HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (minutes) - 04/15/1981 Board of Zoning Appeals
April 15, 1981 Meeting
Page Three
Mrs. Hintz stated once again that it is not the home occupation
that is in question, it is the request to locate it within the
unattached garage.
Mr. Silas Anderson, 1039 Grove Street, stated that he offered to
rent Mr. Houge's partner some space for practically nothing, but
he turned it down. He stated that Mr. Houge's friend was everything
but a gentleman, and that Mr. Houge should be careful who his
patrons are if he is granted this variance.
Mr. Last asked if this home occupation would be allowed in the
garage, if it were attached to the home.
Mr. Rosenquist said that it would be allowed. An attached garage
is treated as part of the principal building by the Zoning Ordinance.
The roof structure has to be common to both buildings.
Mrs. Hintz moved that this variance request be approved, based on
the circumstances surrounding the appeal, in particular, Mr. Houge's
disability and the fact that this work he is doing is his livelihood
and therefore, it should not set a precedent, and with the stipulation
that when Mr. Houge vacates the property the use must be discontinued.
Mr. Last seconded the motion. Motion was denied 3 -2.
II. Appeal of Robert Rasmussen, owner of 512 Poplar Avenue,
proposes to erect a 6' high fence between the existing building
lines and the Poplar Street property line, whereas a 4' high
fence is the maximum allowed.
Paul Swanson, Attorney for Mr. Rasmussen, explained that the Courts
has determined that the existing 6' fence running along both side
property lines is a legal fence because it is constructed the brick
on the bottom of the fence is an earth material. The petitioners
are requesting to be allowed to connect these to sides with a 6'
fence in the front. The fence posts are in existence across the
front, now. Mr. Rasmussen stores disabled vehicles on this property
for his business, B 8 C Auto. These are vehicles which are illegally
parked, or abandoned, or which require servicing before the owner
can claim them. They must be stored until the owner can claim them,
or until they can be proven to be abandoned and title can be claimed.
Mr. Rasmussen purchased this land on Land Contract, and is required
to leave the previous owners material on the property for one year.
This material is junk, but since Mr. Rasmussen cannot remove it, he
would like to erect a fence to screen this property from the street.
He has had security problems here and would like to let his guard
dog run within this 6' high fence. The dog is now chained, and
cannot protect itself or the property. It could jump over a 4' high
fence.
Mr. Rosenquist explained that Mr. Rasmussen was taken to court by
the city for operating a junk yard without a license, for storing
-3-
Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes
April 15, 1981 meeting
Page Four
junk vehicles in a residentially zoned district, and for having an
illegal fence. He was found guilty of the first two counts, but the
fence was found to be legal. He was fined and told to remove the
illegal use.
Mr. Rasmussen stated that they are appealing that decision. The question
before the board today is whether they will allow them to complete
the 6' fence across the front.
Mr. Rosenquist explained that even though the court has found the
existing 6' fence to be legal, the city determines that the new
portion of fence proposed does not conform to the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Rasmussen stated that since the previous owner, Oscar Hildebrand,
has stored junk there for many years, this should be considered a
nonconforming use.
Mr. Swanson stated that even if these disabled vehicles have to be
removed, the junk will still be there, and this fence would hide
it from view.
Martin Kluge, 523 Ceape, stated that he owns property near here,
and that he considered the property to be used for a junk yard. The
vehicles stay there for as long as 3 to 4 months.
Mr. Last stated that the Board is only considering whether to allow
the petitioner to erect a section of 6' fence across the front of
this property.
Mr. LaLond asked Mr. Kluge if he was objecting to the fence.
Mr. Kluge said "no." However, if the board allows him to erect
the fence, they are condoning the junk yard.
Mr. Last said that the court makes the determinations as far as the
junk yard, not the Board of Zoning Appeals..
Silas Anderson, 1039 Grove, stated that he drives past this property
every day and would like to see them allow Mr. Rasmussen to erect
the fence, since it would improve the looks of the neighborhood.
Mrs. Frank Schwedt, 2239 Allerton Drive, owner of 58 Broad Street,
stated that she is opposed to the junk yard.
Mr. Last moved to approve the variance request.
Mrs. Hintz seconded the motion. Motion was denied 2 -3.
III. Appeal of George Kleinschmit, owner of 1334 Otter Avenue,
proposes to convert a single family residence to a duplex
in an R -2 Zoning District. A 7 1/2' side yard setback is
required, whereas a 4 1/2' side yard setback is provided.
-4-