HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (minutes) 11/19/1986 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes November 19, 1986 Page Six
people. They would need the extra high fence to keep the kids out and it would
be a good thing to prevent people from stealing their merchandise. It is mostly
a safety factor because a smaller fence would be easy to jump over.
Tim Casey, secretary for Chamco, stated that he was present to represent the lands
in the industrial parks. He explained that this is part of the Southwest Industrial
Park. He agrees with and appreciated the staff's recommendation. The Protective
Covenants for the industrial parks relative to outdoor storage, stipulate that no
outside storage of any kind shall be permitted unless such storage material is
visually screened from all streets with a suitable fence at least 6 ft. in height.
Screening shall be attractive in appearance and in keeping with the architectural
quality of the main structure. Said storage shall be limited to the rear two - thirds
of the property, and within the building setback lines. Fences, walls, or hedges
may not extend forward of building setback lines. This would be basically a Butler
building with 0 ft. setbacks. He is also working with Ms. Lemberger in the purchase
of the remaining land existing north of their property line and Hwy. 44.
Ms. Hintz stated that a structure could be built higher than 8 ft. This will be
a structure without a roof.
Mr. McGee stated that this request is similar to the Mercury Marine variance which
is manufacturing and they have a 0 ft. setback.
Mr. Lamine stated that the intent of the fence is a question of safety.
Mr. Neu asked what type of fence it would be?
Ms. Lemberger replied that it will be like a building without a roof.
Mr. Casey replied that it will be like a metal super structure or wall. _
Ms. Hintz stated that it is not on their property line. Fences are within the
limits of the appellants property and this would seem to have a different effect.
There is no negative impact in an M -3 District.
Ms. Hintz moved approval of the variance to construct an 8 ft. high fence. Motion
seconded by Mr. Neu. Motion carried 4 -0.
With regard to findings of fact, Ms. Hintz stated that this is zoned manufacturing
and that a structure of larger dimensions would be allowed. It seems pointless
to deny construction of a fence. This is interpreted as a structure without a roof.
For safety and security reasons, the fence is a good idea.
1570 RIPON LANE - Thomas and Shirley Heisler
Mr. Lamine explained that Robert Heisler, agent for Thomas and Shirley Heisler, is
requesting a variance to erect a ground identification sign with a 2 ft. side yard
setback and a 2 ft. front yard setback. The C -2 Light Commercial Zoning District
requires a 7 1/2 ft. minimum side yard setback and a 25 ft. minimum front yard
setback. The property to the front of the subject property is leased from the
State of Wisconsin Department of Transportation. The lease agreement does not
allow the restaurant to place a sign on this property.
Robert Heisler, 217 McArthur, Brillion, stated that they want to leave the sign
where it is. It will be a letter board with a sign name above it. With their
leased property their sign setback is quite a bit back now, At 25 ft. in and 25 ft.
back it would be in the middle of the property. They could expand their restaurant
if they had room for parking. To move the sign back would be totally worthless and
not visible. You could not see it from the road. They feel that if they could
Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes November 19, 1986 Page Seven
improve the sign, they could improve their business. In his advertising class
they suggested that they put a sign out. They are using the same hole and this
is the same spot. They are putting a sign on top of it and they will change the
board. The small sign next to the building will be taken down.
Mr. McGee asked what the required setback would be?
Mr. Lamine replied 7 1/2 ft.
Mr. McGee asked why they could not meet the 7 1/2 ft. setback.
Mr. Heisler replied that their parking is limited and they do park cars along that
side. The parking on the left is for the employees and a lot of times people drive
in because there is no place else to park. They intially had the sign middle.
Before they were annexed into the City they requested to move the sign because they
had a lot of accidents. They asked the County if they could move it before they
were annexed 5 years ago. At this time Mr. Heisler supplied pictures of the site
for the Board, they are not included as part of the record. They will be taking
the arrow off the top of the sign and Pepsi is replacing it with a sign with their
name on it. He repeated that the sign is 55 ft. back and the little sign will be
taken down. One sign will be eliminated and there will be improvements to the other
one.
