Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/16/1981 .-": BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1981 3:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Daniel Goldthwaite, Anne Hintz, Tom King, Oliver LaLond, and Chairman Norman Miller 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 December 2, 1981 were approved. I. Appeal of Joseph Mark, Agent for Mark Chilcrents Trust, owner of the property at 1770 Taft Avenue, commonly known as Maple Court Apartments. The Appellant proposes to erect a 50 sq. ft., identification sign, whereas a 16 sq. ft. sign is the maximum sign allowed.' The sign would be setback 10' from the Taft Avenue property line, whereas 8 25t setback from the Taft Avenue property line is required. Mr. Marks distributed a letter from Dr. Lambert, owner of an office building right across from this property, which supported approval of this appeal request. He explained that in the first six months the apartment building has been open, they have experienced a 25% vacancy rate. These first months are usually the months that a new apartment is in demand. However, people have told them that they had a hard time finding the apartment building. He distributed pictures of a sign similar to the one they wish to construct. They had rented a temporary, flashing sign, and this did help to bring people to the building. Now they are asking for a 50 sq. ft. that would be permanent. Mrs. Hintz asked why they needed such a large sign. 50 sq. ft. in area is a lot larger than the 16 sq. ft. allowed. They should demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty if they wish the board to consider this large of a sign. Couldn't they use a sign about 2t X 6', which would be raised, solidly built, with clear lettering, to do the job. Mr. Marks said that because of the loc~tion the sign would have to be in, plus the very large commercial signs in that same neighborhood and the amount of commercial traffic using that street, a sign that small would not be ,seen. Mr. King asked how large the Brookside Apartment sign was. Mr. Mark said that it was 3 1/2' X 6 1/2', but it was all alone on a corner, in an empty space and very visible to traffic. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes December 16, 1981 Meeting Page Two Mrs. Hintz said that she was sure people were having a problem finding the building, but the 25% vacancy rate cannot be entirely attributed to the sign. The Board cannot consider a financial hardship, and needs to be shown how the Zoning Ordinance works a hardship on this property. Alan Markee, 1078 W. 4th Street, said that the vacancy rate for this building is much higher than the 2% vacancy rate of other . buildings in the City, and much of this appears to be because of the lack of identify. Both other apartment buildings on this block are at a zero vacancy rate. They have tried advertising Maple Court Apartments as being kitty-corner from the Dairy Queen, next to the Ponderosa, etc. but this has not helped. Mr. King suggested that the two variances be considered separately. He made a motion to approve the second variance requesting a 10' setback for the sign, rather than the 25' setback required. Mrs. Hintz seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. LaLond made a motion to approve the first v.ariance request to allow a 50 sq. ft. sign, whereas a 16 sq. ft. sign is allowed. Mrs. Hintz second the motion. Motion ,,vas denied 1-4. II. Appeal of John W. Hessell,owner of the property at 1305 S. Main Street, proposes to provide 15 off-street parking stalls for his commercial business (Sawdust City Pizza) whereas 24 off-street parking stalls are required. Mr. Rosenquist explained that Mr. Hessell purchased the building and operated a retail outlet pizza business. Now he wishes to provide seating capacity, and 24 off-street parking stalls would be required for this purpose. If this property were zoned commercially, there would be no off-street parking required, but the business 'is located in the M-l Zone. Mr. Hessell explained that. there are 15, off-street parking stalls provided on the lot now, and there will be more than sufficient parking available on the street during his business hours. There are sufficient parking spaces along the street for about 50 of Buckstaff's employees, so there should be plenty of parking during evening hours, when the workers are gone. Mr. LaLond made a motion to approve this variance request. Mr. Goldthwaite seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. IV. Appeal of Jeffrey Bruns, Agent for Bessie Kitz, owner of 814 Woodland Avenue, proposes to remove a 6' X 6' porch and replace it with a 6' X 12' addition. The lot is 3, 601.25 sq. ft. in area, whereas a 7,200 sq. ft. lot is required. A 3' side yard setback is provided, whereas a 7 1/2' side yard setback is required. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes December 16, 1981 Meeting Page Three Mr. Rosenquist explained that this home is having work done under the Residential Rehabilitation Program. Mr. Bruns explained that they would be taking off t~e existing rear porch, which is in poor condition, and replacing it with a new addition which would contain a shower stall. The owner, Mrs. Kitz, is elderly and crippled with arthritis. The existing stairs are narrow, and cause her problems. There is no bath facilities in the house at the present time. The work on this home will improve the appearance of the neighborhood. Mrs. Hintz stated that they would not be making the home so that it violates the code anymore than it does already. The lot size will remain the same and the side yard setback will remain the same. Mr. Goldthwaite made a motion to approve this variance request. Mr. King seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. V. Appeal of Raymond Pierson, Agent for Condon Oil, owners of the property at 1832 Oshkosh Avenue, proposes to replace two existing identification signs. One sign would be a 12' sign, approximately 19' from the Omro Road property line, whereas a 25' setback is required. The other would be a 5' identification sign setback approximately 24' from the Oshkosh Avenue property line, whereas a 25' setback is required. Mr. Pierson explained that Texaco has moved out of their stations, and Conoco is moving in. They need to replace the existing Texaco sign with a Conoco sign on the same pole, in the same location. Mrs. Hintz asked if they couldn't put up a 5' sign, instead of the 12' sign. Mr. Pierson said that the signs are a standard 5' or 12'. A 5' sign in this location, that low, and that far from Highway 41, would not be visible. Mr. LaLond made a motion to approve these variance requests. Mr. Goldthwaite seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. VI. Appeal of Raymond Pierson, Agent for Condon Oil, owners of 506 Bowen Street, propose to replace an existing identifica- tion sign with a 5' identification sign, internally lighted, which would project 1 1/2' into the Bowen Street and Merritt Street property lines, whereas a 20' setback is required from each street property line. Mr. Pierson explained that the need this sign for identification and to let people know when they are open. If the sign is lighted, people assume the station is open. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes December 16, 1981 Meeting Page Four Mrs. Hintz stated that this corner is already very congested. There is a traffic light box and a telephone pole are also located there, along with this sign pole. These three objects interfer with pedestrian traffic and bicycle traffic. She stated that a sign could be put on their large canopy to identify the station, and this sign would not be needed. Mr. Pierson said that if this variance lS not granted they could use the sign that is there now. Mrs. Hintz said that the existing sign is nonconforming and has not been used for over a year. Therefore, it cannot be used again without a variance. ' Mr. Pierson said that they have improved that corner very much with this station, and many people have told them so. He said that they need the sign for identification, so that when people are driving down the st'reet, they might see it is a Conoco station. Mrs. Hintz said that she felt the station was very attractive, but that a hardship or practical difficulty has not been shown for this sign. Mr. King asked if the small signs on the property would be removed if this appeal was granted. Mr. Pierson said that he would see that the small signs, such as the cigarette signs and the sign that says "Open for Business" would be removed, if this appeal is granted. Mr. King made a motion to approve this variance request. Mrs. Hintz second the motion. Motion was denied 2-3. III. Appeal of Luvern Kienast, owner of the property at 232E. ~t~~~~~y, proposes to erect a duplex on a 40' wide l~-- whereas a 45' wide lot is required. Mr. Rosenquist explained that this variance request has been before the Board three other times, and is essentially the same as the original request. There is no problem with setbacks or lot area, the only variance needed is for the lot width. However, the parking would have to be setback 4' from the west property line, unless another variance is requested. The sideyard setback for the home can be reduced to 4', by taking 10% of the lot width (40'). Mr. Kienast explained that they would meet all the setback require- ments. He said that no one would want to build a single family home on this small lot, and it was more suitable for rental property. It is zoned for a duplex and is the only thing they can feasibly do with this property. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes December 16, 1981 Meeting Page Five Mr. Rosenquist indicated the existing duplexes and multiple family homes in the neighborhood, and stated that these uses are common in the area. He explained that a single family home could be built on this lot with a variance, because it is a lot of record. Nettie Hobbs, 302 E. Parkway, stated that Mr. Kienast told her' she could no longer use the joint driveway on the west side of her home, and he fence,d it off. She has been using this driveway since 1944" and explained that she cannot put her driveway on the west side of her property like Mr. 'Kienast wants her to. Her porch sticks out so that there is not enough room to manuever to her garage, and the ground is very low and floods easily. There was never a driveway on that side of the house, leading to the garage. It just went to the back porch. Mr. Kienast said that this joint driveway easement was never recorded, but said that he would be willing to record the easement and allow Ms. Hobbs to use the joint driveway. Mrs. Hintz made a motion to grant this variance request, with the condition that this easement for a joint driveway be recorded in Winnebago County. This motion was lost for want of a second. Mr. King made a motion to lay this variance request over until Mr. Kienast returned to the Board with a recorded joint driveway easement with Mrs. Hobbs. Mr. LaLond seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. VII. Appeal of Phil Ruedinger, owner of the property at 605 S. Main, proposes to construct a one-bedroom apartment in the upstairs of the property. This is not an allowed use in this M-l District. Mr. Rosenquist explained that the City hopes to develop a redevelopment area, to include this property. They do not wish to discourage residential units above commercial properties on this side of Main Street. Mr. Ruedinger owns several properties in this area, and is in the process of revitalizing most of them. He said that there are plans for 601 S. Main to be used as a children's dentist office and for 605 S. Main to become.a children's clothing store. There are no manufacturing uses left in this area, and it will probably be rezoned in the future. Mr. Ruedinger explained that there are five apartments in this area now. They would like to begin getting some income from these buildings, so that they can continue to improve them. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes December 16, 1981 Meeting Page Six The Dentist who proposes to operate the children's dentist office at 601 S. Main, will rent the proposed apartment. He said they are trying to bring these buildings back to the way they were 50 to 75 years ago. - Mr. Miller stated that the existing sheds should be removed from'the back of'this lot. Mr. Ruedinger said that they will be gone shortly. Mrs. Hintz made a motion to approve this variance request with the condition that the sheds be removed. Mr. LaLond seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0 The meeting was adjourned at 4:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, / /'~/:; -..- / ,/~ PHIL ROSENQUIST, Associate ?lanner njp