Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2/19/1986 ~ ",", BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FEBRUARY 19t 1986 PRESENT: Ronald Amest Anne Hintzt Torn KimberlYt Kevin McGeet David Nitkowski STAFF: Bruce A. Roskomt Associate Planner; Chuck Laminet Associate Planner; Mary Jo Anderson, Recording Secretary if Vice Chairperson Anne Hintz called the meeting to order. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Ms. Hintz presented Bruce Roskom with a Certificate of Appreciation for his guidance and service to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The minutes of January 29t 1986 were approved as,dis~ributed. I. 1781 West 9th Avenue- Joe Shea Mr. Lamine explained that this item had been laid over from the meeting of January 29, 1986. He added that Mr. Shea is proposing to place a ground sign with a 6 ft. front yard setback from Koeller Street. Joe Sheat 1781 W. 9th Avenue, the reason for requesting the sign is for better visibility from Koeller Road. His other sign carinot be seen from Koeller Road. With the amount of traffic from the shopping center on Koellert it would be very beneficial for him to have the sign. Ms. Hintz asked if it is necessary for Mr. Shea to have the sign on 9th Avenue and the other sign too. Mr. Shea replied yes. Ms. Hintz stated that on that side there is no way to place a sign at the 25 ft. setback. Mr. Shea stated that it would be in the middle of the parking lot. Presently it is in the grass area. He thought that all ,the grass area was his until he had the lot ~urveyed. Mr. Kimberly asked if Mr. Shea had seen a lot of traffic increase in that area on Koeller. Mr. Shea replied that it has diminished since the Christmas season. Mr. Kimberly asked if Mr. Shea thought they might be expanding Koeller Street in the future. Mr. Shea replied that it has been brought up. For his- sign to affect this it would have to be a 45 degree turn right there. With the location of the sign versus 9th Avenue and the edge of his propertYt he didn't see how it would be in the way of any expansion. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PAGE THO FEBRUARY 19t 1986 ~r. Kimberly asked if Mr. Shea was advertising gas and services. Mr. Shea replied yes, both. Mr. Kimberly asked if the 9th Avenue 'sign is visible from the Koeller exchange. Mr. Shea replied yes, but not from Koeller and the parking l.ot. Mr. Kimberly asked what parking lot. Mr. Shea replied the shopping center parking lot. Ms. Hintz stated that the Board is dealing with three signs: one on the corner, the gas station sign and the new sign. She asked Mr. Shea if all stations sell mufflers. Mr. Shea replied that they do, but they don 't push it. Mufflers are his major line. Mr. McGee stated that he has opposed this item in the past. His reason is that this is the kind of sign proliferation that the Code is wanting to stop. He didn't know why the one on 9th Avenue could not advertise the price of gas. It is up to Mr. Shea to consolidate the signs. He saw no hardship which would allow for the third sign. Ms. Hintz asked Mr. Shea if he would consider removing the corner muffler sign should the Board vote that the. proposed sign is permissible. Mr. Shea replied that those signs were there before he took the place over. Exhaust work is one of his specialties. When he took it over he changed whatever was up there and put the muffler sign on the pole. As far as expansion, the one that was, there would be more in the way than the one he is trying to get approved. Ms. Hintz stated that this is exactly the point at which the Board must enforce the Code to a higher degree. There are an awful lot of signs for the location of the business. The Board is dealing with sign proliferation. She suggested that Mr. Shea add a muffler sign to both service station signs~ Mr. Shea replied that he did not think that his location was cluttered up. Ms. Hintz replied that according to what the Zoning Ordinance requirest it is alrea:dy over-signed. She added that there is a sign on 9th Avenue too. Mr. Roskom stated that it is important to note that the sign was placed illegally and it is not a hardship to consider that the sign is already there. The objective is the point that there should be preservation of the current Code as opposed to what is already there. Mr. Nitkowski stated that there is a whole pattern of too much signage in that area. Mr. Roskom replied that the Board has looked at Rocky Rococo and all the other signs along Koeller and they have complied. The only one which does not is the Holiday Innt howevert they put up a smaller sign. ~ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PAGE THREE