Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (minutes) - 04/06/1988 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES PAGE TWO APRIL 6, 1988 Mr. Noffke continued, there will be no out buildings and the garage is in the middle of the building. The rear yard is actually on the side of the proposed building and the pre- existing garage was up against the lot line. Mr. McGee stated a detached garage could be within 30" of the lot line. The courts have determined that a financial hardship is not one that the Board can look at. The applicant has a feasible alternative. Ms. Hintz asked if the applicant had experimented with other site plans. Mr. Noffke stated the other alternative would be with a detached garage and a two story building. Motion by Hintz to move approval of a variance to construct a duplex with a 20.34 ft. rear yard setback. Seconded by McDonald. Motion denied 0 -4. Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. McGee stated the applicant had a reasonable alterna- ti . The only hardship would be economic which would not support a variance. III. 1923 MINERVA STREET - Dale Schumacher. Mr. Dannhoff explained the applicant is requesting a variance to erect a garage addition with a rear yard setback of 22 ft.; whereas Section 30- 15(B)(1)(d) requires a 25 ft. rear yard setback in'the R -1 Single Family Residence District. Mr. Schumacher stated he would like to be able to get his two cars in the garage. Mr. McGee asked if the variance were approved, would the two cars go into part of the new addition? Mr. Schumacher replied yes. Mr. McGee stated the entire length of the garage would be 34 ft. The staff recommenda- tion points out it would be possible to building an addition of 9 ft. in length. Mr. Schumacher stated he would not be able to get two cars in. Mr. McGee stated because the garage is attached he would not be able to widen it without a side yard setback variance. Mr. Neu asked what type of equipment would be stored. Mr. Schumacher replied a snowblower, lawnmower and picnic table. Mr. Neu asked the size of the storage shed. Mr. Schumacher replied 6'x8'. Mr. McGee asked if the storage shed would be removed. Mr. Schumacher said yes, if there is enough room in the new addition. Motion by Hintz to move approval of a variance to erect a garage addition with a rear yard setback of 22 ft. Seconded by Neu. Motion carried 4 -0. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES PAGE THREE APRIL 6, 1988 Regarding the findings of fact, Ms. Hintz stated we are dealing with a structure that is already in place which leaves little room for an addition. Not enough storage would be a hardship and the additional tool shed will not be needed. Also the size of the lot creates a hardship. Mr. McDonald stated this is a minimum impact alternative. Mr. McGee stated he felt there was no other feasible way of expanding to allow parking for two vehicles. IV. 1518 S. KOELLER STREET - Goodwill Industries Mr. Dannhoff explained the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a wall sign to project 21 inches from the surface of the wall; whereas Section 30- 31(C)(1)(o) Projecting Sign allows a maximum of an 18" projection from the face or wall of a structure. Mr. Lloyd Williams representing Goodwill Industries stated a smaller sign would limit the visibility from Koeller Road. This sign would be consistant with other tenants' signs in the Menard Plaza. Mr. Danhoff explained the proposed.sign is the same size as Northwest .Fabrics. It is 21" to the back of the 'sign so the variance should be 21" plus the depth of the sign. Mr. Dannhoff continued', according to the Inspectors' records the correct address is 1512 S. Koeller instead of 1518 S. Koeller. Ms. Hintz stated all the other tenants have had to come in for a sign variance - because of the mansard style front on the building. Motion by Hintz to move approval of a variance to allow a wall sign to project 21 inches from the surface of the wall to the back of the sign. Seconded by Neu. Motion carried 4 -0. Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. Neu stated there will be no negative impact because the sign is the same as the other tenants. We are dealing with a mansard style roof. The sign is needed to identify a business. V. GRACELAND SUBDIVISION - Ron Leichtfuss Mr. Dannhoff explained the applicant is .requesting a variance to erect two subdivision identification signs set back 12 ft. from Graceland Drive and Witzel Avenue; whereas Section 30- 31(E)(1)(a) limits subdivisions to one identification sign and Section 30- 15(B)(1)(c) requires a 25 ft. front yard setback to each street. Mr. Leichtfuss explained there are two entrance signs instead of one because of the rural atmosphere of the area. Also it would add balance. The bridge also takes away from the area. Lots 57 and 1 are corner lots. If the signs met the 25 ft. setbacks they would be at the north corner of where the structures will be starting. The buildable area would be reduced from 77 ft. to 67 ft. and from 57 ft. to 45 ft. on each lot if the setbacks were met. Mr. McGee asked if it would be possible to replat the area.