Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 09/26/1974 MINUTES BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS MEETING • Thursday, September 26, 1974 7:30 P.M. City Hall Members Present: Tom Cebulla Tony Hirt Don Sorenson Jim Wedlund I. MINUTES OF AUGUST 19, 1974 A motion was made by Wedlund and seconded by Sorenson to accept the minutes of the August 19, 1974 meeting as read. II. VARIANCE REQUESTS CASE I Tony Hirt asked for Bel Mar Builders to present their case. Nick Ruehl of Design II represented Bel Mar. Bel Mar Builders stated that they wished to combine Lots 1 & 2 of Block 2, Claredon Park. Lots 1 & 2 were found to be less than two acres. Nick Ruehl discussed, 1) Front yard setback, 2) Lot coverage (28%) , 3) Parking spaces, 4) Screening materials. • Considerable time was spent.,discussing the planting schedule. Nick Ruehl was asked if the company had a budget in mind when the planting layout was done. He said they were cost conscious. The problem of the circular lot was discussed. The idea was brought up about the possibility of changing what is called the building front. This may be a request by some future owner. The traffic line of sight was discussed. This could be a problem with the high grade and plantings. Discussion took place as to just what variances would be required in order that Bel Mar Builders might be able to build the proposed building on lots 1 & 2. Tony Hirt said that the lots were probably platted under the 1958 ordinance. Tony Hirt, Tom Cebulla, and Jim Wedlund explained their viewpoints pertaining to the setbacks on this particular lot. Sorenson made a motion to study the case and to contact the appellant with the results of the action within 60 days. Wedlund seconded the motion. -2- Wayne Sanders asked Mr. Ruehl if the proposed building could be a few feet smaller. • He replied that it was possible but hated to see it happen because of John Belgarde`s plans. All members voted in favor of the motion. Tony Hirt suggested that a vice-chairman be selected. A motion was made by Sorenson and seconded by Cebulla that Jim Wedlund be chosen as vice-chairman. CASE II Continuation of hearing for Phoenix Petroleum Tony Hirt mentioned the letter from Phoenix Petroleum dated September 5, 1974. The letter was signed by Mr. Friedman. This letter stated the history of the site in chronological order. Wedlund asked Mr. Sheldon Bernstein what the time schedule was on the work that his client has to do. Mr. Bernstein suggested approximately 5-6 weeks. Sorenson mentioned that the occupancy changed without the knowledge or notification of the City Building Department. He said that he has a basic concern because of the safety of the premises. • Sorenson said based on the information in front of him at this time, he felt that the following occured. 1) Abandonment, 2) There is a need for rezoning before the property could be used for anything but rural use, 3) Proposed use is not in conformance with the guide plan. Hirt quoted Section 16 of the zoning ordinance #135 and felt that both buildings had been abandoned. Cebulla asked about other uses when gasoline could not be obtained. Wedlund pointed out that the changes in use pointed toward abandonment. He mentioned other gas stations being closed and asked Mr. Bernstein why this small independent station would want to start up at this time. Bernstein explained that the government directed the gasoline companies to sell gas to the independents. Mr. Bernstein pointed out that he thought that Mr. Friedman had no intention to violate any ordinances. He said that he had talked with the Highway Department, the State Fire Marshall, and the Eden Land Company about the plans for the future. In all cases, there was nothing detrimental to or changed at the gas station site. Sorenson made a motion that there has been voluntary and affirmative . abandonment of the gas station on, 1) April 1, 1973, 2) August 1973-1974, and 3) 1974 up to the present time. -3- Mr. Bernstein questioned the reasoning for Sorenson's motion. • Sorenson said that he considered a change in use as abandonment. Bernstein asked what could be done with the property if it is considered abandonment. Wedlund said he did not like situations where people change the use of a building without proper notice to the City. Cebulla asked to divide the question in two questions--what happens if: 1) Building is in perfect shape-no gasoline available. The building stands empty until gas can be obtained and then opens. 2) Building is destroyed--no gasoline is available and owner tries to open when gas can be obtained. Sorenson explained the problems that can confront a non-conforming use and that the property is zoned rural. He explained that a non-conforming use can terminate for reasons that the owner may not be able to control. Sorenson changed his motion saying abandonment of both buildings and change in use. Wedlund seconded the motion. All voted in favor of abandonment and the land would revert to rural zoning. • Bernstein asked what his next step may be. Mr. Hirt indicated that the appellant may appeal to the City Council. Continuation of CASE I The Board set up the following proposal to be voted on at the next meeting: The Board found the building is abutted by streets on all sides and grants variances in setbacks as shown on the plan submitted. 1) 14' variance for parking in front yard of Lot 1 2) 3' variance for building in front of present Lot 2 (S.W. corner) 3) Pull back but not eliminate planting and earth mounds on S.E. corner. 4) Permit parking in front setbacks of present Lot 2. 5) Granting of variance contingent upon site ,Plan submitted to Board of Appeals. 6) Increase the size of all Austrian Pine from 4'-5' to 5'-6' in size. 4 F -4- A motion was made by Wedlund and seconded by Sorenson that the meeting be adjourned. All members voted in favor. Respectfully Submitted, i Wayne Sanders Building Official and Secretary •