City of Moline Zoning Hearing Officers met July 16.
Here is the minutes provided by the officers:
GENERAL INFORMATION
Owner/Applicant: Moline/Coal Valley School District (owner)
Location: 3200 9th Street
Request: Variance to the bulk/setback standards in Section 35-3201.2 of the Moline Zoning and Land Development Code to allow parking in the required front yard setback in the “R-2” (Single Family Residence District)
Size of Tract: 14,065 square feet
Existing Land Use: Single Family Residential
Existing Zoning: R-2 Single Family Residential District
Surrounding Land Uses: Single Family Residential, Institutional
BACKGROUND
The Moline/Coal Valley School District has applied for a variance to Sec. 35-3201.2 of the Moline Code of Ordinances. The applicant proposes to construct a parking lot at 3200 9th Street. The required front yard setback off the 32nd Avenue property line is 25 feet and the applicant’s proposal would construct the parking lot with a 5-foot setback off this property line
According to the School District, the lot is needed for overflow parking. The lot would rarely be used at night and would only be used when other parking areas are full or unavailable. Traffic would enter from the 9th street side of the lot and flow one-way to the east, exiting on 32nd Avenue. Privacy fences are planned on the south and east sides of the lot, where the lot is directly adjacent to residential properties.
ANALYSIS & APPROVAL CRITERIA
Section 35-2207(c) of the Moline Code of Ordinances establishes the approval criteria for zoning variances. Applicants must demonstrate that all of the approval criteria are satisfied in order for a variance to be granted. Each criterion is identified below with staff’s findings. Please refer to the application form for detailed descriptions of these criteria.
Criteria #1: Hardship Unique to Property, Not Self-Inflicted (MET)
This criterion can be met if there is an exceptional condition which does not apply generally to other land areas within the same zoning district, and such condition or unique hardship was not created by action or inaction of the applicant or property owner. Staff acknowledges that there is a hardship for the Hamilton School property to try and accommodate the parking and traffic needs of so many students in a tight residential area. Staff have heard arguments from the neighbors that these hardships are self-inflicted. It is Staff’s opinion that there are some exceptional conditions which do not generally apply to other land areas within this same district and that this criteria is met.
Criteria #2: Special Privilege (MET)
The request will not confer a special privilege on the applicant if granted due to the unique situation of a recently expanded elementary school in a dense residential neighborhood. Staff believes this criterion is met.
Criteria #3: Literal Interpretation (MET)
Staff acknowledges that this criteria is met because a parking lot could not be reasonably built on this lot without the variance request.
Criteria #4: Reasonable Use (MET)
The proposal satisfies this criterion.
Criteria #5: Minimum Necessary (MET)
The request is the minimum needed to make this site work for an off-site parking lot so this criterion is met.
Criteria #6: Compatible with Adjacent Properties (MET)
The parking lot would be 5 feet south of the 32nd Avenue property line. The house directly to the east is 25 feet back from the 32nd Avenue property line. While the applicant has agreed to build a fence along this property line, the close proximity to 32nd Avenue will make the parking lot very visible to this property to the east. In addition, this proposal will bring school traffic beyond the 9th St/32nd Avenue intersection. 32nd Avenue Court is a dead end and if school traffic backs up here, the residents will not be able to enter or exit the neighborhood. It is the opinion of Staff that this criterion is not met.
Criteria #7: Conformance with the Purposes of the Code (MET)
Staff believes that the parking lot proposed at the reduced setback would not be in conformance with the purposes of the Code and R-2 district. Sec 35-3203 lists these purposes and intents of the Code that center around protecting the residential areas. It is Staff’s opinion that continuing to encroach the parking use into the neighborhood at this location is contrary to the goal of protecting Moline’s residential districts. This criterion is not met.
Criteria #8: Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan (MET)
The proposal is not in conformance with the goals for housing development and neighborhood stabilization outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. These specific goals are:
protecting neighborhood identity while dealing with land use change
adopt policies that promote neighborhood well being
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above report, staff finds only 5 of 8 of the variance approval criteria to be met and recommends denial of the application.
https://www.moline.il.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/6385
Alerts Sign-up