Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 February 12, 2014 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES February 12, 2014 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Kathryn Larson, Robert Krasniewski EXCUSED: Tom Willadsen STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of January 8, 2014 were approved as presented. (Krasniewski/Carpenter) ITEM I: 1226 OREGON STREET Lance Geffers-applicant, Geffers Properties LLC-owner, requests the following variance to permit a monopole ground sign in the front yard setback: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Front Yard Setback (south) 30-26(B)(3)(c) 25’ 5’ Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is zoned C-3 Central Commercial District and is being used for commercial restaurant purposes. The property features a single-story building built in 1922 with associated off-street parking and loading facilities surrounding the principal structure with vehicular access occurring via curb cuts on both street frontages. The general area is predominately mixed-use development. The applicant is proposing to install a monopole sign in the southwest corner of the subject site with the overall height of 16’, a double-faced 4’x8’ internally illuminated cabinet, and a 1.67’x5’ LED message board below the identification cabinet. The request is reasonable given the historical development pattern, limited size of the parcel, and the location of the off- street parking facilities. The proposed location appears to be the safest and most practical alternative as the sign clearance and controlled intersection mitigates vision concerns however board members may want to consider some type of supplemental safety measures around the sign base due to its close proximity to access drives and parking stalls. Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. Lance Geffers, 474 Oak Park Drive, stated that he proposed to place the sign in this location due to the traffic flow pattern around the building as well as the parking stalls which leave no alternative area for the sign that would not encroach into the setback area. He further stated that he did not desire to install a planter in the parking lot as it would further impede the parking area. Ms. Larson questioned the placement of the sign as it appeared to be up to the sidewalk on Oregon Street. Mr. Muehrer responded that the frontage on Oregon Street was not an issue as the property was zoned C-3 Central Commercial District which allows for a zero foot setback and that the frontage on West South Park Avenue was what triggered the necessity for the variance request as the residential zoning adjacent to the site did require a setback for the signage. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 February 12, 2014 Mr. Cornell questioned if the petitioner was anticipating any snow removal problems due to the placement of the sign. Mr. Geffers responded that he did not as the snow was pushed back to the east corner of the lot and the business is closed during the months of December and January. Mr. Carpenter inquired if there would be any parking by the sign. Mr. Geffers responded negatively and stated that the parking stalls would remain by the building only. Mr. Krasniewski commented that something would be necessary around the base of the sign to protect the pole from vehicular damage. Mr. Geffers replied that he intends to put a planter or some type of barrier around the base of the sign pole he just did not want a planter around the parking stalls. Mr. Muehrer stated that it would be similar to the request approved previously for another business on Oregon Street that had the same type of situation with the need for a sign but very little area surrounding it. Mr. Carpenter commented that the light pole for the traffic signals and sign are in close proximity. Mr. Krasniewski questioned what the City regulations allow regarding electronic message center signage. Mr. Muehrer responded that they are not allowed in the C-1 Neighborhood Business District however they are allowed in the C-3 District and staff’s only concern was the close proximity to the traffic signal. The request was reviewed by the Transportation Director and they did not see any issues with it. Mr. Cornell inquired if the LED message would change throughout the day. Mr. Geffers indicated that it would to advertise different specials during the day. Mr. Muehrer commented that as long as the sign is not flashing, changing messages during the day is not an issue. Mr. Krasniewski questioned how this aspect of the signage is monitored. Mr. Muehrer responded that the signs have set intervals for the changing messages. Mr. Cornell inquired if the sign’s height is similar to the height of the traffic signal, if this would cause any concerns. Mr. Muehrer replied that heading east or west through this intersection, it should not be an issue and he reviewed the history of the property and it did possess a sign further north of the building in the past however it was removed due to its poor condition. Ms. Larson commented that the site needed the parking spaces as they were limited on this parcel. Mr. Muehrer stated that was an issue as this is a very tight site to provide adequate room for signage due to its limited parking stalls and vehicular accesses on both frontages. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 February 12, 2014 Motion by Larson to approve the request for a variance to permit a monopole ground sign in the front yard setback. Seconded by Penney. Mr. Carpenter commented that it was a good solution to a unique situation. Mr. Penney stated that the LED message portion of the sign was his only concern and that issue had been addressed. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: Limited area. Available area limits placement of sign. Height and orientation should not create traffic situation. Unique situation. Best solution to situation. ITEM II: 1025 BONG COURT James Driessen-applicant, Zachery A. Hammond-owner, requests the following variance to permit a detached garage in the front yard: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Accessory Structure location 30-1(A)(2) Rear or Side Yard Front Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District and is being used for single family residential purposes. The principal structure is a single-story ranch style home built in 1948 with a detached garage constructed at the same time which is accessed via a curb cut on Powers Street. The general area is comprised predominately of low-density residential uses. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing garage with a new garage however since the subject site has double-frontage, the proposed location is defined as a front yard and the zoning ordinance requires all accessory structures to be located in the rear or side yard. The lot configuration is creating a justifiable hardship and is outside of the petitioner’s control and there are no by-right placement alternatives present for the garage structure. The proposed location is consistent with the remaining portion of the neighborhood block with identical circumstances and therefore no harm to the public interest will occur by granting the variance. Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. James Driessen, 5070 County Road K, stated that it was an inherited problem with the two front yards on the parcel and the owners would like to replace the existing older garage with a slightly larger accessory structure. The proposed new garage would be 24’ by 26’ and the existing structure is a 14’ by 22’ garage on a 20’ by 22’ foundation. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the setback for the new structure would be the same as the existing one. Mr. Muehrer indicated that it would be a foot or two closer than the existing structure. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 February 12, 2014 Mr. Krasniewski commented that it appeared that all three of the properties on this block had garages on Powers Street with the same distance as far as setbacks as he had concerns if the proposed new garage would be in line with the other structures. Mr. Driessen responded that the proposed garage would have a 19’6” setback and the garage to the south possessed a 19’3” setback. Mr. Cornell questioned what the purpose of the pole by the garage was. Mr. Driessen responded that it was for a satellite dish. Mr. Krasniewski stated that this was not allowed on this area of the parcel. Mr. Driessen indicated that it could be moved. Ms. Larson requested to clarify that the proposed garage would be in line with the existing garage to the north. Mr. Driessen replied that it would be in line with the garage to the south. Mr. Carpenter commented that corner lots were difficult in the same respect as this property as they both possess two front yards which adversely affects the setbacks. Ms. Larson questioned if the proposed new garage would also have a porch addition like the existing structure. Mr. Driessen responded negatively. Motion by Larson to approve the request for a variance to permit a detached garage in the front yard. Seconded by Krasniewski. Mr. Penney commented that when an owner has this type of situation where they just want to replace an existing structure, it is a shame that they have to go through this procedure to be able to accomplish it. Mr. Muehrer indicated that the city was looking at different alternatives to this process. Mr. Krasniewski verified the distance between the home and garage to ensure it met code standards and commented that it was an established neighborhood and there were no alternatives for placement of the accessory structure. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: Unique situation with two front yards. No harm to public interest. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:51 p.m. (Penney/Larson). Board of Appeals Minutes 5 February 12, 2014 Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator