Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Appeals Minutes 10/16/91 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 1991 PRESENT: John Dellantonia, Len Herricks, Anne Hintz, Don Krueger STAFF: Bruce Roskom, Principal Planner; Darlene Matulle, Recording Secretary Chairperson pro-tem Anne Hintz called the meeting to order. Roll call was taken apd a quorum declared present. Mrs. Hintz informed applicants that with a 4 member Board, 4 affirmative votes are needed to approve a variance; a 3-1 vote is an automatic layover. A motion was made, seconded and carried unanimously to approve the 1991 minutes as distributed. G September 18, ~o HARRISON ST. - Melvin Klinger, owner _ ,__19 .... The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a ground sign with an 8 ft. front yard setback; whereas Section 30-31(B)(1)(c) Additional Yard, Lot Area and Width Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 25 ft. minimum front yard setback. Mr. Melvin Klinger, owner, stated the building inspector wanted a landscaped area in front of the building and this would be an appropriate place for the sign. He did not feel there is an alternate location where the sign would be visible from both directions. . Mr. Krueger inquired if the sign could be legally placed on the property with a 25 ft. setback? Mr. Roskom replied there are areas that could possible meet the requirement, but to what degree it would be visible he did not know. Mrs. Hintz felt if the sign were placed on one side or the other, it would be unbalanced. This appears to be a logical location for the sign with the parking lot layout. Mr. Klinger noted there are 3 businesses in this area. that pave signage closer to the road than what he is proposing. Mr. George Schaefer, owner'of 1857 and 1903 Harrison St., stated he owns all the property across the street from the property in question. Mr. Klinger has improved this site and he would go along with anything that Mr. Klinger is proposing. Motion by Dellantonia to move approval of an 8 ft. frpnt yard setback for construction of a ground sign with the condition that. the landscaping be completed concurrent with the installation of the sign. Seconded by Herricks. Motion carried 4-0. Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. Dellantonia felt this is keeping with the character of the area. Placement of the sign will not be a detriment to businesses adjacent to or across the street from the property in question.