Meet the Planning & Zoning Office...
Laurie Simpson, Zoning Administrator
   
Board Members
Zoning Commission: Susan Nelson, Chair
Dean Tjaden, Vice-Chair
Tami Vetter
Glen Zubrod
Dennis Carney

Board of Adjustment: Ann Sullivan, Chair
John Gohr, Vice-Chair Angela Ruzicka
Bill Fluhrer
Dennis Staudt
Planning & Zoning Links
Forms
Flood Plain Info
Contact the Planning & Zoning Office.
Minutes
Upcoming Hearings
 
Related Links
 
 
Meeting Minutes
8/21/2012

          Minutes of Board of Adjustment’s Hearing held on August 21, 2012.

 

I.                   Call to Order.  Meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. Board members present were John Gohr, Dennis Staudt, Bill Fluhrer, Ann Sullivan, and Angelia Ruzicka.  Also present were Jeff Sherman, Zoning Administrator, and Misty Day, Assistant Zoning Administrator.  Roll call of Board members was taken and all five (5) members were present.

 

II.                Approval of Agenda.              A motion to approve the agenda as presented was made by Dennis Staudt and seconded by Bill Fluhrer, motion was unanimously approved. 

 

III.             Approval of Minutes.  A motion to approve the minutes from the May 15, 2012, meeting was made by Dennis Staudt and seconded by John Gohr, motion was unanimously approved.

 

IV.             Old Business.  No old business.  Board Member Gohr did inquire as to whether the Court’s decision on the ADM project had been made available yet and it was determined that it would probably be September or October before the decision was made.

 

V.                New Business.

 

A.    A variance use request by David Hoover on behalf of South Osage Community Ball Diamond to  split off a parcel of land that is less than 10 acres located at 2999 – 140th Street in the SE¼ of Section 5, Township 96 North, Range 15 West of the 5th P.M., Niles Township.  Norm Zimmerman and Kevin (last name unreadable) were present on behalf of South Osage Community Ball Diamond.  Mr. Zimmerman stated that they wanted to split off the ball diamond so that it is owned by the community and not an individual so the money being put into it by the community is for the community’s use and an individual cannot just walk away with the diamond.  Nothing is going to change; they are hoping to get more community support from their church group and hope to make them feel like they are a part of the ball diamond.  Board Member Gohr inquired as to whether the ownership would stay with the individual or who would own the property.  It was determined that the church group would own the parcel.  Board Member Staudt asked if the ball diamond was up and running.  It was determined that the diamond has been there for a couple of years and that it is being used by the church group now.  Board Member Staudt inquired as to whether it would be opened up to the public or if it would continue to be used by the church group.  It was determined that it would continue to be used by the church group.  Mr. Zimmerman stated that they shy away from having their youth go into town so they wanted to have something available for them.  They would still have to contact David Hoover to find out when the diamond would be available for use.  Chair Sullivan inquired as to whether there was driveway access to the ball diamond.  It was determined that they access the diamond through a driveway on the North property line.  Eventually they may put in their own driveway and they understand they would need to get permission from the County Engineer.

 

Assistant Day submitted her staff report as part of the record and stated that the whole reason they have to get a variance is because the minimum lot size in the AG District is 10 acres and since this is less than 10 acres they need a variance from minimum lot size requirements.  Board Member Ruzicka inquired as to what would happen if it was more than 10 acres.  It was determined that the diamond is outright permitted in the AG District so there would have been no reason to come to the Board.

 

A motion to approve the variance use request by David Hoover on behalf of South Osage Community Ball Diamond to split off a parcel of land that is less than 10 acres located at 2999 – 140th Street in the SE¼ of Section 5, Township 96 North, Range 15 West of the 5th P.M., Niles Township, was made by John Gohr and seconded by Bill Fluhrer.  Roll call vote was taken and the motion was unanimously approved.

 

Assistant Day advised the applicant that their next step would be to survey off the parcel and submit the survey for approval. 

 

B.     A conditional use request by David White to have a home industry (mattress business) on his property located at 1815 Hwy 18 in the SW¼ of Section 16, Township 96 North, Range 17 West of the 5th P.M., Rudd Township.  Jay David White was present for the hearing.  Mr. White stated that this parcel is currently owned by his father, David White, and he would like to run a business off the property.  There is a pole barn located on the property that he wants to sell mattresses from.  It will not be a full time retail business, at least initially, and that it will be open by appointment along with mattress distribution.  He does not plan to have employees at this time.  He is aware that he can have up to two non-resident employees, which he does not plan to exceed, and in the event he wants more employees he is aware that he would have to rezone the business to commercial.

