| Towne area was developed prior to 1962, which was the adoption date of a more |
|
| modern zoning ordinance. Zoning was in place prior to 1962, but it was much |
|
| more basic with no real setback requirements; only use requirements. 1962 |
|
| established a lot of setback requirements. As the Old Towne area was |
|
| developed substantially prior to that, there is a lot of nonconformity in this area. |
|
| The CI district was later adopted recognizing that this part of town is different |
|
| than most other parts of town with the buildings being located close to the front |
|
| setback line. Alleys are very common and exist in platted format for almost the |
|
| entire area. They have been vacated in a few places, but alleys are not a |
|
| unique circumstances - they are the rule rather than the exception in this area. |
|
| The alleys are considered unbuilt public rights-of-way, are not abandoned and |
|
| are used by utilities for access and by fire and police. The staff report contains |
|
| an analysis of the five criteria for granting a dimensional variance and finding |
|
| that a practical difficulty exists. "Compliance with the strict letter of the |
|
| restrictions governing area, setback, etc., will unreasonably prevent the owner |
|
| from using the property for a permitted use or render conformity with such |
|
| restrictions unnecessarily burdensome" - there is ample space on the site to |
|
| locate the building while meeting the rear setback requirement as there are no |
|
| front and side yard setback requirements, providing a lot of flexibility. Whether |
|
| "granting the variance will do substantial justice to the applicant as well as other |
|
| property owners in the district" - approval of the variance request would provide |
|
| a special benefit to this property owner that is not enjoyed by any other property |
|
| owner in the CI district. A study of the area shows that there are five sites that |
|
| do not comply with the 25 foot rear yard setback, one of which was granted the |
|
| variance, the other one is a B-5 gas station, and all the sites were developed |
|
| prior to 1962. No relief has been granted to any other site from the 25 foot rear |
|
| yard setback requirement in the CI district since it has existed. "The plight of |
|
| the applicant is due to unique circumstances of the property" - there are no |
|
| unique circumstances of the property. "The problem is not self-created" - this is |
|
| a self-created problem due to the applicant's desire to push the building back on |
|
| the site. "The spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice |
|
| done" - granting the variance would be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance and |
|
| would not result in substantial justice being done for other property owners in the |
|
| CI district. It would, in fact, have the potential to spur further requests in the |
|
| future for similar rear yard variances. Mr. Breuckman indicated he would |
|
| answer any questions the Board may have. |
|
| Chair Colling indicated his concern is with the service bay and where the fluids |
|
| will be drained into. Service bays are required by law to have a pit area so the |
|
| fluids can be captured to avoid any leakage into the sanitary sewer system. Mr. |
|
| Colling is reluctant to approve any variance without a building plan showing how |
|
| the structure will be built and whether it will comply with the law. He is also |
|
| concerned about the side yard setback to Hessel. Even the gas station next |
|
| door where the variance was granted has a side yard setback from Hessel. |
|
| This proposed building has no setback from the side street. He questioned if |
|
| this should be treated as a second front yard. |
|