FEBRUARY 19, 1986 Mr. Nitkowski asked if they were there without permits. Mr. Ames stated that those signs probably required a State permit. Mr. Roskom replied that some of the signs are old but the majority have corne before the Board at some time or another. Mr. Nitkowski stated that there are so many signs and it looks awfult however, that is not Mr. Shea's fault. Mr. Kimberly asked what the true hardship iSt the 6 ft. setback? Mr. Roskom stated that the hardship has to be established, but the applicant is saying that he does not have sufficient signage for his business. It is up to the Board to agree or to say that he has sufficient signage. Mr. McGee says that Mr. Shea does have alternatives which can be explored. He added that the present sign is illegal. Mr. Shea stated that he did not know that. Mr. Nitkowski moved approval of the variance to erect a sign with a 6 ft. front yard setback. Motion seconded by Mr. AII1es. Motion denied 1-4. Approved: Opposed: David Nitkowski Ronald Amest Anne Hintz, Tom Kimberly, Kevin McGee With regard to findings of factt Mr. Roskom replied that the applicant has not proven a hardship. Ms. Hintz stated a hardship was not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Board. II. 631 W. 10th Avenue - Charles Nigl Mr. Lamine explained that the applicant is proposing to convert a single family dwelling to a two family dwelling with a 2 ft. side yard setback and a 15 ft. front yard setback from W. lath Avenue. The applicant intends to remove an existing attached garage and replace it with an ciddition to the dwelling which is necessary for the conversion. This addition will extend 4 ft. into the rear yard beyond the existing garage. Charles Nigl, 1624 Thornton Drive, stated that the house has been there almost 100 years. There is an R-2 duplex next door which is only lft. away. He added that there seem to be quite a few violations of the Code in this area. Mr. Ames asked if Mr. Nigl knew how long the adjacent house has been a duplex. Mr. Niglreplied that he used to live in the house at 631 W. lath Avenuet 33 years, and it has been a duplex all of that time. He thought that there was not a house on lath Avenue that met the 25 ft. setback. Mr. Lamine stated that he thought that that was correct. He reiterated that Mr. Nigl is infringing into his rear yard an additional 4 ft. and is removing his garage. There will not be much of a change with the addition onto the rear of the structure. Ms. Hintz asked Mr. Nigl what he will do for a garage. '~ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS P AGE FOUR FEBRUARY 19, 1986 Mr. Niglreplied that there is enough room in the back yard to build another garage at a later date. Ms. Hintz asked if' the structure will change anything. Mr., Nigl replied that it will extend an additional 4 ft. Ms. Hintz stated that none of the other setbacks will be changed. Most of the other duplexes in the area have the, same front yard setbackt thereforet he would not be given any special privilege. Mr. McGee informed the Board that the Zoning Code Update Subcommittee is looking at proposing changes in the Ordinance for situations like this. They are proposing that no variance will be required- for an existing structure if the 2 ft. setback is maintained. The 2 ft. setback will be permissible and will be the same as approved. Ms. Hintz stated that the strict technicalities would then not have to come before the Board. Mr. Ames moved approval of the request to convert a single family dwelling to a two family dwelling with a 2 ft. side yard setback and a 15 ft. front yard setback from W. lath Avenue. Motion seconded by Mr. Kimberly. Motion carried 5-0. With regard to findings of factt Mr. Ames stated that the proposed overages do not bring about any infringement on the adjacent neighbors and the existing conditions in that neighborhood are not infringed upon. Mr. McGee stated that the conditions predate the Ordinance. III. 326 Dale Avenue - Dale Ruedinger Mr. Lamine explained that the applicant's garage burned and he is proposing to construct a detached garage with a 1.08 ft. side yard setback and a 33 ft. front yard setback from Dale Avenue. Ms. Hintz stated that the garage could could not be built closer to the house. She asked Mr. Ruedinger if the garage would be built in the same place as the previous garage. Mr. Dale Ruedinger, 326 Dale Avenue, replied that the garage will be a little bit bigger. He stated that he had gone to Noffkes and they sold him a 16' x 24 I pre-cut ki t. Ms. Hintz stated that the dwelling and the garage existed before the Zoning Ordinance. There is no feasible way to place the garage anywhere else on the property. Mr. Ruedinger stated that his lot is only 60 ft. long. Mr. Nitkowski stated that this request is similar to the previous item. Ms. Hintz replied yes and no. The previous conversion was a change in use. Mr. Nitkowski stated that this pre-dates the Ordinance too. