HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 August 9,2017
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
August 9, 2017
PRESENT:Dan Carpenter,Robert Cornell,Robert Krasniewski, Dennis Penney, Tom Willadsen,
Kathryn Larson
STAFF:Todd Muehrer, Zoning Administrator;Brian Slusarek, Assistant Planner;Andrea
Flanigan, 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 July 12, 2017 were approved as presented. (Penney/Willadsen)
ITEM I:711 OREGON STREET
Kal Spanbauer -applicant requests the following variance to permit a wall-mounted sign that obscures the
windows of a building.
Description Code Reference Required Proposed
Wall Sign Rules 30-271(B)(3)(e)(iii)May not obscure windows In front of windows
Mr.Slusarek presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site.He described the subject 0.05 acre
property located on the west side of the 700 block of Oregon Street. It is zoned CMU Central Mixed Use
District and used for retail purposes.The parcel is bordered by commercial uses to the north, east, and
south, and residential uses to the west. The general area is predominately commercial and mixed use in
character.The applicant is proposing to install a new 1’X17’,1/4” thick,acrylic lettering/logo sign,mounted
to 3/4”thick square aluminum C-channels in front of the windows over the front entrance.The sign is
needed for tenant identification purposes.The ordinance requires wall signs to be mounted so that they do
not obscure the architectural features, windows, or doors of a building.A hardship in relation to the front
building façade exists as it consists primarily of window area, leaving little area for signage installation.
Staff recommends approval of the variance as the front façade lacks feasible area for signage that will not
obscure window areas with the condition that an encroachment agreement be obtained if the sign extends
over the public right-of-way.
Kal Spanbauer, 2165 Hickory Lane
Mr. Spanbauer stated he designed the sign in a way that would obstruct the window in the least possible
way to allow natural sunlight in to the building.
Mr. Cornell inquired if the sign is obstructing a second floor window to an apartment or if the window was
open to the business on first floor.
Mr. Spanbauer stated the window the sign is covering,is open to the lobby on first floor.
Ms. Larson inquired if the sign was lighted.
Board of Appeals Minutes 2 August 9,2017
Mr. Spanbauer responded it is not lighted.
Mr. Krasniewski inquired about the dimensions of the sign.
Mr. Spanbauer stated the length of the sign with logos is 17 feet long and a majority of the sign is 1 foot tall
with a 1 foot crown logo in the center of the of the sign above the lettering.
Ms. Larson stated there is a condition requiring an encroachment agreement if the sign extends over the
public right-of way.
Mr. Spanbauer stated the sign would not extend over public right of way.
Mr.Krasniewski motioned to approve a wall-mounted sign that obscures the windows of a building with the
condition that an encroachment agreement be obtained if the sign extends over the public right-of-way.
Motion seconded by Mr. Carpenter
Ms. Larson stated this is the best use of space, has minimal obstruction of windows and sign options are
very limited for this building.
Approved 5-0.
Findings of facts:
There are no other options for a sign location on this older building which pre-dates current sign regulations.
An identifying sign is a necessary accessory for any commercial property.
This sign has been designed to minimally obstruct window area and will have no adverse impact on the neighboring
properties.
Similar to other signage in the area.
ITEM II:2220 Doty Street
James M. Feldner-owner/petitioner requests the following variances to permit a 6’ high solid wood fence in
the front yard (east).
Description Code Reference Required Proposed
Fence Design (Front Yard)30-192(E)(2)(a)Max 50% opaque 100% opaque
Fence Height 30-192(F)(1)(a)(i)4’ max in street yard 6’
Mr.Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site.He described the subject .33 acre
property as a double-fronted, rectangular shaped lot located on the east side of Doty Street/west side of S.
Main Street. It is zoned SR-9 Single Family Residential District and used for single-family dwelling
purposes.The Municipal Code requires a maximum of 50% opaqueness, they are proposing 100%. The
petitioner requests a 6 foot high fence in the front yard, the fence height is limited to 4 feet in a street yard.
The owner constructed the fence without a legal building permit some time earlier this spring and was
issued a Correction Notice June 8th, 2017 by Inspection Services. The petitioner then filed his application on
June 13th, 2017 requesting the variances. The request was not placed on the July Board of Appeals agenda as
Board of Appeals Minutes 3 August 9,2017
the owner communicated he would not be able to attend the meeting in July. Subsequently, it has been
placed on the current agenda for consideration.
