Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1/21/1981 ,>><::.7 ~. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1981 3:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Oliver LaLond, George Last, J.C. Batzner, Norman Miller and Ann Hintz STAFF PRESENT: Phil Rosenquist, Associate Planner Paul W. Ehrfurth, Planning Director 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 January 7, 1981 were approved. I. Appeal of Dennis Hinz, owner of the property located at the NW corner of the intersection of S. Main and 18th Avenue, proposes to construct a 4-family dwelling on a 57.37' wide lot, whereas a 60' wide lot is required. Mr. Rosenquist exp;Lained that the entire block where this property is located is zoned R-4 Multiple Dwelling District. He explained that the R-4 zoning district does not require side and rear yard setbacks for required parking, as is the case with lesser density residential classifications. This lot is one resulting from a recent lot division approved by the Plan Commission on November 10, 1980. It is the feeling of the Department of Community Development that this lot is just not wide enough to support a 4-unit apartment building, and based on the fact that they do not believe a hardship exists, they recommend denial of this request. Mr. Hinz explained that he is able to ful.fill all other setback and lot area requirements required by the zoning ordinance. He is short only about 3' on the lot width requirement. Mr. LaLond asked Mr. Hinz what his hardship or practical difficulty was in this case. Mr. Hinz asked what the definition of hardship or practical difficulty was. Mr. Rosenquist explained that this was defined as an undo restriction placed on your property by the Zoning Ordinance that restrictions you from uSlng you property in the same manner that other persons in that area are allowed to use their property. -1- Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes January 21, 1981 Meeting Page Two Mr. Hinz explained.that he cannot construct any type of dwelling on this property without first receiving a variance from the Board. Because this was not a lot of record at the time of the passage of this zoning ordinance, a lot width of 60' is required. . He purchased the property with the intention of building income property on the lot. Considering the value of property, it would be a waste of resources to build anything less than a 4-family. Mr. Last asked if there were any other apartment buildings in the area. Mr. Rosenquist said that there was one other 4-family dwelling on this same block several lots to the north. However, the prqperty where this apartment bUllding is located is 91' wide. The remaining lots on the block are all 61' wide, except for Mr. Hinz's lot. Jean Walter, 1806 Doty Street, said that she felt this lot was too small for that many families. This area is very highly traveled, and is already congested. She presented a Petition signed by surrounding property owners, opposing the granting of this variance request. The Petition contained 27 names. . Mrs. Hintz asked if the neighbors would object to a single family home being built an this lot. Mrs. Walter said that most of the neighbors expected a single family home to be built there, when this lot was divided. Mrs. Charles Otto, 1732 Doty Street, said that she felt the Zoning Ordinance requirements should be adhered to, and that a 4-family dwelling would ruin the property around it. Ray Biernat, 1740 Doty Street, said that he felt this small lot would not have enough room for that many people. The surrounding property values would devaluate. Ed Weiner, 1752 Doty Street, said that the lot is not big enough to support a 4-family dwelling. Charles Otto, 1732 Doty Street, explained that he owns the 4-family apartment building on this lot to the north. It is an illegal use against the ,zoning ordinance, but that he was proud of their park area there. The subject property is just too small for a 4-family. A single family home there would be fine. Foster Pokrandt, 1811 S. Main Street, said that. if the board changes this ordinance for these people, other people will want the same thing done for them. -2- (>0 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes January 21, 1981 Meeting Page Three Mr. Last explained that the Board of Zoning Appeals does not change the ordinance. They make a decision whether or not to grant a variance from certain zoning requirements, based on whether there is a practical difficulty or hardship. Also, other lots on this block could be used for multiple family dwellings without receiving a variance, since they all have lot widths of at least 61'. Mr. Pokrandt explained that the existing 4-family building on this block has to park cars across the street, because there is not enough room for renters cars, plus visitors, etc. This smaller lot would be way too small for all those pe9ple. Mr. Mill~r stated that the Board grants or denies variances, but they do not change the Zoning Ordinance. In answer to Mr. Pokrandt's statement, granting this variance request could set a precedent. Leonard Berger, 1726 Doty Street, said that the present4-family apartment building uses his back yard for parking. This smaller lot would be worse. Edgar Walter, 1806 Doty Street, said that a '+-family apartment building would be too big for this area. On 20th Avenue and Oregon, where there are multiple family houses, the kids are playing in the street. On South Main Street, cars are parked on both sides of the street to accommodate the 4-family building there. Mr. Miller explained that the street narrows down, with no curb or gutter from Doty to North Main. There may be some difficulty parking if this building is built. Mr. Last made a motion to approve this variance request. Mr. LaLond seconded the motion. The motion was denied 5-0. II. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL HEARING - 232 E. Parkway ~ "": ~. .- ~"/~r Mr. Miller explained that the Board of Zoning Appeals has heard and denied the request for a variance from the lot width at 232 E. Parkway, three times. The owner is now petitioning the board to determine if this same request can be heard an additional time, due to a change in circumstances. The board must decide at this meeting, whether the change in circumstances warrants an additional hearing. Mr. Batzner asked how close the joint driveway would come to. Mrs. Hobbs home. -3- Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes January 21, 1981 Meeting Page Four Mr. Last asked what the owner could construct on this lot without receiving a variance, since this 40' wide lot was probably a lot of record at the time the Ordinance was adopted. Mr. Rosenquist stated that a single family home could be constructed without a variance. He also explained that with the new amendment to the zoning ordiance, three members of the board must decide that a change in circumstance has been shown to warrant an additional' hearing. Mr. LaLond stated that in the Memorandum Mr. Kienast believes that moving the parking to the rear of the lot and moving the duplex over 2' represents a change in circumstances. However, the board has already voted on variance requests containing both of these changes, and there is 'nothing new regarding the present request. Mr. Batzner moved that this variance request did not represent a change in circumstances, and that an addition hearing be denied. Mr. LaLond seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. The request for additional hearing was denied. The meeting was adjourned at 4:16 p.m. Respe~~~y7~3pmitted, /~~?~T Phil Ro'senquist, Assoyiate Planner / njp -4-