TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003

PUBLIC HEARING

7:00 P.M.

ROLL CALL: Mr. Wells called the meeting to order at 7:12 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Wells, Mr. Sells, and Mr. Cline were present. Others present were Lance Schultz, Dawn Romine, David Donley, Dan Heitmeyer, and Birdie Heitmeyer. Mr. Linek was not present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF August 24, 2003: Mr. Sells moved to approve: Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Mr. Sells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wells voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.

SCHEDULED MATTERS

A. Review and request for a motion to approve side yard building and parking setback variances for 150 Hill Road North (Donley Concrete Cutting Company).

Mr. Schultz stated the zoning history: Planning and Zoning Commission approved zone change request from C3 Community Commercial to P-M Planned General Industrial on April 8, 2003. City Council approved the zone change request from C3 Community Commercial to P-M Planned General Industrial on June 3, 2003. Board of Zoning Appeal approved a rear and side yard building and parking setback variances in May of 2003. Proposed Use: The owner proposes to construct a garage/office facility on this site that would serve as an expansion to the current concrete and drilling use. The garage/office building would be approximately 188-ft long and 40-ft wide (7,520 square feet). The building would accommodate up to 8 vehicles and 2-3 offices. The variance request approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals in May 2003 was for building and parking setbacks along the western property line. Site Analyses: The site plan would have to receive Certificates of Appropriateness approval for building materials, landscaping, lighting, and signage by the Planning and Zoning Commission if the variance request is approved. The owner has committed through the planned zoning district requirements to the location of the proposed garage/office building and parking lot. The owner upon zoning approval would donate his property fronting SR 256 to a depth of 110-ft to the City. Hence, there would not be an additional curb cut on SR 256. Buffering adjacent to the residential districts would have to meeting the zoning code requirements of mounding, fencing or landscaping or a combination of the three. Zoning Variances: A. Side Yard (North) Building Setback – The City requires a 15-ft building setback along the side yards: 1.) The applicant is proposing a 10-ft setback along the extreme northern portion of the site. 2.) Railroad tracks form the northern border of the property. Beyond the tracks to the north is vacant land zoned for commercial uses. 3.) Staff supports the reduced northern setback variance because it would not likely have a significant impact on any residential uses and the adjacent commercial property. B. Side Yard (South) Parking Setback – The City requires a 15-ft parking setback along the side yard when a site abuts a residential use. 1.) The applicant is proposing a 0-ft parking setback along the first 40-ft of the southeastern portion of the site (Aubihl property). 2) The remaining 86-ft of the south side yard would have the required 15-ft setback. 3.) The reason for the reduced setbacks is to allow enough room to maneuver trucks into and out of the proposed garages. 4.) The land adjacent to the south property boundary (Aubihl property) is tree lined. 5.) Staff supports the reduced the parking setback along 40-ft of the southern setback if the adjacent property owners (Aubihl) do not object and if a 6-ft high wood opaque fence is constructed along this 40-ft stretch. C. Modify previous BZA condition that requires a minimum 6-ft high opaque wood fence shall be constructed adjacent to the residential properties to the south and west. 1.) The applicant is requesting a modification to allow a 6-ft solid chain link fence. 2.) Staff does not support this request because it would not be consistent with the Type A Opaque buffer requirement between residential and industrial uses. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the north building setback variance and south parking setback variance with the following conditions: 1.) That the north-building setback shall be reduced from 15-ft to 10-ft. 2.) That the south-parking setback shall be reduced from 15-ft to 0-ft for the initial 40-ft along the southeastern property line. 3.) That a 6-ft high opaque wood fence shall be constructed adjacent to the residential properties to the south and west. 4.) That the site plan and building shall meet the City’s Commercial Design Guidelines.

