomma WIMP '1°4 1181 rn F: t F- U 9 e 0 5 p ,112 o+ 1110 SU ;JECT PA'CELS APPLE CT. V 1700 0,.:* t t i O i RN Q 1 222 LUPU ir 270 1200 1110 1130 1130.42 N 14 1 9 1 04101V w. �qr 1111 1111 1131 1141 di Q 7 pcycos sttx addx 1:21 00 2/ 9/ 3 -4-1 c-'77 ;11-tiv-H v. R 1 al ...1 lilt_ iii i .j ":1 gi r-T II m r- I r r II Fri [k' fe A ..4 1— .1 i it .71 f I 1— pirErriTT1F, 1 I Fri,,),_ 1, I uni F T i n i nr, it 141111 0 1 piP ,--r Li i lit 1 i I ,s ,,te, J 1 1 1 1 ti iiinif=1 -t_I Ana r Lir sl ,_i i Cr• i 1 1 1 1 3 1 :=0----4,__ "C=._._. 1 III t--.7-. 11 i r 1 7: 7 1 t-r_-_, __-:.1,, r t III Allt 104•PP ST,