The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1976-03-09 Bd Comm minutesMATTERS PENDING BOARD DISPOSITION LISTrOF - Cr:`-_ i1=: F.- i . .J . - - _ !1 rte- ` 17i •, -None ' '' ACTION TAKEN ' SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION'AND"FORMAL 4: Acting''as` Chairperson; _Mr Goedken called'}the me'e if there were any correct ions' or"ad'ditions'•to'the held on November 19,1975. A`motion to approve ,t "was"made by Park"'seconded by'McBride, and carr -"e �5C App lication•s'ubmitted by Mldeta tes=Development; 7 Section '8:10:'25A: 2' of the Zonin Code. forJ`a° SOX : number'of" arking"apacea 'for>`a-proposed HoueinRzf -minutes of the - meeting'" unanimously .S • _` at `the' northweeC corner of American Le ion Road e, `y -ii- Mr. William D. Jacobson, Executive Vice President of Midstates Develop Inc:,=urged�the'Board'to favorablyconeider'.!the xequest'`fot n SOX?'redu in the' required' number af',parking' parking -spaces fort the proposed= Housing :for Elderly facility` ..Mr 'Jacobson` pointed out=thattahe Depart mentJ.of'H, and 1;Urban',Development`indicstedJtfiat`parking'1"ote`'of housing projects, elderl people whicK e+iceed�one-half parking space per apartment=unit Y probably�rwould notrbe'totally utilized He'; therefore, u bed'favorab] consideration of'the request for 3/4 parking space per apartuant'unit}, Mr. Don Schmeieer, Senior Planner, stated that the staff ti A did consider, reaearcfi' in''determining parking needii fb—v elderly` nous, -,- ' consult ' with 'officials from oth'errcities in`lowa'with Isimilar'projects'fand HU officiale''and'by^reviewing'studies`reledant"to elderlyihousingT`nee ds` .. Results-of'the-studies`'indi'catedrtheell/2, parking: -2- A vote was taken: McBride-yes; Park -yes; Goe,dken-yes-, Ma}lctolm-absent.F;x7 Dlvl3 _ -- '-The variancewas granted. ------ L.SOv Applicationsubmitted by Ms. Kathryn Mulligan for a var ance"-1n••Sectfon,f; 8_10 24B of Zoning Code to permit' the construction of A duplex on a-lot $ at 807`E.-Fairchild with less width"than required ---Mr. Jay_Honohan; attorney representingathe.applicant;, Ms Kathryn, Mulligan,'-. a ., stated that Ms. Mulligan would like"to-e6rigtruct-a-'duplex-on`the subjedc-- property which would be a cre_dit to the neighborhood,and nor_a building.!,,, - that woulddecreasethe valuations in the neighborhood. Parking-spaces t would be adequately provided ,;he.said.}Mr,:-Hon ohanexplainedthat-Ma h l- .'Mulligan purchased the lot and the"building"on it'for rental'"'purposes; and the ;building was partially; damaged by,.fire It was decided, thatq,the building was not worth ;repairing and: it was, torn "down Mr. Honohan stated. ;,that,the,original lots: as,ilaid outwere-80' wide but were determined to be too. big many of the' lots `were- sold int-lo t 'half sizes or 40-feet widths. Therefore, he said; the cugtom over-thelyears - and, the?;lot-sizesiof existing,duplexesiin,the_area_have combine& to maker .. J.. - a special codsideration w61ch wouldj'juatify fhe Board;granting) the requested variance. Ne stated thatihardship was=created, by the=adoption of, the _ -- Zoning"Ardinance itself and by;'the fire; both over-.which11 'theylproperty,owner - • could exercise-no control:" +a8133.L -Board: member Goe,dken,questioned what use,wasf'made of:;the;building. prior„IF Ito they fine `Mr ; Bernie, Barber, son; ofa thei applicant, stated. thata_the. f:1 ” - ., original building was a;single-family,;dwe111nggwhich;had been•converted.t•.j- _into .two rental. units Board member_, McBride;pointed:out�,that the,.intent,. of thet',Zoning'Ordinance is ,to'-prohibit the construction,of,dup�lexesy"onlh,, ;lots-,that,are,:less than 50,iwide Mr'-Honohan stated that: he wase..; �felt;it within thejpower of xhe Board ofyAdjustmenIt. LLto;graat a„variance'when-there is inconsistency in the Zoning Ord inance.' Board member. McBride. expressed concern that if the variance, should; be r , _ I granted, other;peopletwithj40s!