David Donley, after being duly sworn, stated that they are the property owners. That the original plans where not correct, that after going out and staking the property, they found that the property should be further. There is not enough room for the vehicles to make it into the building, and that is why there needs to be an adjustment made to the existing parking set back. To move the buildings back an additional 5 ft away from the property line, actually away from residential side of the property. We had tried to purchase the piece of property, next to the exiting property, but were informed that it cannot be split into a smaller lot. The fence with the slats in it would be preferred due to obvious maintenance reasons, with being right next to a tree line.

Mr. Sells asked if the chain link fence would have slats in it. Mr. Donley stated that it would with color slats along with pine trees in front of the fence. Mr. Wells verified the City’s feelings on the slats in the chain link fence. Mr. Schultz stated that the City’s code states wood fence (type A buffer), that he cannot change that but the BZA could make a ruling to change this. Mr. Cline verifies that there is three (3) variances being ruled on here at this time. Mr. Schultz states that it is two (2) variances and one (1) to change conditions of the structure of the fence from wood to chain link.

Mr. Cline clarified that all neighbors have been duly notified. Mr. Schultz stated that they have been.

Mr. Cline moved to approve with the following conditions: 1.) That the north-building setback shall be reduced from 15-ft to 10-ft. 2.) That the south-parking setback shall be reduced from 15-ft to 0-ft for the initial 40-ft along the southeastern property line. The third variance request, to change the fence from wood to chain link, would not be granted; Mr. Sells seconded the motion. Mr. Sells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wells voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.

B. Review and request for a motion to approve rear yard building setback variance for a proposed house in the 200 block of East Street (Heitmeyer Property – parcel #0410267500)

Mr. Schultz stated the zoning history: A lot split was approved on June 4, 2002. Proposed Use: The owner proposes to construct a 1,700 square foot ranch house on the site. A two car attached garage would be included on the plan. Access would be from a gravel driveway located just south of the house. Zoning Variances: Section 1276.09 – Required Site and Building Dimensions – A 35-ft rear yard setback is required in the R4 zoning district. The western property line jogs in approximately 35-ft near the midpoint of the parcel. The lot width is reduced from approximately 115-ft to 90-ft along the southern 80-ft of the 139-ft lot. The northern portion of the house is setback from the property line 33.33-ft. The southern portion of the house is setback 35-ft. Therefore the applicant is requesting a 1.67-ft setback along the northern 26-ft of the house. The house is 32-ft long in this area. Staff supports the 1.67-ft reduced setback along the northern 26-ft of the house for the following reasons: The impact would likely be minimal on the adjacent residents and the applicant owns the property to the west, which would be, impacted the most by the setback variance. The proposed two car attached garage is located 13.9-ft from the western property line. The garage is located in the area where the lot width is reduced by 35-ft. The owner is requesting a 21.1-ft reduced setback variance. If the garage was detached it would only need to be 5-ft from the side property line. Staff supports the rear yard setback variance of 13.9-ft for the following reasons: The garage would have minimal impact on the adjacent residents and the applicant owns the property to the west, which would be, impacted the most by the reduced setback. The owner could construct a detached garage, which would be permitted with a minimum of a 5-ft setback. The lot is currently vacant and a new house would create an infill development that would be beneficial to the City. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the requested variance with the following conditions: 1.) That the rear yard setback for the house structure shall be reduced to 33.3-ft. 2.) That the rear yard setback for the attached garage shall be reduced to 13.9-ft.

Mr. Cline clarified that all neighbors have been duly notified. Mr. Schultz stated that they have been.

Mr. Wells moved to approve; Mr. Sells seconded the motion. Mr. Sells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wells voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.

OTHER BUSINESS: The next meeting will be Thursday, December 18^th at 7:00 pm. This is a week early due to the Christmas holiday. Mr. Jack Bowman has resigned and will have a new member when council approves a new member.

ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Wells moved to adjourn; Mr. Sells seconded the motion. Mr. Sells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wells voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0. The Board of Zoning Appeals meeting adjourned at 7:23 P.M., November 25, 2003.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

___________________________________________

Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant

ATTEST

_______________________________________

Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning Commission