No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/1994 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AGENDA - Regular Meeting ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 10, 1994 1 . Roll call. 2 . Appeal 2119 . The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east property line from 5 feet to 4 ' 6" in order to allow the existing enclosed porch to be removed and an addition constructed to the rear of the building, lining up with the existing east wall of the house which is already only 4 ' 6" from the property line. Section 29-119(5) by Douglas and Denise Newberry, 925 W. Oak Street. 3 . Appeal 2120 . The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the south lot line from 15 ' to 5 ' in order to allow a new detached two-car garage to be constructed. Section 29-167 (4) by Steve Vandermeer and Ann Turnquist, 509 E. Olive Street. 4 . Appeal 2121. The applicant is appealing a staff determination. Specifically, the applicant believes that staff incorrectly decided that Mr. Bill Trippel has a legal, nonconforming home occupation use for Reliable Drywall which pre-dates the 1986 annexation of his property at 3622 Richmond Drive. (see petitioner' s letter) Section by Margaret Gorman and Todd Rogers, 3630 Richmond Drive. 5 . Appeal 2122 . The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 2 feet for an addition to an existing detached two-car garage. The 8 foot wide addition will line up with the existing rear wall of the garage, which is already at a 2 foot setback. Section 29-119(4 ) by Tom Lloyd, 1820 W. Mulberry Street. 6 . Appeal 2123. The variance would reduce the required 50 ft. wide landscape buffer strip along Buckingham Road to 24 ft. for the proposed New Belgium Micro-Brewy building. Section 29-403 (b) by Bill Stashak for the Neenan Co. , 500 Linden Street. 7 . Other business. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA Regular Meeting November 10 , 1994 Appeal 2119 --- 925 W. Oak Street --- Petitioner : Douglas and Denise Newberry --- Zone: NCL Zone b' --- Section 29-119 ( 5) --- The variance would reduce the required side yard setback along the east property line from 5 feet to 4 ' 6" in order to allow the existing enclosed porch to be removed and an addition constructed to the rear of the building, lining up with the existing east wall of the house which is already only 4 ' 6" from the property line. --- Petitioner ' s statement of hardship: The lot is narrow, only 40 ' wide. The addition will line up with the existing wall of the home. The home is small , and additional living space is desired . --- Staff comments: None. Appeal 2120 --- 509 E. Olive Street ---- Petitioner : Steve Vandermeer and Ann Turnquist --- Zone: NCM Zone --- Section 29-167 ( 4 ) --- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the south lot line from 15 ' to 5 ' in order to allow a new detached two-car garage to be constructed. --- Petitioner ' s statement of hardship: A new utility easement is being established behind the house on the lot . This means ' that the garage cannot be shifted to the north in order to maintain a larger rear setback . Building the garage elsewhere, or attaching the garage to the home, would require the removal of considerable amounts of mature landscaping and trees . No additional land is available to buy from the adjacent lot because that lot would then contain less lot area than required . --- Staff comments : The Board has determined in the past that large, mature trees are part of the topography of the lot . Topography can be considered a contributing factor for a hardship. th 00 S �I o f n C •'CQa 4 o Appeal 2121 ' --- 3622 Richmond Drive --- Petitioner: Margaret Gorman and Todd Rogers --- Zone: RE Zone --- Section --- The applicant is appealing a staff determination . Specifically, the applicant believes that staff incorrectly decided that Mr . Bill Trippel has a legal , nonconforming home occupation use for Reliable Drywall which pre-dates the 1986 annexation of his property at 3622 Richmond Drive. ( see petitioner ' s letter) --- Staff comments : Staff believes that the level of business activity which Mr. Trippel has documented as having occured at his home prior to the 1986 annexation constituted a home occupation. If the property had been in the City in 1981 when Mr . Trippel bought the home, we would have required him to obtain a home occupation license at that time. As defined in the Code, a home occuaption shall mean "an occupation or business activity which results in a product or service and is conducted in whole or in part in a dwelling unit , and is subordinate to the residential use of the dwelling unit . " Based on the information that Mr. Trippel has supplied to staff , it certainly appears that there was, and still is , a business activity