HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/16/1983
BOARD OF ZONING .APPEAlS Mgilll'ES
NO~ 16, 1983
STAFF :
Anne Hintz, Jim Larson, Harry Luebke, Norman Miller, Tom King
Phil Rosenquist, Associate Planner; Darlene Matulle, Recording
Secreta:J::y
PRESENT :
ChaiJ::nan King called the meeting to order. ROll .call was taken and a qoorum
was declared present.
A notion was made, seconded, arid passed una.nim:>~ly to approve the minutes
of November 2, 1983 as recorded.
I. Appeal of Ken Rice, agent for Bill D. Spicer, owner of the
property at 280 S. Koeller ROad, proposes to erect a ground
sign with a 0' front yard setback, whereas a 25' front Yard
setback is required.
Mr. ROsenquist stated this appeal was laid over fran the last rreeting, and
has been changed to a 0' front yard setback rather than a ground sign taller
than the building within 25' of the building. He continued that ~spoke with
Mr. Rice the day before the meeting and also with Mr. Neals fran the Cinema
Theater. It is .~..r . ROsenquist 's understanding that an agreerrent has been
reached between the two parties for the proposed ground sign. However, the
agreertelt does not confonn to what is being requested on the agenda. The
appellant is now requesting a 9' front yard .set:.1:x3.ck, whereas a 25' front yard
setback is required; and a ground sign taller than the building within 25'
of the building.
Mr. Ken Rice, architect for the project, distributed a nEM si,.:te plan showing
the proposed building and location of the proposed sign. Mr. Rice pointed out
the sign location has been changed fran the south end to the north end of the
property. Mr. Rice indicat~. ~...~.. spoken with. Mr. Neals of. the Cinellla .Theater
and he is in favor of the proposed location. ?:'his proposed location for the
sign will not block the Cinema sign and can be ~ fran the Highway.
Mr. King inquired of Mr. Rice if he would have a hardship or practical difficulty
if he has to corrply with the Ordinance. . I
Mr. Rice replied yes.
Mr. ROsenquist inquired as to the distance from the proposed sign to the walk-in
cooler indicated on the site plan.
Mr. Rice replied it is approxinately 4'. This will allow enough room to plow snow.
He continued that if the sign is placed any other way, traffic will not be able
to see it.
Mrs. Hintz inquired if the only other neighl:::or is the restaurant, besides the Cinema.
Mr. Rice replied that Casa Del Rey is closest aIfd then the Cinema.
Mr. ROsenquist believed there were 11 property owners in all notified, including
the restaurant and Cinema.
OOARD OF ZONING .APPFA[S MINUI'ES
NOV 16, 1983 MEEI'ING
PAGE 'I.W)
M::>tion by Anne Hintz to amend the variance to grant a 9' front yard setback
and to add a variance for a taller than building sign wi thin 25' of the
building. M:>tion seconded by Harry Luebke. M:>tion approved 5-0.
M::>tion by Anne Hintz to IIOve the amended variance,. M::>tion seconded by Har:1::y
Luebke. M:Jtion approved 5-0.
Regarding the findings of fact, Mrs. Hintz did not feel that special privileges
were granted in allowing the height of the sign because they could have a 60'
sign near Highway 41 and there does not appear to be any other place to put the
sign. The appellant has. reached an agreem:mt with the neighl:::or regarding the
location of the sign and safety and welfare are not infringed on. Mrs. Hintz
felt a hardship 't\Ould have been placed on the es1:ablishment not to have proper
signage if the variances had been denied.
Mr. King felt the Board has approved similar variances. As an example he cited
McCrory Mattress which was granted a variance for a roof sign within 25' of the
building. Due to the wide right-of-way in this area, the sign will be setback
approximately 44' from the pavement. Even with tpe. amended var:iance, Mr. King
felt that proper notice was given on both the height of the sign and the setback
to all surrounding property owners.
At this point, Chainnan King infonned the Foard and the audience that appeal
#2 has been withdrawn. fran this. meeting.
