HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Appeals Minutes 12/19/84
.. ,
" '
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
DECEMBER 19, 1984
PRESENT:
Dan Goldthwaite, Marlene Herzing, Anne Hintz, James Larson,
Kevin McGee
STAF F:
Paul Ehrfurth, Planning Director; Bruce Roskom, Associate
Planner; Darlene Matulle, Recording Secretary
Vice-Chairperson Anne H,.ntz~aH.Eld tQEl.lT!eeting to order. Roll call was taken
and a quorum declared present. . .
A motion was made to approve the minutes of the ,December 5 meeting. Motion
was seconded and minutes were approved as pub 1 i shed ~' . .. .
1. Appeal Of George Schaefer, Jr., owner of the property located at 1903
H~rrison ~1;'7t;!~t,proposes to remove anEl~i~tjng sign placed in the
Harrlson Street right-of-way and construct a new ground identification
sign with a 0 ft. front yard setback.
Mr. Ehrfurth inquired as towhethElrt.ne present pole would be moved.
Mr. George Schaefer, 1903 Harrison Street, stated that the sign would not be
moved but that heJ'iantEl<:l torep 1 ace it because of problems wi th bi rds, and
due to age, it is a fire hazar:~~
Ms. Hintz asked if he planned to change the sign to meet the requirements of
the ordinance.
Mr. Schaefer indicated Jbat .he Xf9u14,Jl9tbe<:ausE!.~he present pl acement of the
sign is' the best 10cat'ic:>nj'lherl,<:,QnS~9~:r:1!19 thitpark'1ng area and the mature
trees. If the appeal is not grantedne will maintain the present sign.
Mr. Ehrfurth explained that it is notthE!. city's policy to allow signage in
right-of-way. Mr. Ehrfurth inquired if removing the sign frOin the right-of-way
and placing it on the property itself had been considered.
Mr. Schaefer replied that this hadbeenconsisIered, but that he would like to
keep the sign in the present 1 ocati on." . .... '. ..
Ms. Hintz informed everyone that failure to notice the correct variance
without complying is a violati()n o(tPEl.variance.
Mr. Larson questioned whethElrth.e~()ar<:i~cO!:lJ<:igrant a variance for a sign on
ci ty property. .
Mr. Ehrfurth stated that permission from other than the Board of Appeals would
be required.
Mr. Roskom stated the variance being requested is a 01. front yard setback.
This is measured from the inside of the sidewalk on the property in question.
Mr. Roskom inquired of Mr. Schaefer if this is acceptable?
Mr. Schaefer repl ied he would be happy wi th anything the Board would allow.
Ms. Hintz asked if Mr. Schaefer had considered any other kind of signage.
Mr. Schaefer repl ied that he ha<inot be.Ciiuse the trees \,/ould confl ict wi th
any other type of signage. ..... .... .., ... ......., ..",.,. ... ...... ..'
Motion by Kevin McGee to .move the appeal. Motion seconded by Dan Goldthwaite.
Motion approved 5-0.
Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. McGee stated the.e)(i~Jing sign was
grandfathered in and granting a 0' front yard setback will lTIove1;O!iL?ign off
the public right-of-way.
Mr. Goldthwaite felt a 2?;?etbackwouldbe.impractical .anddangerous.
,...,.."._~ "',.......'" ~"'~,,' /". ',..,'- ,'i. :..i<._';;"',.;:;...:. .-'
II. AppealofRussellF.WilliaIl1S' o\liner,of the. property located at.2?05 &
2515 130wen street, proposes tOG.onstruct a 4' x~'ground identification
sign for an existing business with a 4"'front:yard setbackfrQ!TlBowen
Street.
Mr. Roskom state.d that tNt appell ant proposes to com~trMc;t.the.~ignage for
an existing business. The appellant requests that the 4' x 61 ground
identification sign bepositionedwiJ::tt.Cl 4' fro!'t yard setback .frOnt 6Qwen
Street.
Atty. Russell F. Williams, 504 Algoma Boulevard and Wolfgang Kowalski, Manager
of Fox River Rental s, 2505 ,Bo~n Stre.et, appeared before theBoard~
Mr. Williams explained that the existing business is zoned industrial and as
a result the.ir Qu?jne.?sand toCitof Jhesu....rolJnding area is heavily trafficked
by semitrailers.'Thi~Erea~e~urprobleiit' for placement of their signage
because the truck parking areaobstructsttle.builging when viewed from the
'north and south ri ght~of-way on Bowen. He also menti oned that to the south
of their locaticm thereare..Joh!l De.ete,and Yamahasigns positioned at the
25' setback bec:alJse.theYhavelittfe!' drive th'rough traffic.
Mr. Kowalski stated that anything is possible when considering placement of
the sign, but the traffic \,/oul<i 11()'tI:>e. .Cibl e to seethes i gn, there.fore,
creating a hardship. In addit;'on, placemerit of"thesignage at the?,?' ,s.e.tback
would create even more of a hardship because the semitrailers would knock
it down.
Ms. Hintz asked if there was other signage on the building.
Mr. Williams replied that the building is setback 25' and other signage could
not be seen from the street because of the semitrailers. They are considering
a double-faced sign for this business because ,it isCi, rental business for
contract and busi ness owners. He stated that there are signs which have been
granted a variance on Bowen and Harrison Streets, i.e., Speedway. He went on
to explain that Bowen Streetisa '!e.ry wide streetwith four lane? ang hesaw
no reason why the sign had to bes'et back 25'. ,,,,,,,
(2)