occuring, at least in part , on the premises . The activity consists of taking phone calls , preparing bid proposals, and customer visitation to the home. All of this activity results in a service of drywall installation . t It is not uncommon for construction-related service businesses to have some or all of their office functions conducted from the home. of the owner of the business . We have issued at least*;25hhome occupation licenses to individuals in the last year'w fuse their home in connection with such businesses as : electrtba, contracting, plumbing contracting, handyman, the installation, general contracting and construction, carpentry, and drywall installation . Therefore, it is not unusual to classify Mr . Trippel ' s business activity as a home occupation . In fact , it is quite routine . It appears that the only manner in which Mr . Trippel . has changed the way he conducts business is in the way he advertises in the yellow pages . That certainly doesn' t mean that the activity which has or is occuring at his home is any different in character . As I mentioned in my letter to Mrs . Gorman on September 7 , 1994 ( see packet ) , this is no different than a seamstress who has been working out of the home for the last 20 years , suddenly deciding to put an ad in the yellow pages this year for the very first time. The presence of the seamstress ad suddenly appearing does not mean that the business has been recently established or changed in character . The same types of business activities still occur at the seamstress home before and after the ad . Since Mr . Trippel ' s home business activity has not changed in charancter since 1981 , staff would classify the use the same today as it was 13 years ago. This means that if it was a home occupation in 1981 , it is still a home occupation today, and if it was not a home occuaption in 1981 , then it is not one today. Mrs . Gorman ' s attorney, Todd Rogers , alleges in his letter that the drywall business has expanded its operation at 3622 Richmond Drive because the corporation' s ad in the yellow pages is different than it has historically been . As mentioned earlier , the fact that a business decides to advertise differently, does not translate to a change in character of the type of business activity that has historically occured from the home. True, there may be a few additional phone calls at the home, but then there are many home occupations that may experience increased phone calls over the years . That does not change the character of the activity. The letter also mentions that outside storage of business-related materials and the parking of large business related vans or trucks have occured well after 1986 . My on- site inspection of the property on September 12 , 1994 revealed no such storage . If there was outside storage prior to my inspection, this indeed would have been a violation if such storage was not occuring prior to the 1986 annexation. If such a violation had existed, it has now been corrected, and Mr . Trippel has been advised that he is not permitted to use the property in such a manner. My September 20 , 1994 letter clearly sets forth the limits of the business activities that are permitted to occur at 3622 Richmond Drive . These activities are those which Mr . Trippel has demonstrated were occuring prior to 1986. Appeal 2122 --- 1820 W. Mulberry Street --- Petitioner : Tom Lloyd --- Zone : NCL Zone Section 29-119t4 ? --- The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from l� 15 feet to 2 feet for an addition to an existing detached two- car garage. The 8 foot wide addition will line up with the existing rear wall of the garage, which is already at a 2 foot setback . --- Petitioner ' s statement of hardship: The garage is already only 2 feet from the property line and backs up to City Park Golf Course . An existing ditch and the slope of the land, prevent the addition from being pulled forward. --- Staff comments : None . Appeal 2123 --- 500 Linden Street --- Petitioner : Bill Stashak for the Neenan Co . --- Zone : IP Zone --- Section 29-403 (b) --- The variance would reduce the required 50 ft . wide landscape buffer strip along Buckingham Road to 24 ft . for the proposed New Belgium Micro-Brewy building. --- Petitioner ' s statement of hardship: A 20 ft . wide irrigation ditch bisects the property, requiring the building to be located on the north side of the ditch . Most of the parking- will be south of the ditch, but there is not enough room to provide parking and the 50 ft . buffer . The City will not allow another curb out on Linden, so there are not many parking lot configurations available. The building will be more than 100 ft . from the road and will have considerable landscape buffer around it . --- Staff comments : None . tY P 171 .i , j-