Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (minutes) - 02/19/1986 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 fact, 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 drainage, 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. Laraine 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, however, 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 dividers 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 fact, Ms. Hintz stated 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 consistent with the other lots. V. 232 E. Parkway - LuVern Kienast 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 hearings 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 neighbor's 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, however, 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 structure 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 stated 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.