Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1/7/1981 .,k BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 1981 3:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: George Last, J. C. Batzner, Norman Miller, and Ann Hintz STAFF PRESENT: Phil Rosenquist, Associate Planner Nancy J. Pickard, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order and the roll call was taken. There was a quorum of four members present. The petitioners were informed that one negative vote from the four member board would deny the variance request. The minutes of the meeting of December 17, 1980 were approved. I. Appeal of Jim O'Keefe, Agent for Alibi, Inc. owners of the , property at 539 Pearl Avenue, commonly known as the End of the Trail Saloon (M-3 Zone). Mr. Rosenquist explained that the appellants are proposing to erect a double-faced illuminated sign with would project approximately 8' out from the face of the building. However, it would not project over the public sidewalk. Mr. O'Keefe explained that when they purchased this property this same sign was already in existence, and had been there for some time. They took about three-quarters of it down to change the name of the establishment, and have not replaced it for several reasons. Initially, they did not have the money to complete the job. However, when they did contact a sign contractor, they were informed that a permit was needed. They were then told by the City that a permit could not be issued to erect a projecting sign in the M-3 Zone. This sign has been in existence since the building housed Mr. Lucky's. Mr. Rosenquist explained that the property has received two variances in the past for wall signs. However, this projecting sign was in existence prior to the Sign Control Ordinance coming into effect. Therefore, it was a nonconforming use before it was removed. Mr. Last asked if a nonconforming use could be continued unless discontinued for a period of one year. Mr. Rosenquist explained that this was not considered a nonconforming use in the same sense that a building would. The Sign Control Ordinance requires that all projecting signs be removed by a certain date. -1- Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes January 7, 1981 Meeting Page Two Mrs. Hintz stated that the sign was essentially the same, except that the face has been changed. This seems to be the same situation that was encountered when Century 21 wanted to replace their sign. Because they used the same sign poles and simply changed the face of the sign, they did not need an appeal. Mr. Rosenquist stated that the interpretation has changed since the responsibilities for enforcing the Zoning Ordinance have been transferred to his division. Mr. O'Keefe explained that the sign is essentially the same, except for the face. It will be hung exactly the same, and use the same wiring. It does not hang over the public sidewalk and should not cause any problems with anyone. The sign has been therefor many years, and the Board would be penalizing the present owners if they required that this sign be removed. They ~ould have to pay for a new one, when they had not really changed the existing one. Lowell Kinley, 526A Pearl Avenue, explained that he was the maintenance man for the building. He stated that the sign would be anchored very securely and could not be blown down or knocked down. It would cost a great deal of money to replace this sign with a new sign, new wiring and new conduit. Mr. Last stated that he felt it was the zoning of this property itself that created the hardship. If this property were zoned commercial, like it has been used for many years, they would need no variance for this sign. When the M-3 zoning was attached to this property, the residences and commercial uses located here were not considered. Mr. Miller asked if a projecting sign were absolutely necessary for the business. Would wall signs be enough? Mr. O'Keefe said that wall signs would not be visible, except as a person was driving past the building. The Mars Restaurant would also block the view of a wall sign. Mr. Miller read a letter from Mars Restaurant on Pearl Avenue, stating that they were not opposed to the granting of this variance for a projecting sign. Elsie Nowak, 518 Pearl Avenue, stated that she lives adjacent to this building, and has no objections to this sign. The sign which was taken down has never caused any problems. Mr. Batzner moved that this variance request be approved. Mrs. Hintz seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. -2- .~ .. Boand of Zoning Appeals Minutes January 9, 1981 Page Three II. Appeal of Luvern Kienast, owner of2JJ,,~~,~~~~~~.' CR-2 Zone) proposes to build a duplex on this 40' wide lot, whereas a 45' wide lot is required for a duplex. Mr. Rosenquist explained that this appeal has been before the Board twice before and has been denied each time. The first two times, Russ Young had requested the variance because he desired to build the duplex on the lot. However, Mr. Kienast feels he can present some further information about this property, which Mr. Young was not aware of. John Wallace, Attorney for Mr. Kienast, explained that Mrs. Nettie Hobbs, owner of Lot 23 to the east of this property was of the opinion that a written agreement was in existence for a joint driveway between the two properties. There is no' evidence in the Winnebago County Courthouse records that any agreement exists or ever did exist. However, Mr. Kienast and Mrs. Hobbs have agreed that these papers will be drawn up to cre~te a joint driveway. Since Mrs. Hobbs has used this driveway for over twenty years, it is possible that she has adverse position rights anyway. Therefore, Mr. Kienast would have the legal right to use an additional 5' of property, making this lot 45' wide. He explained that an easement containing the westerly 5' of this property was abandoned by the owner of Lot 21 in 1942. Mrs. Hintz stated that this would put the property line right up to Mrs. Hobb's house. Mr. Kienast stated that Russ Young will put the house any where on the lot that the Board requests. Mrs. Hintz said that Mr. Yaung had agreed to move the house 4' further to the west to give Mrs. Hobbs more room between her house. Mrs. Nettie Hobbs, 302 East Parkway, stated that she was sure she was shown a written agreement regarding this joint driveway when she had purchased this property. She said that she can pull her car up to the back porch on the east side of her property, but she can only get to her garage from the west side, using the joint driveway. She agreed to let Mr. Kienast use her 5' of property for driveway, but she did not want people to park their cars in the driveway so that she would be blocked in. Mr. Rosenquist suggested that a condition be attached to the motion, requiring that tenants not park in the driveway, if this variance is approved. Mrs. Hintz stated that the driveway was not really the problem the board has to consider. Using a 40' lot for construction of a duplex is the real problem. -3- Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes January 7, 1980 Meeting Page Four Mrs. Hobbs said that her lot was only 45' wide. Mrs. Hintz explained that this request was for a duplex on a 40' wide lot. A single family home could be built there, without a variance. Luvern Kienast explained that this lot was equal to a 45' wide lot, because he had permission to use the extra 5' of joint driveway from Mrs. Hobbs. Mr. Rosenquist explained that there would really only be 40'ofsaleable land, not: 45'. Mrs. Hobbs said that she has no objections to a small house, but she and the neighbor to the west, Mr. Schafer, would both be opposed to a great big house. Mr. Kienast said that this house would utilize the basement as part of the house, and would not be very tall. It would also be setback more than 25' from the front property line. Mr. Last made a motion to approve this appeal, with the condition that a written a,greement establishing a joint driveway between Lots 22 and 23 be recorded on the Deeds of the property. Mrs. Hintz seconded the motion. Motion was denied 2-2. The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. ~~SUbm~tted, 7~r PHIL R,0'SENQJY.tST, Assoc~ate ~anner njp -4..