III. Appeal of LuVern Kienast, owner of the property at 232 E. Parkway
Avenue, proposes to erect a duplex on a 40' wide 1~wl1""ereas-a;<'
45' wide lot is required.
11r. ROsenquist explained that Mr. Kienast proposes to construct a duplex on
a lot zoned R:- 2. The lot in question meets all requirerrents except for lot
width. This sane variance was granted to Mr. Kienast in FebruaI:y of 1982.
However, at that tine, Mr. Kienast was not able to start construction within
the 6 nonth tiIne period.
Mr. LuVern Kienast, 765 N. Washburn Street, indicated he did not have a chance
to start construction in 1982 when the previous variance was granted. He ex-
plained the party who wanted to construct on the ,lot changed his mind. Mr .
Kienast stated he is now going to construct on the lot.
Mr. King inquired if the design of the home is the same as before?
Mr. Kienast replied yes.
Mr. Luebke inquired how m:my bedrooms will each unit have?
Mr. Kienast replied tw:J bedrooms.
Mr. Miller inquired of Mr. Kienast when he purchased the property.
Mr. Kienast replied about 4 years ago.
Mr. Miller inquired if Mr. Kienast was aware of the R,..2 zoning at that time.
Mr. Kienast replied yes.
..
BOAro OF ~G. .APPE:AIS MINUTES
NOV 16, 1983 MEEI'ING
1
PAGE THREE
Mrs. Hintz inquired about the carmon.. driveway.
Mr. ROsenquist stated that Mrs.. Hobbs to.:the.. east o~. ~ property. in question,
shares a driveway with Mr. Kienast's. property for access to her garage. However ,
Mr. Rosenquist pointed out there is another dI::iyE1WCiY on the other side of Mrs.
Hobbs' property that is used for access to the garage also.
Mr. Miller stated he did not recall this appeal having been approved previously.
Mr. Rosenquist stated that once the driveway agrekm:mt was taken care of, there
was no.. objection f:rom Mrs. Hobbs and the appeal was granted.
Mrs. Hintz referred to a portion of the minutes of February 3, 1982 indicating
the variance was approved. "Mr. Goldthwaite madEi! a notion to approve this
variance request, with the stipulation that Mrs. Hobbs be provided with an
original copy of this Agreement. Mr. King seconded the. notion. M::>tion carried
5-0. "
Mrs. Hobbs, 302 E. Parkway Avenue, believed the y<:iriapce W<ll:) "nly for the
driveway agreement. She did not knowMr.KL~S,t <;:9t1ld put a duplex on a lot
that is only 30' wide. Hc:Mever, as long as. Mr. Kienast keeps the driveway
for everyone, Mrs. Hobbs did not ~. any problem~ She i.r.qui.red how nany families
~uld be living there?
Mr. Kienast l:'eplied there ~uld be two fanlil:i,.~~~:th parking beh:i,.nd the house.
Mr. Herb Zwicky, 216 E. Parkway Avenue, stated it is his feeling that there is
too much congestion on the streetwi:th fire hydrants, ambulance lane and. a
beauty parlor on the corner for a duplex at this location. He inquired what
type of building will it be, high or low?
Mr. King pointed out. there is no. ~t for a bl=ight variance on the agenda.
Mr. Kienast stated the duplex will be al:x:mt 1 1/2 stories, or about 16' high.
Mr. Zwicky believed it will be closer to 20' high. He continued that all hotres
in the area are SlllClJ..l one-~tory. hc::m=s and no dUplex should be allowed on a 30 I
wide lot.
Mr. Lloyd Runyon, 308 E. Parkway Avenue, indicated he felt a duplex't\Ould really
be crowding this area. He felt the duplex would. be too close to Mr.. Schafer's
property and to Mrs. Hobl:>s. .G9rs going in the driveway will go right past Mrs.
Hobbs' living room and dining roam. . .
Mrs. Hintz stated that Mr ~Kienast has deeded this right-of-way in order to
.. . ...... .... ..., ......'..,.1.. ... '. .,.. .
build a duplex and so Mrs. Hobbs would not oppose the varlance. FurtheDrore,
Mrs. Hobbs has indicated' she is not in opposition to the variance. ~.rs. Hintz
inquired of Mr. Runyon if he is speaking for hintself or Mrs ~ Hobbs?