_lot frontage F ghtalso apply.for,a variance for_the,purpose,of constructing,- duplex.I Mr Honohan.stated,1_`, -that given; similar circumstances,,othersjprobably;;would,apply,;for_:such.a„ variance He atatel-that itlwas,.not .financially?feasiblejfor„the applilix cant to repair the damage done to the original building ,.4;- Boardtmember Park asked if.,the., applicantdrealized;income�from one or twor, ; students ,�Mr.,Honohan,replied_that sheghadfreceivedincomeafromsthreejJ-i `students and. stated that Ms..Mulligan�was aware of ;they zoning regulations _ - when xhe building was torn down. Mr. Honohan.stated it would have.lieen -Cheaper,to repairjthe building, however,jthe;rate;of return to,,t eowner would have been=a lot less 9bt'j i. - _ - .i 7 ct7 ”: _ .it?YCf7 9.i.1 _ :'�=: '3�.. a a)r "SJR ',_ - - wolI'? ; bnr- - - -Mr.'GaryfAitchison, 805-Fairchild, pointed=out that`the file"was a minor; accidental fire. He also stated that -there are many ;lots ii- .the neighbor- hood that exceed 40' lot width. Mr. Aitchison was primarily''.conceroed"" with parking space and stated that if'parking _was to-be provided at=the...._ _ rear of-the „property, ,one of the existing garages. would have to be torn down`",,Mr Honohan'`stated that''the applicant-would comply with the parking: requirements of`the CiEy's Zoning Ordinance and 'p'o'inted out'' that a"singl'e ; family dwelling would not require as 'much parking space, but ng, could be rented to three or four:students. This, he:i:said ,_could_ cause ..a - much worse parking situation.- Mr. Honchan stated that the applicant would be willing to provide sketches of the, proposed plans but would'prefer to go into=detailed building plans , ' later. 'He, stated that there would be'no objections=to a deferral ':'Board members--indicated a`desire.,to<see the sketches of the proposed plans. >: A-motion was made by McBride, seconded by Park,-to-defer until the next _ Board>of'Adjustment'meeting action on the application submitted by, Ma. Kathryn, Mulligan for a variance'in Section 8.10.24B of the;Zoning.Code to permit the construction of'a duplex on a:lot at-807 E. Fairchild'with ' _less'.width -than required. - A vote was taken: McBride-yes; Park -yes; Goedken-yes; Malcolm-absent. - • Th`e'motion carried and the request for a variance was deferred. Revocation of 'a building permit issued to Mr. Edward Sanhueza required by a>District -Court mandate after-a Supreme Court decision ln'Giesey;v: the Board'of Adjustment. Mr. Tony Kushnir, Assistant City-Attorney, explained that the Supreme Court` "ruled in July,"1975, that the building permit issued-to Mr.'.Edward Sanhueza` on July, 10, 1972, was inappropriately;given=and the District Court was >'t ordered to have the Board of Adjustment revoke the building permit it issued. Mr. Kushnir stated-that once before the Board of 'Adjustment deferred action on this,matter=pending legal'staff review. "Mr.:Kushnir advised that the Board now revoke the building permit. Board members.questioned whether Mr. Sanhueza could now plead a case of hardshipbefore the Board, -and whether Mr. Sanhueza could sue.the'Board for damages. Mr. Kushnir stated.that'such action would be ''doubtful-because' Mr. Sanhuezawasnotified of the 'litigation and still continued with construction of the bu'when thelitiation8was ildin `-in 8 process. Board members asked the staff to provide them with=copies-of the`District, Court =order.- After further discussion, a motion was made by McBride, seconded by-Park, , to comply with the District Court Mandate and revoke the building permit • issued to Mr. Edward Sanhueza on July 10, 1972. -4- A vote was taken McBride yes; Park -yes, Goedken-yea; Malcolm-absent. The motion carried f, f =` Fr A motion was;made by McBride, aecond'ed(by Board'of Adjustment Park, to,defer until the`next 7 meeting the election unanimouslY'* oftofficera The motion cairied I s The meeting adjourned. tt ifj -f j 4 + YTS{.,�^ onald Sc eiserSecretary- .-. n..� ,'J .. Al +' .; :•.� ,_ :, :., _ ;.`.. a.._ :: ;f si : f 5 , -'} Ii - �- r 1 _ f .i� a•1 7I J.—a.� t 4