Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (11/5/1986)BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES NOVEMBER 5, 1986 PRESENT: Anne Hintz, Tom Kimberly, Kevin McGee, Dave Neu, David Nitkowski STAFF: Chuck Laraine, Associate Planner; Mary Jo Anderson, Recording Secretary Chairman McGee called the meeting to order. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. I. 1805 JACKSON STREET - Michael Twohig Mr. Laraine explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to erect a ground identification sign with a 5 ft. front yard setback from Murdock Avenue. The C-2 Commercial District zoning requires a 25 ft. minimum front yard setback. Michael Twohig, 910 North Main Street and James Larson, 600 South Main Street were present for the hearing. Mr. Larson stated that the Board should be familiar with the site because of hearings before on this site. The only change from before is the location of the corner sign which is placed slightly east of the front of the building and 5 ft. from the property line. The sign is a standard pylon sign with a letter board and the bucket on the top. This is on a corner lot and they would like to place the sign out of the setback,. but try to keep in configuration with what has been done on the street with Wendy's and the of-her gas station. This is the best place where it can be seen. They are proposing 5 ft. from the property line and 25 ft. from the building. Mr. Nitkowski asked what. had happened at the previous hearing. Mr. McGee replied that the Board had denied a variance to locate a sign on a triangular corner area and they had granted all the other requested variances. Mr. Nitkowski asked if this would be considered a safety hazard? Mr. Kimberly asked how this would line up with his neighbors? Mr. Twohig replied that they are back further. Wendy's appears to be .about 2 ft. from the sidewalk, but the sign is over the sidewalk. Ms. Hintz stated that they are too close to everything. She explained that this goes back to 1977 or 1978 when they built the Wendy's restaurant and then decided that they needed a sign. They couldn't put a sign 25 ft. from the lot line because the building was 25 ft. from the property line, but they had to have a sign. She was relatively new on the Board. She felt that they had set a bad precedent for the particular placement of the sign. Tfiey gave them everything they wanted. As an alternate, she wasn't called for the next hearing and they passed it. There were no real grounds as far as she could remember. On Murdock there have been several variances including Wendy's and McDonald's on Jackson. With the exception of McDonald's, Jackson Street is relatively pure. Murdock has infractions all over the place. They are putting their sign on a street which has a history of infractions, but they have kept Jackson Street straight. Board of Zoning Appeals November 5, 1986 Page Two Mr. Nitkowski stated that the Knights of Columbus was going to sell to Hardee's and they would have been in for a sign. A couple of years ago there was an offer made to purchase that property. Ms. Hintz stated that McDonald's was given a variance. What you give to Wendy's you have to give to the Knights of Columbus. Three of the other corners have variances. Mr. Lamine suggested that the Board may want to keep in mind that the first request they had for the sign made an impact on both streets. The current proposal will only have an impact on Murdock which has a history of infringement for sign setbacks. On the other side of the site, they would be into the parking lot which would be shielding the building on Murdock. There is no place, to put the sign on this site. Mr. Neu asked if the same dimensions and the landscaping would remain. Mr. Twohig replied yes. Mr. Larson indicated that the landscaping had been chanced on Jackson from 2 1/2 ft to 4 1/2 ft. They will be landscaping since Jackson was so close to the property line to begin with and there was no terrace left. Mr. Nitkowski explained that they have a situation where others in the area have been granted variances fora similar type of thing. They want to advertise and let the public know where they are at. To deny it would be discriminatory. The way the Board has been granting variances in this area has established some sort of precedent. Not to grant it would be a hardship. That is the way he felt about it. Ms. Hintz stated that it is not a negative impact on the area. The infringement is not nearly as severe as Wendy's. It is wrong both ways. Twenty-five feet from the build-ing is not as close to the property line. It is hard to deny a business a sign. Mr. Kimberly moved approval of the variance to erect a ground identification sign with a 5 ft. front yard setback from Murdock Avenue. Motion seconded by Mr. Neu. Motion carried 4-1. With regard to findings of fact for the affirmative, Mr. Nitkowski stated that the rationale is that this would not impose a negative impact on the area. The variances we have granted in the past have the same effect. If there is some kind of a detriment, this is what this area is all about. Not to grant it would be a hardship and discriminatory upon the appellant. Ms. Hintz stated that this is the real problem with a precedent and you can't deny them in a commercial district for a restaurant. In referencing a previous appeal for hospital signs, four were permitted much closer to the sidewalk in a residentia l area. It would be absurd not to allow a commercial business to have a sign. There is no other place than in the middle of the parking lot. That is Putt ing a hard- ship on them. It would be difficult to deny this; there is no negative impact on the area. Mr. Kimberly stated that the last time that they were in fora corner sign he felt that it was a safety hazard. This is a better location and a good alternative choice for them. Board of Zoning Appeals November 5, 1986 Page Three Mr. McGee stated that with regard to the .negative, he stated that he felt that the sign was setting a precedent, because for many of the others there were special circumstances, but that does not fit here. The request was made because they were over-developing this property and that it was self-imposed. II. 455 MARION ROAD - Mercury Marine Mr. Lamine explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to construct an 8 ft. high fence along Marion Road. The Fences .and Hedges section of the Ordinance requires that fences located in the front of the lot must be 4 ft. or less in height. Tom Praeger, 708 Tamarack Drive, West Bend, representative for Mercury Marine, stated that in the past they have had some security problems. It was suggested that they initiate some higher security measures to protect their testing equip- ment. A 4 ft. high fence would not do much for them because anyone can jump it. An 8 ft, high fence makes it difficult for people to toss things over. They understood that it is not going to stop any big theft, but it does stop kids and people who are tempted. That is why they are requesting an 8 ft. Mr. McGee stated that the applicant could construct a building of 8 ft. or higher on this property with a 0 ft. setback. The Ordinance does not address fences in this district. Ms. Hintz stated that they had done the same thing on the Wisconsin Street side. Mr. Praeger stated that they won't put any shrubs up until the street is improved. The grades should be changed. They called the City Engineer but no grades have been set. He suggested that they set the grades for the City. Eventually they will be constructing a similar fence with landscaping. Ms. Hintz stated that a 45 ft. wall could be built there, so certainly an 8 ft. fence is no problem and well within the spirit of the Ordinance. Mr. Praeger stated that the setback will be 10 ft. 2 1/2 in. from the property line. Ms. Hintz moved approval of the variance to construct an 8 ft. high fence along Marion Road. Motion seconded by Mr. Nitkowski. Motion carried 5-0. With regard to findings of fact, Mr. McGee stated that the Code permits a structure of 8 ft. or more at a 0 ft. setback. That implies that a f ence would likewise be permissible. III. 302 WEST 9TH AVENUE - Shirley and David Staerkel Mr. Lamine explained that the applicants are requesting a variance to construct a fire escape with an 18 ft. front yard setback and a 3 ft. side yard setback. The R-2 Two Family Residence District requires a 25 ft. minimum front yard setback and a 7 1/2 ft. minimum side yard setback. Ed Wilcox, 3694 W. Nekimi, agent for the applicants, stated that it is legal non- conforming in an R-2 District. They are required to have a fire escape for a three apartment house. The proposed location is the best place and it wouldn't extend any further than what the house extends anyway. Ms. Hintz questioned how it wouldn't extend any further? Mr. Wilcox explained that the house extends to the property line.