Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (minutes) 12/03/1986 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DECEMBER 3, 1986 PRESENT: Anne Hintz, Tom Kimberly, James Larson, Kevin McGee, Dave Neu STAFF: Chuck Lamine, Associate Planner; Mary Jo Anderson, Recording Secretary Chairman McGee called the meeting to order. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of September 17, 1986 were approved by Ms. Hintz with the following addition: Item V: 502 West Murdock Avenue, Mr. Nitkowski removed himself from the item due to a conflict of interest. Therefore due to lack of a quorum the item was laid over. Motion seconded by Mr. Kimberly. Motion carried. 41Ehl 1570 RIPON LANE - Thomas and Shirley Heisler Mr. Lamine explained that Robert Heisler is the son of Thomas and Shirley Heisler and that he is requesting a variance to erect a ground identification sign with a 2 ft. side yard setback. The C -2 Light Commercial Zoning District requires a 10 ft. minimum side yard setback. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance for a 2 ft. front yard setback at the November 19, 1986 meeting. The issue of the 2 ft. side yard setback was laid over due to a 3 -1 vote. Robert Heisler, 217 McArthur, Brillion, stated that he had brought his father along to the meeting. He informed the Board that they had initially moved the sign. It was 12 ft. from the side to begin with. Thomas Heisler, 1570 Ripon Lane, stated that 3 to 5 years ago they had a telephone pole that needed to be moved because people backed into it. It cost them $1,200 to have the telephone pole moved. The original sign at that site was originally wiped out. Robert Heisler stated that they then moved it to where it is now; and the County had agreed. Then they were annexed to the City. They are changing the sign to put their name on top and they are removing an existing sign next to the building. The Pepsi sign will be removed and it will be more appealing on one side and not two. They are considering this for the parking and the safety requirements. They will put a barricade round it 10 ft. away. One to two feet for the barricade and 12 ft. away from the fence is taking up so much parking. With two semis and six cars the place is packed. They will take away parking spaces and they will have room in front of the building for 4 cars instead of six. A lot of auto dealership guys come in in the morning and they have two tables full. To take away more parking would harm them. They wouldn't put the sign there because it is not feasible. Thomas Heisler stated that he understood the grandfather clause and that the existing sign can stay as it is. Mr. Lamine replied that that was correct. Tom Heisler stated that two years after they were annexed he was notified by the City about the flashing arrow. He talked to the people and they informed him that the existing sign could be left there. He is willing to go along with the City and disconnect the flasher. He commented that everytime they try to do something there is always a problem. Board of Zoning Appeals December 3, 1986 Page Two Robert Heisler stated that they plan to put another sign on top of the existing sign because it would increase their chances for road traffic. Off of "41" is a good interchange and a new sign would improve it. Discussion ensued on the placement of the sign. Robert Heisler stated that they plan to use the same letter board, take the arrow off and extend the pole. It is less clutter and it will improve the looks. Mr. McGee asked where they have their parking spaces? In looking at the diagram he noted that there are four to five immediately in front of the restaurant, three in front of the house; and six in front of the garage. Robert Heisler replied that some is their employee parking and that they park both ways. They have ten to 12 personnel cars. At night they have three to four cars and they also have traffic in the morning, afternoon, and the Friday night fish fry. When he left today there were two semis in the parking lot with seven cars. Tom Heisler stated that they employ 26 people. Five years ago they had 'one employee. They can park half of those cars on the street. They are very tight for parking. They have a number of people who ask when they are going to make the restaurant bigger. And we reply where will they park? He had a picture of the site with the telephone pole, but he could not find it. He stated that it would have shown exactly how much of a problem it created at 12 ft. They spent $1,200 to have it moved to the property line. Robert Heisler asked for a confirmation of the required side yard setback. Mr. Lamine replied that they would need a 10 ft. side yard setback for the C -2 zoning. - Robert Heisler replied that realistically they have 12 ft. with the barricade. That is twice what they had previously talked about. Mr. Lamine replied that they had in good faith designed the parking lot and had gone through the appeals board with the County. They did make every effort to follow the law. Ms. Hintz stated that the neighboring property does not use the property adjacent to this site. They are a considerable distance away. Robert Heisler stated that their parking lot will hold 150 cars, but he didn't think that they have had even 50 cars in the lot. Ms. Hintz stated that the sign is not a problem for the neighboring property. Tom Heisler stated that his neighbor has a camper on his lot which completely blocks him. Now there is no name to indicate that it is a restaurant. With the 8 ft. sign and the camper, you could still drive by and see the LaSure name. Mr. Kimberly asked why the business to their side had put a fence between the parking lots. Tom Heisler replied that they had been good friends. When they annexed to the City he charged $300 per month rent for his employees to use. However, people were driving from his lot to mine and mine to his. The people driving through took down the fence, the marquee, the whole works. The neighbor then put up the fence which is a blessing to him. Board of Zoning Appeals December 