Mr. Neu asked if they planned to put anything underneath their name.
Mr. Heisler replied that their daily specials will be put on the sign. It is the
basic letterboard as shown on the picture.
Mr. Neu asked if the sign will be illuminated?
Mr. Heisler replied that the light is internal. The lighting for the other sign
is basically the same and they will have to take off the arrows to extend the post.
Mr. McGee asked if there might be any long -term State plans to widen Ripon Lane?
Mr. Heisler explained that this is the old Hwy. 44.
Mr. Lamine stated that they would have to relocate the highway.
Mr. Heisler stated that they have a barricade up and you can't get through. They
tried to buy it once, but they would only sell them 1 /10. The lease will be up
next June and they want to purchase the whole thing.
Mr. Kimberly asked if Hwy. 44 is in front?
Mr. Heisler replied yes, across the whole property.
Mr. Kimberly asked if they are mainly concerned with the side yard setback?
Mr. Lamine replied the front and the side yards. He thought he may have more of
a problem with the side than the front yard.
Ms. Hintz asked who his neighbor was?
Mr. Heisler replied that there is 200 ft. between them and Packers Pub and there is
a fence there. He stated that Packers Pub does not have enough business to fill
the whole parking lot up.
Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes November 19, 1986 Page Eight
Mr. McGee stated that he had no trouble with the front yard for various sundry
reasons, including the fact that it is leased property and the whole layout precedes
the Ordinance at the time it came into the City, etc.
Mr. Heisler stated that they had the same thing with the County when they decided
to put the sign there initially.
Mr. McGee stated that he had mixed feelings with the side yard setback, even though
they are merely replacing the existing sign. He had difficulty in seeing that
there was a hardship in requiring him to move it 7 1/2 ft.
Mr. Heisler replied that at 5 ft. over they would have to tear the sign down and
drop the parking spaces. They would have to take out three stalls and they only
have 18. The restaurant is not that big and it would really disrupt their parking.
They would not do it, they would just leave it. They would have a lot of problems
with parking; and with a lot of trucks they need every stall that they can get.
They would increase the business if it were not for the problems with the parking;
that is the reason they do not expand.
Mr. McGee asked what the side yard setback for parking is?
Mr. Lamine replied 7 1/2 ft.
Mr. Heisler stated that there are no parking lines there, but they do park there.
Ms. Hintz moved approval of the 2 ft. front yard setback. Motion seconded by Mr.
Neu. Motion carried 4 -0.
Ms. Hintz moved approval of the 2 ft. side yard setback. Motion seconded by Mr.
Neu. Motion of 3 -1 the variance was laid over. -
With regard to findings of fact for the front yard variance, Ms. Hintz stated that
it is a given fact that the sign is 55 ft. back from the right -of -way. This is
State owned property not used by the State which may eventually be owned by the
applicant. The spirit of the Ordinance is being maintained with them having that
distance from the thoroughfare.
With regard to the side yard, Ms. Hintz stated that the sign exists and they need
the improvement. It would be a danger to have the sign placed once again in the
middel of the traffic area. This is for the health, safety, and welfare of the
customers and the owners to grant the side yard. The neighbor is a considerable
distance from the side yard and there is probably no negative impact.
Mr. Kimberly that they did offer to take down the second sign. To require the
7 1/2 ft. setback, we would be imposing a hardship on him for the purpose of parking.
Mr. Neu stated that he agreed with the previous comments. The intent is to improve
the site and he is willing to make changes with a smaller sign, not garish; it is
a simple sign. They already had the face for the sign. They are making an
improvement.
Mr. McGee stated that in regard to the hardship for the side yard, based on the
impact on parking, it is non - conforming and he did not feel that they had presented
a hardship.
V. 702 SOUTH KNAPP STREET - Anthony Combs
Mr. Lamine explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to replace an
existing sign with a 0 ft. front yard setback from both Knapp Street and 8th