A fence design variance is needed as the solid fence exceeds the maximum 50% opaque requirement for
front yards in the performance standards. Likewise, a fence height variance is needed as the 6’ height
exceeds the 4’ maximum height standard for street yards in the performance standards. A unique property
circumstance is present in this request as it possesses two front yards (i.e. Doty Street and S. Main Street) by
Zoning Ordinance definition, which is beyond the petitioner’s control. Although the zoning ordinance
defines the subject area abutting S. Main Street as a front yard, practical use of the area is clearly rear yard
in nature. Requiring the owner to comply with strict fence performance standards on both sides of the
parcel would be unnecessarily burdensome in this particular instance. The variance requests are not
anticipated to be detrimental to the public.It is recommended the fence facing N. Main Street (and most
impacting the public) be buffered with a row of arborvitae plantings to visually mitigate the mass and scale
of the wood fence from the public right-of-way and blend more aesthetically with the immediate vicinity.
Staff recommends approval of the variance with the condition that a row of arborvitae trees (approximately
10 to 12 and no less than 4’ at planting) be installed along the N. Main Street frontage as approved by the
Department of Community Development.
James and Kim Feldner,2220 Doty Street
Mr. Feldner stated he did not know there was a street side variance that needed to be obtained since the
property has two front yards. The fence was installed for more privacy due to the high traffic along Main
Street.
Ms. Feldner stated when they bought the house Main Street was a two lane road. It is now a four lane road
with a lot more traffic. The family enjoys using the pool in the back yard along Main Street but would like
more privacy now that it is a high traffic road.
Mr. Carpenter inquired about the speed limit.
Mr. Feldner responded the speed limit on Main Street is 35 MPH.
Mr. Krasniewski inquired what the setback of the current fence is.
Mr. Feldner stated the setback is approximately 9 feet.
Mr. Krasniewski stated if the fence was built 6 feet further back it would not have impinged much more on
the backyard,and the fence would have been in compliance.
Mr. Carpenter inquired how staff becomes aware of these violations.
Mr. Muehrer responded either someone reports the violation or staff is in the area and notices the violation
in which they are required to follow-up.
Ms. Larson inquired if this property was access restricted so that no driveways could be put in off of Main
Street.
Board of Appeals Minutes 4 August 9,2017
Mr. Muehrer responded that no driveway access would be allowed from Main Street for this property given
the traffic volume and speed.The property is zoned residential and is only allowed one driveway.
Mr. Cornell inquired if the petitioner had any issues with the arborvitae being installed along the fence.
Ms. Feldman responded they had no problem with the condition.
Mr. Krasniewski inquired if the fence were constructed at the 15 foot setback would the plantings be
required.
Mr. Muehrer stated the plantings would not be required if the fence met the 15 foot setback.
Mr. Carpenter stated the fence provides added safety which is important with this property because of the
pool and high traffic street in the back yard. It would be safer to have a fence that would stop balls and keep
kids in the yard. Coverage of the fence with arborvitae would beautify the solid wood fence.
Mr. Krasniewski inquired about the opening in the fence along Main Street.
Mr. Feldman stated the opening in the fence is for the gate. As soon as he was notified of the violation,he
stopped work on the fence.
Mr. Penney stated he is worried about the precedent the board would be setting if the variance was
approved to allow a 6 foot fence.
Mr. Carpenter stated this situation is unique because there are two front yards in a high traffic area.
Ms. Larson inquired why the ordinance could not be changed to allow access restricted streets to have
fences similar to other back yards.
Mr. Muehrer responded that staff has looked at multiple alternatives with the consultant who updated the
zoning ordinance and it was recommended to leave the ordinance the way it is. If there truly was a
hardship the applicant would be eligible for a variance.
Mr.Penney motioned to approve a 6’ high solid wood fence in the front yard (east) with the condition that a
row of arborvitae trees be installed along the N. Main Street frontage as approved by the Department of
Community Development.
Motion seconded by Mr. Carpenter
Mr. Krasniewski stated the fence could be moved back 6 feet and it would be in compliance with the
zoning.
Mr. Carpenter stated the hardship is also that the property has two front yards.
Ms. Larson stated the solid fence encroaches into the street. If it was moved back 6 feet into the yard, it
would not be as noticeable. The back yard is large enough that moving it back would not be a large impact.
Board of Appeals Minutes 5 August 9,2017
Motion denied 2-3 (Yays-Carpenter, Cornell. Nays-Penney, Larson,Krasniewski).
Mr. Muehrer stated the applicant will need to resubmit the site plan to show the fence moved to the
appropriate setback, obtain the building permit,and move the fence.
Findings of facts:
There is no physical limitation to this property that would prevent owners from placing a fence on the property in
accordance with zoning regulations.
Owners have other options available that would provide privacy, such as a 4’ fence and arborvitae or a 6’fence meeting
the setback.
