Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (minutes) - 04/20/1983 • � BOARO OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES APRIL 20, 1983 PAGE FIVE A letter was received from Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Berger who own property two lots west of the property in question. Mr. b Mrs. Berger oppose the granting of the variance. Mr. Decker did not see how the construction of the duplex would decrease property values on 4th Avenue because that is anothe� area of the City. The lots may be back to back, but 3rd Avenue may have other primprovements and buildings in the future. Mr. Decker feit that the neighbors are opposed to any construction on the site. Mr. Niemuth has indicated that he does not want a building on this lot. Mr. Decker stated that he is not requesting variances for any setbacks, only for the lot area. Mrs. Cartwright stated that Mr. Decker stated that he has an economic hardship. The Board cannot recognize economic hardship, but Mrs. Cartwright fett that there : is a hardship to the land, no matter who owns it. Mrs. Betty Niemuth, 676 W. 4th Avenue, stated that a two family home takes away from the value of the homes on 4th Avenue. Mrs. Cartwright stated that the area is zoned R-2 and a duplex i�s a pe�mitted use. Mrs. Hintz cited an area in the City that was previously discussed by the Board members variances we�e granted for a duplex. The neighbors were opposed to the construction, but the improvements were nice and the neighbors were pleased with it. Mrs. Hintz reiterated that a single family home is not a reasonable rate of return for this property. Motion by Elaine Cartwright to vote on the appeal . Motion seconded by Anne Hintz. Motion carried 4-t . Mrs. Hintz stated that because of the unfair breaking up of the lot, this property has been left incapable of being used for what it is zoned. She felt that a hardship exists because the only possibility is a single family home. Mr. Decker has made three attempts to meet the ordinance and has been refused. By granting " this appeal , the Board does not grant any special privileges to Mr. Decker because other property in the area could have duplexes. She fett that the neighborhood will be improved aesthetically and that there is no detriment to public welfare. Mr. Miller stated that he could not entirely agree with Mrs. Hintz. The ordinance is there to start wtth and should be adhered to. The lot is zoned for a single family home. IV. Appeal of Christine Hoopman, owner of 1709,Oak S�,tr,�, proposes to construct a garage with a 6" side yard, whereas a 2 1/2' side yard setback is required. Mr. Rosenquist stated that the appellant proposes to erect a garage setback 6" from the side yard to line up with the existing concrete slab. A 2 1/2' side yard setback is required. Ms. Christine Hoopman, 1709 Oak Street, stated that she purchased the home about 3-4 weeks ago. The house was originally by the hospital and was moved to this location. When the house was placed on the lot, there was not room for the garage. She stated that a two-car garage would not be feasible because of the angle you woutd have to put the car in at. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES APRIL 20, 1983 PAGE SIX y � Mrs. Cartwright inquired when the driveway was paved. Ms. Hoopman thought about one year ago. � � Mr. Miller inquired of Ms. Noopman if she would consider moving the garage to the north. Ms. Hoopman stated that that was her initial plan, but she had three builders look at the site and they thought she might have problems. She stated that she is also concerned about the looks if the garage does not line up with the dri�eway. Mr. Miller stated that an overhang on the garage would protrude into the neighbors yard. Mrs. Cartwright felt that 6" is not enough room to get into for maintenance and repairs. She felt that the situation should be looked at from the present owners view and possible future owners. Ms. Hoopman stated that the house neact door is for sale and is now being rented. The previous owner of the house next door thought that they had an additional 5' on the lot line. Ms. Hoopman does not believe they do. Mr. Miller stated that he did not think that Ms. Hoopman would have problems if the garage were moved to the north. Mr. Luebke stated that lots that are 50' , 55' or 60' have similar problems. Mr. Luebke felt that the solution is to have 20-22' between the garage and the house. It appeared to Mr. Luebke that there is approximately 68' behind the house and ample space to properly place the garage. Mr. Miller stated that the garage could be moved to the north and have a 2' area for repairs and painting on the garage. He also felt that the resale would be better with some space between the garage and adjacent property. Mrs. Hintz felt that if the garage is not lined up, it will look off kitter. A lot of prospective buyers look at the line up and yard area. Ms. Hoopman felt that a straight shot would look better. Mr. Luebke felt that problems could come later. The neighbors could put bushes right up to the garage and possibly cause damage to the garage. Mr. Milton Ruck, 1703 Oak Street, stated that he owns the property to the south. The driveway on the property in question was put in about two years ago and is on Mr. Ruck's property. Mr. Luebke inquired if the property were properly surveyed. Mr. Ruck replied that he had his property surveyed and the stakes are visible in the back. : Mr. Luebke inquired if a straight line could be drawn from the back stakes indi- cating the front boundary line. , ' ` BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL$ MINUTES APRIL 20, i983 PAGE SEVEN Mr. Ruck replied yes. He felt that the only answer is to pull the garage to the side. He also stated that his property is not for sale. Mr. Ruck indicated that he would be willing to cut down trees in the front yard to help out Ms. Hoo�nan. He felt that no matter how big or small the side yard is, it will be used for a storage area. Again Mr. Ruck stated that he does not live at the property now, but hopes to in the future. Motion by Anne Hintz to call the roll . Motion seconded by Harry Luebke. Motion lost o-5. Mrs. Hintz stated that there is no evidence of hardship and other solutions are possible. The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, j:��� , --. ' PHIL ROSENQUIST Associate Planner