Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (minutes) - 05/20/1986 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES MAY 20, 1986 MEETING PAGE THREE III. 119 WEST IRVING AVENUE - Helmut Presser The applicant was not present at this time. It was the consensus of the Board to hear the item at the end of the meeting. IV. 2200 MONTANA STREET - Jack Meyer Mr. Lamine explained that the applicant is proposing to erect a ground identifica- tion sign with a 22' front yard setback from Montana Street, a 24' front yard set- back from W. 22nd Avenue, and a 6' setback between the principle structure and the proposed sign. The lot in question is zoned M -1, however, Mr. Lamine pointed out that the blockis divided with M -2 zoning. In this case, the Ordinance requires that where the frontage of a block is divided among districts with different front yard setback requirements, the deepest front yard setback shall apply. Mr. Lamine continued that the Sign Regulations also require that a 25' distance be maintained between any structure and a free standing sign. Mr. Jack Meyer, 2200 Montana Street, stated the problem is using the footage that is there. Since he purchased the land 10 years ago, Mr. Meyer explained that the street right -of -way has changed. Originally the building was built back to the M -2 zoning district line. He continued that the Montana Street right -of -way has changed from 40' to 60'. He reiterated that when he built, the building was set- back to the M -2 line. Now, Mr. Meyer stated he needs a variance for a sign. Right now, the building is not 30' back, as it was when it was constructed. Mr. Lamine inquired of Mr. Meyer if he were measuring from the right -of -way, not the lot line? Mr. Meyer replied that is correct. Mrs. Hintz inquired about existing signage. Mr. Meyer stated there is only a sign on the wall. The proposed sign is a tire sign which can be seen from a distance. He continued that his business is about 1 block off the main drag. Mr. Kimberly inquired of Mr. Meyer if he is required by Uniroyal to have this sign? Mr. Meyer replied yes. Mr. Kimberly stated that when he viewed the property, he saw a red wood sign on the property. Mr. Meyer stated that sign will be removed and the grass area will be turned into a parking lot. Mr. Kimberly inquired if it were feasible to attach the sign to the building? Mr. Meyer replied it depends on how high he would be allowed to go. He stated the sign should be 17' high. Mr. Lamine pointed out that a roof sign is only allowed 1 1/2' above the roof line. Mrs. Hintz inquired if there are other feasible locations for the sign? BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES MAY 20, 1986 MEETING PAGE FOUR Mr. Lamine felt the only other possible location is behind the building. Mr. Meyer pointed out that Pepsi's future is not known at this time and there build- ing is right up to the right -of -way. If they expand, a sign to the rear of his property would be hidden. Mr. Meyer pointed out that if and when Pepsi expands, they will probably use the same building line. Mrs. Hintz felt that a 29' front yard setback versus the 30' required is not such a big deal. The 22' front yard setback versus the 30' required is not much consider- ing Mr. Meyer has pointed out that the right -of -way of Montana Street has changed. Mrs. Hintz did state, however, that she is concerned with the proximity of the sign to the building. Mr. Meyer indicated that if he had to erect the sign 25' from the building, it would be in the middle of the lot. Mrs. Hintz stated that if it weren't for the M -2 zoning district, a 0' front yard setback would be allowed. However, with the split district, the most restrictive requirements apply. 'Is that correct. Mr. Lamine replied yes. Mrs. Hintz inquired of Mr. Meyer if he were aware of this? Mr. Meyer replied yes, that is why he built the building so far back on the property. Mr. Nitkowski inquired if the setback requirements with regard to split zones is statutorily imposed? Mr. Laraine replied that it is part of the Zoning Ordinance and the applicant would have to comply with the Ordinance or the Board may grant a variance. Mrs. Hintz did not believe the Board has ever permitted a sign this close to a building. Mr. Kimberly inquired if this is a lighted sign? Mr. Meyer replied not at this time due to underground gas mains. He continued • that if the sign is pushed towards W. 22nd Avenue, he did not see that there would be a problem because the City will probably never pave the street. Mr. Lamine wished to point out that if the Board should make changes regarding the variances being requested, adjacent property owners have been notified of the meeting and have been given the opportunity to be heard or hear the item being discussed. Mrs. Hintz stated her only concern is the residential home in the area. However, there is no place to place a sign on the property and meet the code. The property owner would be denied a sign unless a variance is granted. She felt a hardship exists for placement of the sign even with the additional 10' the applicant thought he had. Regarding the 25' setback between the structure and sign, Mr. Lamine thought it is required in case the sign should be knocked over it would not fall on the building. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES MAY 20, 1986 MEETING PAGE FIVE Mrs. Hintz felt that according to the code, it is impossible to erect a sign on this property without a variance. She felt that the sign being erected 6' from the building seems to be preferrable of the spirit of the M -1 district instead of on the property line. She continued it is this or denying the sign. Motion by Ron Ames to move approval of the ground identification sign with a 22' front yard setback from Montana Street, a 24' front yard setback from W. 22nd Avenue, and a 6' setback between the principle structure and the proposed sign. Motion seconded by David Nitkowski. Motion carried 4 -0. Mr. Lamine wished to clarify that the sign will be 24' from W. 22nd Avenue, not 29' as stated on the agenda. Motion by Tom Kimberly to clarify the motion that the sign will be placed 24' from W. 22nd Avenue versus 29'. Motion seconded by David Nitkowski. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. With regard to findings of fact, Mr. Kimberly felt that the sign setback 6' from the road would put a negative impact on the property owner instead of the neigh- bors. Regarding the front yard setbacks, this is a corner lot and the required setbacks are impossible to meet. Due to the split zoning, M -2 requirements prevail and the required setback is impossible to meet because of the building location. V. 609 DOVE STREET - Lloyd Williams Mr. Lamine explained that the applicant is proposing to construct a garage on a vacant lot without a principle dwelling. The Single Family Residence District requires that an accessory building be associated with a principle dwelling. Mrs. Lloyd Williams, 1304 Taft Avenue, stated they want to build a garage on the empty lot just for storage of snowmobiles, lawn mowers, car, etc. Mrs. Hintz inquired if there is a garage on the lot that Mrs. Williams' home is on? Mrs. Williams replied yes. Mrs. Hintz inquired if it is a detached garage? Mrs. Williams replied yes. Mr. Lamine pointed out that the two lots could be consolidated and then an addition could be put on the existing garage up to 800 square feet. Mrs. Hintz inquired of Mrs. Williams if she understood that what she is attempting to do is against the Ordinance? Mrs. Williams replied yes. Mrs. Hintz stated that the basic idea of a lot is defined and in order to permit Mrs. Williams to construct the proposed garage, she has to show that no other alternatives are available. The two lots can be combined. Is there a reason why you would not want to combine the lots? If the lots were combined, then there would be enough room to make an addition to the existing garage. Mrs. Hintz stated she understands Mrs. Williams' need for storage, but the Board has to follow rules and regulations.