HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (minutes) - 10/17/1984 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
OCTOBER 17, 1984
PRESENT: Elaine Cartwright, Dan Goldthwaite, Anne Hintz, Harry Luebke,
Kevin McGee
STAFF: Catherine Porter, Associate Planner; Paul Ehrfurth, Planning
Director; Darlene Matulle, Recording Secretary
Vice - Chairperson Anne Hintz called the meeting to order. Roll call was taken
and a quorum declared present.
A motion was made, seconded, and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of
October 3, 1984 as recorded.
I. Appeal of Ganz Thoma, owner of the property located at 103_ &_111 N.
Sawyer Sheet, proposes to replace an existing identification sign,
utilizing the existing ground support system, and requests the
following: A 10' front yard setback from Witzel Avenue exists;
whereas a 25' front yard setback is required.
Ms. Porter stated the appellant proposes to replace an existing identification
sign utilizing the existing ground support system and is requesting a variance
to the front yard setback requirements.
Mr. Ray Johnson, Pelles & Johnson, 2095 W. 20th Avenue, representing Mr. Thoma,
stated the proposed "Phillips 66" sign will be 7' x 7'. The proposed sign will
be lighted and will utilize the existing support system. Mr. Johnson did not
feel there is any real hazard at this location for the sign because they will
be using the existing pole.
Mrs. Hintz inquired if a new sign were erected to meet the Ordinance, where
would the sign be?
Mr. Johnson replied the sign would be in the driveway of the service station.
Motion by Dan Goldthwaite to move the appeal. Motion seconded by Elaine
Cartwright. Motion approved 5 -0.
Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. Goldthwaite stated it would be impossible
to place the sign on the lot where it would meet the Ordinance. The proposed
location is the only logical location because of the configuration of the lot.
Mr. McGee felt it would be a hazard to place the sign in any other location.
II. Appeal of Kim Conrad, agent for D.J. McDaniels, owner of the property
located at 115 W. Murdock Avenue, proposes to erect a ground identifi-
cation sign and requests the following: (1) A 0' front yard setback is
proposed; whereas a 25' front yard setback is required. (2) A 2' side
yard setback is proposed; whereas a 10' side yard setback is required.
Ms. Porter stated the appellant proposes to erect a ground sign to identify
his business and requests variances to the front and side yard setback require-
ments. In this case, the problem is identifying the proposed business and the
location of the building. She also pointed out that another tenant occupies
the eastern portion of this building, so a wall sign would have limited visibility.