3, 1986 Page Three Robert Heisler replied that they used it as a roadway. The barricade was the greatest thing they could have done. Mr. Larson questioned how they park on the side. Robert Heisler replied that in an 8 ft. space that people do pull in there, though it is not really a parking spot. They do parking along the fence because of the room, they park where they fit. Mr. McGee asked if they are non - conforming in terms of parkino spaces? Mr. Lamine asked if he was concerned with the location or the number? Mr. McGee replied number of spaces. Mr. Lamine replied that he had not checked it because they have plenty of space to meet their parking needs. One space for every 200 ft. Mr. Larson stated that they cannot park in the setback. Mr. Lamine replied that they can remain as they were grandfathered in, since they were parking there before they were annexed into the City. Mr. McGee questioned if they should have a green area to break up the parking area. They park up to the setback and they need to meet the setback at 2 ft. Is there any provision for green space. Ms. Hintz stated that the green space concept may be wishful thinking. There is nothing about green space and you may have them up to your property line. The provision for not parking in a setback is to keep the cars back from the sidewalk. It may be to encourage green space, but if it does not, they can't demand it. Robert Heisler stated that there is no sidewalk in front of the building. Mr. Larson stated that with the 10 ft. side yard there is room for the sign. Robert Heisler replied that they have 7 1/2 ft. and they won't have lines there until they put up the sign. He explained that people back out and pull in straight . for angle parking, and when they back up they hit the sign. It makes the insurance company rates go up ridiculously. They have already gone through this. Their parking is very limited and one spot makes a big deal. One spot brings in $20,000 income. One spot is one person. So many people drive by because it looks packed. They would be tying up extra area and making a health hazard. They would like to improve the looks for the people coming into the City. The recommendation of his instructor and the people on the street is to improve their sign. They are not going to put the sign at 10 ft., they will leave it where it is. All they want to do is put their name above the sign. He understood that this is the law. They are only trying to improve their business. Ms. Hintz stated that this is a special case of a business being annexed into the City. It was set up under a different code with a different provision granted by the County. She thought that it would prove difficult for this business to have normal advertising and identification, to insist that they revert to their earlier sign location. It would be more of a negative than a plus. Ms. Hintz moved approval of the variance to erect a ground identification sign with a 2 ft. side yard setback. Motion seconded by Mr. Neu. Motion carried 4 -1. Board of Zoning Appeals December 3, 1986 Page Four Ms. Hintz stated that with regard to the findings of fact, that they are dealing with special circumstances in as much as the property was annexed into the City and was an ongoing business that had been laid out under different requirements and granted a variance through the County zoning board. Here you clearly see a hardship which is not self- created. All action taken by the business was in good faith of the codes existing at the time. It is likely that if it were to be placed within the 10 ft. setback requirement that it would be a danger to the customers and she would not want to creat a difficulty that would result in accidents and would hurt the health of the business. Mr. Neu stated that they are also willing to remove the other existing sign. In the negative, Mr. McGee stated that he did not feel that a hardship was shown. The fact that Winnebago County granted a variance is not justification for granting a variance here. The applicant does have the option to rearrange the parking area. It does not seem that the area is being used fully. He does have the option to rent space in the immediate neighborhood. The argument for a hardship for parking did not hold in his mind. II. 510 WEST 8TH AVENUE - Daniel T. Monroe Mr. Lamine explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to place a 6 ft. high fence in the front yard. The Fences and Hedges standards requires that fences not exceed 4 ft. in height in the front of the main building. The applicant has a garbage disposal service which stores and maintains garbage trucks at the location. Daniel Monroe, 418 Boyd Street, stated that he has had too many complaints and he wants to block the area off. He has parts lying out for maintenance and other things used for the business. Four foot fence would do it, but six feet will be better. Mr. McGee stated that the Board was familiar with a previous item in another M -1 district. The Board's interpretation seems to be that if a 6 ft. high building could be constructed that they should allow for a fence to be constructed. This is the same circumstances. Discussion ensued on what area would be fenced in. Mr. Monroe informed the Board that they would leave the corner open to view the traffic. Mr. Neu asked what type of fence they were considering. Would it be a cyclone fence with latticework? Mr. Monroe replied that it could be that or a plain wooden fence. Mr. McGee confirmed that it would be something that they could not see through. Mr. Kimberly moved approval of the 6 ft. high fence. Motion seconded by Mr. Neu. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Kimberly stated that the Board has granted variances with this same zoning and the applicant has proven a hardship and the right to construct a fence for his parking lot. A 6 ft. high fence is a good compromise for the purpose. Mr. McGee stated that the argument for previous items applies here. He could build a structure on that line and to prevent him from building a fence would be inappropriate.