Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-BZA MinutesBoard of Zoning Appeals September 3, 1986 Page Eight Ms. Hintz stated that a single family residence exists which pre-dates the Ordinance with a 2.58 ft. side yard setback, a 4 ft. rear yard setback, and a 14.7 ft. front yard setback. Two of the setbacks would be non-conforming anyway. We are only dealing with the rear yard which pre-dates the Ordinance. They are considering splitting the adjoining lot in order to make it a buildable property. We do not want to hand him a property which is not buildable until we take action. Mr. Laraine stated that he would have a reasonable alternative to combine the lots. Mr. McGee questioned what if he sold this parcel to someone else? Mr. Laraine replied that it would still be self-created. Ms. Hintz moved approval of a variance to create two. lots, 4515 sq. ft. each, which carries the variance to the Code for rear, front, and side yard setbacks for the existing structure; with the contingency that the newly created empty lot be developed according to Mr. Kinderman's projected idea of dividing the adjacent lot so that future variances would not be required for any possible construction that he makes on that property. Mr. McGee questioned if she wanted to say developed or combined? Ms. Hintz replied-that she didn't think that they could insist that it be developed. In the case of construction of a dwelling, that the division of the adjacent lot be created so that no variance would be required. Motion seconded by Mr. Ames. Motion carried 5-0. With regard to findings of fact, Ms. Hintz stated that a hardship exists in leaving a piece of property unusable. No feasible development of a fairly extensive piece of property which would be detrimental to the City. Mr. Nitkowski stated that the placement of the house is prior to the Ordinance. V. 1405 PIERCE AVENUE - William & Alexis Schlichting _~--- Mr. Laraine explained that Mr. and. Mrs. Schlichting are requesting a variance to construct an inground pool with a 1 ft. side yard setback, a 7 ft. rear yard setback, a 17 ft. front yard setback, and occupies 38% of the rear yard. The R-1B Single Family Residence District requires a 7 1/2 ft. minimum side yard setback, a 25 ft. minimum rear yard setback, a 60 ft. minimum front yard setback, and that accessory uses not exceed 30% of the rear yard. Mr. McGee stated that they are not only looking at the rear yard, but the whole area along Pierce. Mr. Laraine confirmed that they are ]ooking from the house back. William Schlichting., 1405 Pierce Avenue, stated that his iot is only 48' x 120' and it is virtually impossible to build anything without a variance. The Code requires a 25 ft. rear yard and a 60 ft. front yard. The 60 ft. one alone is my front yard plus half the neighbor's yard. Ms. Hintz stated that she didn't know why they would require these setbacks for a pool.. Board of Zoning Appeals September 3, 1986 Page Seven Ms. Hintz moved approval not accessory to a single Motion carried 5-0. of a variance to construct a garage on a vacant lot family dwelling.. Motion seconded by Mr. Kimberly. With regard to findings of fact, Ms. Hintz stated that we are dealing with a special set of circumstances. The lot in question is not suitable for a building of any kind, leaving it unused. The construction of a garage across the street is typical of the beach area which not only pre-dates the Ordinance, but did not come into the City until recently. IV. 726 WEST 97H AVENUE - George Kinderman Mr. Lamine explained that Mr. Kinderman is requesting a variance to create two 4515 sq. ft. lots, one of which has a single family residence with a 2.58 ft. side yard setback, a 4 ft. rear yard setback,. and a 14.7 ft. front yard setback. The R-2 Two Family Residence District requires a 7,200 sq. ft. lo.t, a 7 1/2 ft. minimum side yard setback, and a 25 ft. mini-mum front yard setback. He informed the Board that this lot division was approved at the August 11, 1986 Plan Commission meeting, and is in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance with the condition of final approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals. George Kinderman, 719 West 8th Avenue, that that property has been in-the family for ]00 years. The realtor informed them-that even if they built before it was sold: it would not be salable. He owns the lot east. of there, 719 West 8th Avenue, which includes Lot. 34. That lot could be added to that,. and they would be creating a lot which is perfectly legal. :This is in case he decides to sell, which he doesn't intend to, but could do. Ms. Hints stated that they are dealing with 7,200 sq. ft. in R-2. Mr. Lamine replied that the lot area per family as required by Section 30-6(B)(7) is 7,200 sq. ft. Fora single family building they require single family district requirements for lot size.. He continued to clarify the lot density question. Ms. Hintz wished to confirm that what they are doing is dividing a lot because the one half is unusable and it cannot. be divided any other way. Mr. Lamine stated that in the. long. run though,. this is for him to combine two lots. Mr. McGee stated that. if the Board does allow splitting of the lot, he would have an existing lot without a structure on-it. We would have to allow a variance to build on it. Without a variance we would be taking away any use for the property. Mr. Lamine stated that it is then a self-created hardship. Ms. Hintz stated that the contingency is a future problem. Mr. McGee further explained that if the Board is going to create the situation, they srhould create it with a contingency. Mr. Nitkowski stated that the: lot division was approved. by the Plan Commission on August 11; they did not foresee any problem. Mr. Lamine stated that they are creating a variance for the Subdivision Ordinance for this.