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PAGE FIVE FEBRUARY 19, 1986 # Ms. Hintz stated that the duplex will not be a technicality and it frees up that possibility. Mr. Ames stated he would have a hard time arguing against this proposal because there are no alternatives. Mr. Ames moved approval of the variance to construct a garage with a 1.08 ft. side yard setback and a 33 ft. front yard setback. Motion seconded by Mr. McGee. Motion carried 5-0. With regard to findings of factt Mr. Ames stated that the neighborhood pre-dates the Ordinance and the existing lot size provides no latitude to meet the requirements of the Ordinance. Mr. Kimberly asked if the Board ever considers drainage. Mr. Roskom replied that that is a weakness with the Ordinance. The Zoning Code Update Subcommittee is considering surface drainaget whether someone is lower than the rest of the block; we are dealing with landscaping type controls and even utilizing a drainage ditch. He stated that there is so much to consider regarding surrounding properties. IV. 1395 Moreland Street - James T. Barry, Jr. Mr. Lamine explained that the applicant is proposing to construct a detached four car garage with an 11 ft. rear yard setback. This appeal had previously been approved, howevert the permit has expired and they are back requesting approval for the variance. Russell Young, 2308 Jackson Drive, representing the applicant, stated that the variance had been granted and the permit has expired. They did not realize that they only had six months to obtain the permit. He added that he has gotten two other variances for this same reason. He has five lots and this variance would complete the end of the street. The others have the same rear yard setback and if not granted it would be a hardship on the parking lot. Ms. Hintz stated that the whole point of the Zoning Ordinance minimum yard setback was kind of obviated by the Shopko Store. Mr. Young stated that they would be wasting green area. Ms. Hintz stated that that does not fit into the area of hardship. There is no buffer zone and 11 ft. is sufficient for fire purposes or any other emergency use. She continued that the aesthetics would be jarred. Mr. Kimberly asked if it was the same construction as what had been used for the other garages. He asked too if there are divider's between the units. Mr. Young replied that there is a wood wall between the units, but it is not necessary to put a fire wall in between. Mr. Ames moved approval of the construction of the detached garage with an 11 ft. rear yard setback. Motion seconded by Mr. Kimberly. Motion carried 5-0. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PAGE SIX FEBRUARY 19, 1986 With regard to findings of factt Ms. Hintz stateq that' because of the special circumstances of the neighboring area, there is no reason for the green space to be larger than 11 ft. and this will be consis~ent with the other lots. V. 232 E. Parkway - LuVern Kienast ~~ _""'_".ow; Mr. Lamine explained that the applicant is proposing to construct a duplex on a 40 ft. wide lot. A Deed for Joint Driveway Agreement has been recorded to provide for shared use of the driveway on the east lot line. The applicant has been granted a variance for the subject property but has failed to complete construction within the allowed six months. MS. Hintz stated that at one time the whole Board had gone to the site to consider the request. She added that part of the property belongs to Mrs. Hobbs and was wondering if she was still alive. The previous hearin~s were so complex and they had settled on the easement at that time. She wanted the Board members to note that the driveway is half on the neighbors lot. She assumed that that was still satisfactory with Mrs. Hobbs. Mr. LuVern Kienast, 765 N. Washburn, replied that Mrs. Hobbs is still alive and that the driveway agreement is satisfactory with her. Ms. Hintz stated that she could deal with a 45 ft. lot, howevert the lot is 45 ft. wide only because the driveway only uses 5 ft. of the actual lot. Mr. Lamine stated the Joint Driveway Agreement is recorded. Ms. Hintz stated that Mrs. Hobbs was not especially agreeable at that time and this was not granted easily. The question still arises about a duplex or a single family. She questioned if a single family dwelling were built, would he have to come before the Board for a variance. Mr. Lamine replied no. Ms. Hintz