 

Assistant Day made her staff report a part of the record and stated that the County Ordinance allows Home Industries to be permitted in the AG District subject to a conditional use permit.  There are six standards that must be applied to Home Industries as outlined in the staff report.  All standards will be met, although there is a variance request pending on standard 4 that will be heard next.  Standard 4 states that “there shall be no evidence of such industry being conducted within the accessory building(s) which is perceivable at or beyond the lot lines…”  Assistant Day did ask the Board to address the issue of having signage on the side of the enclosed trailer Mr. White would be using for his business.  If the enclosed trailer has the business logo or other advertisement painted on the side, it could potentially be considered a bill board if it is parked in a location that is visible from the road which would not be allowed.  Standard 6 also requires customer parking to be provided and be as inconspicuous as possible on the premises.  Mr. White had a proposed location for customer parking to the West of the pole building and Assistant Day pointed out that parking to the North would better meet that inconspicuous requirement and asked the Board to also consider this.

 

Board Member Gohr inquired as to whether the truck would be used for the delivery and hauling of the product and not for storage.  It was determined that it would be for delivery and hauling only.  Mr. White stated that he is only expecting 4 customers a day and he would prefer customer parking to be on the West side as he did not feel 4 cars throughout the day would be any less inconspicuous than his personal vehicles parked on the property.  Board Member Gohr inquired as to whether the driveway was a shared driveway and it was determined that it was a shared driveway and that there was an easement to access the field to the East of his property.  Discussion was had concerning potential parking for the truck and trailer if advertising was painted on the trailer, as well as customer parking.  The Board felt that customer parking to the West of the pole building would not be an issue, but that if the trailer had advertising painted on it, it should be parked to the North of the pole shed or in another inconspicuous location on the property.  Mr. White would be able to park in front of the pole building during loading and unloading of product and that the parking in an inconspicuous location would apply when the trailer was not being used.

 

Assistant Day provided a letter from adjoining property owner John Winkel to the Board.  Mr. Winkel did not have any objection to the request but listed some potential concerns including: a) traffic associated with the business encroaching on their farm ground, and b) some aspect of the mattress business posing a fire or pollution hazard, neither of which he felt were significant concerns for this type of business.

 

A motion to approve the conditional use request by David White to have a home industry (mattress business) on his property located at 1815 Hwy 18 in the SW¼ of Section 16, Township 96 North, Range 17 West of the 5th P.M., Rudd Township, with the condition that the truck and trailer be parked in an inconspicuous location when it was not in use so that advertisement could not be seen from the road, was made by Bill Fluhrer and seconded by John Gohr.  Roll call vote was taken and the motion was unanimously approved.

 

C.     A variance request by David White to have a business advertising sign for a home industry on his property located at 1815 Hwy 18 in the SW¼ of Section 16, Township 96 North, Range 17 West of the 5th P.M., Rudd Township.  This is a variance from Standard 4 of Home Industries as discussed in previous hearing.  Mr. White stated that he is requesting approval to put a sign up near the road and that he would like clarification as to whether he could have electronic signs, similar to Kwik Star’s sign, or whether that would be too bright or in violation of the no flashing requirement for signs.  Board Member Gohr expressed concerns about what would happen if a residential development took place across the road and then there would be issues with the light projecting into a residential area.  Assistant Day also pointed out the standards for signs outlined in her staff report and that one of the standards states that signs can be illuminated but they cannot flash or have moving, animated or rotating parts.  Discussion was had concerning illumination vs. flashing or moving, animated or rotating parts.  The Board determined that a flood light projecting onto the sign would be okay but that Mr. White should avoid the electronic signs.  Board Member Staudt inquired as to whether Mr. White wanted two signs, one by the road and one on the building and it was determined that he would want both signs at some point.  Discussion was had concerning road right-of-way and Assistant Day stated that she did talk to the DOT since this was a State Highway and that the DOT does not have permit requirements for on-site advertising signs as long as they are set back from the right-of-way.  If Mr. White wanted a sign advertising his business on property down the road, he would need a permit for that, but since the sign would be on the same lot as the business no permit is required.  Discussion was had regarding the other standards for signs.  It was determined that the total area of each sign could not exceed 32 sq ft and that the top of the detached sign could not exceed 6 ft in height.  If Mr. White wanted to just paint wording on the side of the pole building, the entire wording would have to fit in a 32 sq ft area, not 32 sq ft for each letter.

 

A variance request by David White to have a business advertising sign for a home industry on his property located at 1815 Hwy 18 in the SW¼ of Section 16, Township 96 North, Range 17 West of the 5th P.M., Rudd Township, with the condition that the sign by the road could have a flood light illuminating the sign but no electronic sign, was made by Dennis Staudt and seconded by Bill Fluhrer.  Roll call vote was taken and the motion was unanimously approved.

 

VI.             Adjourn.  Motion to close the hearing was made by John Gohr and was seconded by Angela Ruzicka.

 

            Meeting Adjourned.

 

Zoning Administrator

 

 

Jeff D. Sherman

 

©2010, The Schneider Corporation  -  Website designed and maintained by The Schneider Corporation