Approval of this variance would grant a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners in similar
circumstances.
ITEM III:1500 Oregon Street
Michaels Salon & Suites LLC-owner/Michael Kahl-petitioner requests the following variances to permit a
new 24’x24’ detached garage in the rear yard.
Description Code Reference Required Proposed
Accessory Building Nonresidential FY Setback 30-53(G)60’ minimum 0’
Nonconforming Site w/ substandard parking 30-134(B)(2)8 stalls 2
Mr.Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site.He described the subject .09 acre
property as a rectangular-shaped corner lot located southeast of the Oregon Street and W. 15th Avenue
intersection. It is zoned UMU Urban Mixed Use District and used for commercial and residential purposes.
The applicant is requesting variances to construct a new 24’x24’ (two-car) detached garage in the rear yard
in place of the existing three stall open off-street parking area.. A front yard setback (north) variance is
needed as the proposed nonresidential accessory building will encroach on the 60’ minimum standard.
Additionally, a variance is needed as the proposed two-car garage will further reduce the nonconforming
off-street parking for the building. The residential dwelling requires 2 stalls and the commercial portion
requires an additional 6 stalls based on gross floor area calculations.
The property is unique and has physical limitations that are beyond the petitioner’s control. Specifically, the
existing lot of record has a nonconforming minimum lot width of 38 feet, whereas 45 feet is conforming.
The limited lot width and corner lot configuration eliminate any by-right alternatives that would place a
detached nonresidential accessory building without variance. Therefore, requiring the owner to comply
with strict setback standards would be unnecessarily burdensome in this particular instance. The variance
requests are not anticipated to be detrimental to the public. The reduction of one-stall from the existing
nonconforming off-street parking arrangement should be absorbed by the surrounding on-street parking
facilities the commercial businesses in the vicinity have historically relied on to support operations.
Based on the information provided within this report, approval of the variance is recommended with the
following conditions:
1.The proposed detached garage be setback a minimum of 5’ from the north property line.
Board of Appeals Minutes 6 August 9,2017
2.The proposed detached garage materials and design will match the principal structure with final
approval given by the Department of Community Development.
3.The remaining 5’ rear yard (east) setback area is restored to turf grass.
Michael Kahl,1500 Oregon Street
Mr. Kahl stated he wants to construct a garage on the property for the tenants at 1500 Oregon Street. Salon
customers use the on street parking.It is common for customers using businesses in the area to utilize the
on-street parking. The off-street parking has always been for the tenant.
Mr. Cornell inquired if the parking lot to the east was available for customers to park.
Mr. Kahl responded that the parking lot is for the accounting business that owns the lot.
Ms. Larson inquired if the garage could be constructed to be a 22’x22’ garage to provide a little more
setback.
Mr. Kahl responded when he researched a standard two car garage, 24’ x 24’ was the most common.
Mr. Krasniewski inquired if the steps at the rear entrance was part of the 5’ set back.
Mr. Muehrer responded from a zoning standpoint the setback is 5’ from the building, but the applicant
would need to clarify with Inspections from a building code standpoint.
Mr. Krasniewski inquired if they would be able to build a 24’ x 24’ garage.
Mr. Muehrer responded that the builder will have to verify in the field. He stated the board should look at
the variance to see if they are comfortable reducing the non-conforming parking spaces from three to two
and the front yard setback.
Mr. Cornell inquired if the existing curb cut would have an impact on the construction of the garage.
Mr. Muehrer stated since historically the back yard of the property has been used for parking and there are
less than 6 parking stalls, backing onto the street is allowed under current code.
Mr. Krasniewski stated the curb cut looks like it is the right size for the garage.
Ms. Larson motioned to approve a new 24’x24’ detached garage in the rear yard with the following conditions:
1.The proposed detached garage be setback a minimum of 5’ from the north property line.
2.The proposed detached garage materials and design will match the principal structure with final approval
given by the Department of Community Development.
3.The remaining 5’ rear yard (east) setback area is restored to turf grass.
Motion seconded by Mr.Krasniewski
Board of Appeals Minutes 7 August 9,2017
Ms. Larson stated the impervious surface is already nearly at 100% and street parking is common in the
area for commercial businesses.
Approved 5-0.
Findings of facts:
The size of this older lot prohibits location of a detached garage in accordance with today’s setback requirements.
A garage is a standard structure for residential use.
Commercial on-street parking is common to this mixed commercial area and alleviates the need for on premise parking.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. (Krasniewski/Carpenter).
Respectfully submitted,
Todd Muehrer
Zoning Administrator