Mr. Runyon indicated he is speaking for Mrs. Hobbs.
Mrs. Hobbs stated as long as both Mr. Kienast aIfd hersel.f caIl us~ :the driveway
and no one parks there, she did not have a:rr:l objections.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MlNUI'ES
NOV 16, 1983 MEEI'ING
PAGE FOUR
Mr. King pointed out a Joint Driveway Agreement has been recorded indicating
that both Mrs. Hobbs or Mr. Kienast cannot block the driveway. The Board is
aware of the steps leading up to this agreanent. I Mr. King cOntinued the Board
did delay action on this appeal in 1982 until this agreerrent was recorded.
Unfortunately, Mr. Kienast did not build within the 6 nonth period and he is
before the Board again.
Mr. Runyon stated he felt it is against the Ordinance to build on a srrall lot;
it ~uld be crowding the lot in question and adjoining lots.
Mr. ROsenquist reiterated that the lot in question does meet the square footage
requirement and all setbacks are met.
Mr. King inquired if there are other duplexes on Parkway.
Mr. Runyon did not think so. He did believe.~ are apartments though. He
further indicated he has an apartment above his bpme.
A concerned citizen stated Herb Zwicky's lot size is 50 x 150; therefore, all
lots in this area are not the sane size.
For the record, Mr. King stated Mr. Zwicky did purchase some property from
210 E. Parkway, rot 17, and also frontage on the other side of his property.
M:>tion by No:rman Miller to allow the variance. M:>tion seconded by Anne Hintz.
M:>tion approved 4-1.
Regarding the findings of fact, Mrs. Hintz felt the ]bard is dealing with an
older part of town with small and narrow lots. ~ special privileges have been
granted by allowing this variance as evidenced bY. other duplexes existing on
lots of similar size in the neighJ:orhood. Mrs. Hintz stated all requirements
have been rret, including square footage and setbacks,. and safety and welfare
will not be infringed upon. Adquate parking has been provided on the back of
the lot. Given the history of the lot, Mr. Kienast has registered an easement
for the carmon driveway and Mrs. Hobbs has no objection to the appeal. Mrs. Hintz.
felt that because of the size of the lot in question and the zoning of the lot, a
practical difficulty exists in the proper usage of the property for the owner.
Mr. King indicated he agrees with Mrs. Hintz's findings of fact except he felt
Mrs. Hobbs did have sane right to access to her property. .
Mr. Miller did not feel that a hardship is involved. Mr. Kienast purchased the
property 4 years ago and was aware of the R- 2 zo:r;ling and lot size. He felt
that with the joint driveway and no parking on one side of the street, the duplex
rna.y cause problems. Mr. Miller felt a yes vote allows special privileges to
Mr. Kienast.
IV. Appeal of Thomas Brinkman, agent for Iola Fiker, etal, owner of the
property at 743 Scott Avenue, proposes to convert a single family
home to a duplex. 5,357 square feet of lot area exists, whereas
7,200 square feet is required. rot width of 45' exists, whereas
a 60' lot width is required.
Mr. Fosenquist explained the appellant proposes to convert a single family
home to a duplex. He continued the agenda should be amended. The requirements for
a lot.C?f_record in the R-5 zoning district are a 4.5' wide lot and 6000 square
feet of lot area, per Section 30-19 (c) (4) of the. Zonina Ordinance. Therefnref
the first variance request is only 643 square feet short of the
BOARD OF ZONING APPEArS MrnUrES
NOV 16, 1983 MEETING
I
PAGE FIVE
-
.'
requi.ied 6,000 square feet of lot area and the seqond variance request should
be deleted.
Mr. Thcmas Brinkman, 1033 Hazel Street, indicated that Mrs. Fiker is deceased
and he is purchasing the property. Mr. Brinkman distributed a copy of the 700
and 800 blocks of SCOtt Avenue which were obtained fran the Assessor's Office.