questioned if without the variance a s~ructure could be built, is there a hardship? She. continued stating that nothing has been built. What should be taken into consideration is the likelihood of a private home being built on the lot. The Board considering that this was unlikely at that time. She commented that the plans are attractive and the neighbors seem pleased. This was a condemned home which was a rat haven. The neighborhood was pleased when they cleaned this out. It has remained an empty lot. It is not likely anything will be built until it is a duplex. Mr. Ames stated that according to Ms. Hintz nothing has replaced this structure. He questioned whether anyone could justify building a single family home on this lot for possibly $40,000 to $45,000. Mr. Kienast replied probably not, especially in that neighborhood. Mr. Ames s~ated they would have trouble building and rebuilding. He stated that could justify granting the variance in this situation. Mr. Nitkowski asked what the delay was. Mr. Kienast replied that the last time he requested the variance, Russ Young was going to build on it. However he did not and he. has found another party who would like to build on it. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PAGE SEVEN FEBRUARy 19, 1986 iii Mr. Nitkowski asked if Mr. Kienast has an offer to purchase. Mr. Kienast replied yes. Mr. Nitkowski reminded Mr. Kienast that this will have to be done within six months. Mr. McGee stated that this is an economic hardsh~p for the applicant, howevert this is a unique hardship oftne property not being developed. The applicant is facing a hardship, but the Board has found that the property cannot be developed by anyone economically. For instance, if he were to give the land away, would someone buy it and construct a single family house? Even if the land were free it would not be economically justifiable. In that argument it would be appropriate. Mr. Roskom stated that he agreed with this pointt drawing the line between speculation and fact. No one Can speculate that this mayor may not happen. What Mr. McGee is saying is that this is a fact of the present neighborhood. He suggested that the findings of fact not be based.on speculation. The Board cannot speculate whether this can be sold. Mr. Nitkowski stated that the uniqueness of the land and the dimensions of the lot are the problems. Mr. Ames asked what other options were available. Mr. Nitkowski stat-ed that Mr. McGee had stated these previously. Ms. Hintz stated that this had been carefully looked at and the only variance is for a 40 ft. Tot. This building meets the Ordinance in a way that no other does in that area. All other requirements are being met. The neighbors are concerned about the parking and he still has a rear yard. When considering if he met the Ordinance requirementst the only problem is the 40 ft. lot which was compensated for by sharing a driveway with the neighbor. Mr. Ames stated that the Board is dealing with an awkward situation. He has provided the parking and there is no problem with the other neighbors. He has maintained some backyard space too. Mr. Nitkowski stated that they have a Joint Driveway Agreement with the neighbors. He asked if there would be four other people using the drive with one other person. Mr. Roskom stated that the Board should consider .whether they are setting a precedent. He asked them to consider whether the property lines in the neighbor- hood are in the same situation. The Board is looking at a block of primarily 40 ft. lots. In essence the Board would be granting the applicant the common rights of the property owner in that area. Ms. Hintz stated that the variance would be consistent with most of the properties in that area. Mr. Roskom stated that whether it would be good for a single family is not important. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PAGE EIGHT FEBRUARY 19, 1986 Mr. Kimberly moved approval to construct a two family dwelling on a 40 ft. wide lot located at 232 E. Parkway Avenue. Motion seconded by Mr. McGee. Motion carried 5-0. With regard to findings of fact, Ms. Hintz stated that the neighborhood is full of 40 ft. lots many of which are duplexes. To deny them a privilege shared by a good percentage of the property owners in the area would not be right. In effect this lot adheres to the Ordinance better than any other in this area. Mr. Roskom stated that in fact the applicant does have an alternative use without the variance. He commented that this needs to be recognized. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. U~ectfullY sub~itted, ,J/; _~ ~ if 1 ,1.,..; ..... / ./{~~y~~~ Chuck Lamine, AICP Associate Planner