He indicated the heavy black lines on the copies are shared di.iveways.The
property in question, 743 scott Avenue, also has a shared driveway. It is
presently a single family home, and Mr. Bri.nkItle:D,j.,I'lfi;!'~:!;:~.h~~~9.~~~","l:9
convert it to a duplex. Mr. Brinkman distributed another...~heetshowing. properties
within the 700 and 800 blocks of Scott Avenue ina+cating the Usage" of the
property (apartments, rooming house, etc.), whether the City Directoxy shows
owner occupied,. if the property has been sold in the past year, the ntm1ber of
gas rreters, mail boxes and door bells at an addre~s, if there is a shared dri ve-
way, and the number of i:he ...~~. iA. th~ driveway or parking lot. Mr. Brinkman
indicated he walked this"ar~. 9; S~tt,Avenue, in the early norning, to get an
idea of the actual usage of . the properaes':.' ~'He'-$nB.riuea: .'noexterior changes
are needed. to convert this home ana there is sufficient parking. He ipdicated
1 .. .... ..... .,... .' ..... .. . ....."..,... 'I.'.' I' ,
he lhOuld have to add a ki tci1en t;Q .:t:4~_ upper portion of the hoIre arlcl,. i3.d.<:1 a
shower to the lower half because there .is only half a bath downstairs.
Mr. Miller inquired of Mr. Brinkman how he felt ~ has adequate parking?
Mr. Bri.nkn:an replied the garage is on the lot line. Therefore he has half
of a double garage. Since the entire rear of th~ property is weeds f there
would be room for 3.....4 parking spaces and one space in the garage. He indicated
that nost homes in this ~ .. do. I1Qtpave grass for back yards, they are gravel.
Mr. Luebke inquired about a stairway to the second floor.
,
Due to the design of the home, Mr. Brinkman indiqated he would have to close
off a hallway going into the living room of the lower level to make two units.
Mr. Luebke inquired about a rear stairway.
Mr. Brinkman indicated there is a porch on the r~, similar to a sun porch,
with a stainlay.
Mr. King requested it be noted there was no one in opposition to this appeal.
I
Mr. Brinkman indicated he has spoken with the neighbor to the west and he has
no objections. Also, Mrs. Teicbmiller who owns a single family home up the
street, is aware of his intentions. Since she is. a neighbor to a property Mr.
Brinkman recently purchased and renovated, she also has no objections.
M:>tion by Jim Larson to grant the azrended varianc;::e. M::>tion seconded by Harry
Luebke. M:Jtion approved 5-0.
Regarding the findings of fact, Mrs. Hintz felt that a request fora usage that
is less than allowed is preferred. In this case, since the zoning is R-5, a rooming
housing could be allowed. She felt the deviation fran the Ordinance is small
and no special privileges are. granted because thi=re are other duplexes in the
area. Safety, welfare and health of the neighborhood is not ilTIpacted on and
the proposed conversion confo:rms with other usag~ in the area.
BOARD OF ZONING .APPEArS MINUl'ES
NOV 16, 1983 MEEI'ING
PAGE SIX
V. 0l'HER BUSINESS
Discussion between Board members ensued. regarding Mr. Kienast's property
on E. Parkway Avenue and the carmon driveway situation.
Mr. Miller inquired if any penni.ts have been given out on the Kentucky Fried
Chicken variance?
Mr. Rosenquist stated he did not know. He continped the lot has been purchased
by Kentucky Fried Chicken and he is still awaiting an opinion on the variance
from the City Attorney. .
Mr. Miller felt an opinion should be obtained fran the City Attorney as soon
as possible.
Mr. ROsenquist infonned the Board that this is his last meeting and Paul
Ehrfurth will be returninq as staff member to the Beard.
The Poard thanked Mr. Fosenquist for his assistance during the past years
and wished him luck in his future endeavors.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4: 50 P.M.
"
Respectfully. -sul:mit.ted,
/> '->'~_.
PHIL OOSEN2UIST
Associate Planner