Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (minutes) - 09/17/1986 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 17, 1986 Page Seven Mr. Lamine informed the Board that he was in receipt of a letter from Mr. Sammons. The letter stated that he objected to such a variance because without a hardship it would be wrong. He would be jeopardizing his tenant's visibility to Jackson Drive. Ms. Hintz stated that the building would be going up there anyway. She wanted it noted for the record that Wendy's has a non-conforming sign, but that she did not vote on it. Mr. McGee stated that for lack of a quorum the item would be laid over until the next meetinq. VI. VACANT SW CORNER OF JACKSON STREET AND LINWOOD AVENUE - 2009 Jackson Street A. I . McDermott Co. nc. Mr. Lamine explained that First United Methodist Church, agent for A. I . McDermott Co. Inc. is requesting a variance to erect an off premise qround sign within 126 ft. of an on premise sign to the south and an on premise sign 136 ft. to the north. The proposed sign will indicate that the church is located two blocks to the west. The Sign Regulations Ordinance stipulates that no off premise sign be located within 200 ft. from any on premise sign. Marian Stone, representative for First United Methodist Church, stated that they have many people coming into the City for funerals and weddings, as well as new comers, and they have great difficulty in finding their building. They would really like a sign on Jackson to provide help in locating them. Mr. McGee asked if they were paying McDermotts. Mrs. Stone replied that they have granted permission to them until such time as he has other plans; then the sign would have to be taken down. They have talked to him on several occasions and there is no problem. Mr. McGee asked if he stood correct, that the reason for this provision in the Code is to prevent businesses from hiring out space to lots of other businesses who would be creating a sign explosion? This currently is not the situation. Mr. Lamine stated that it is a very small 5.60 sq. ft. public service sign. We define public service signs in the Ordinance, but have no provisions for them. They will be addressed when the Ordinance is up-dated. Mr. McGee stated that these are unusual circumstances. Discussion ensued on this matter. Mr. McGee continued stating that this is located in a commercial area where signs are permitted. Discussion ensued on the signage at the fairgrounds. Ms. Hintz stated that they should also take into consideration that the lot owner is willing to do this. Mr. Lamine stated that they are not creating more clutter than there otherwise ordinarily could be. If McDermott wanted they could put a sign up there for their business, but he would have to combine the lots. Discussion ensued on whether this is considered a single lot and how much more square footage for signage he could consider for the business. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes September 17, 1986 Page Eight Ms. Hintz moved approval of the off premise ground sign for the church. Motion seconded by Mr. Nitkowski . Motion carried 4-0. With re�ard to findings of fact, Ms. Hintz stated that there are extenuating circumstances. Such as the fact that the property owner could have bigger and larger cluttering signs there and on the building. It would seem unreasonable to prevent the church from having this public service sign. She didn't think that it is setting a precedent because in commercial zoning signs are permitted. The only difficulty is the question of on premise and off premise. Mr. Nitkowski stated that they should consider the fact that McDermott' s could put up their own sign, but they have delegated this to a secondary party. Mr. McGee stated that this Code does not address the location of public service signs. We are setting a limited precedent where signs are limited. Mr. Ames stated that when coming into a City, all it takes is to stop and ask directions at a service station. Discussion ensued on the criteria set by the present Code. VII. 1101 SOUTH MAIN STREET - Burt King Mr. Lamine explained that the appellant is requesting a variance to erect a 12 ft. high fence. The Fences and Hedges standards require that no fence exceed 6 ft. in height. This is an M-1 Zone. Peter Baehman, 1101 South Main Street, agent for Mr. King, stated that they have put up a volley ball court and they want to put up the fence to protect the property next to them. Mr. McGee asked if the fence would go around the front toward the street? Mr. Baehman replied that it would go between the two buildings. They have a chain link on the street side. Mr. McGee asked if this is 6 ft.? Mr. Baehman replied that it is 5 ft. Mr. McGee asked if they would want to change this? Mr. Baehman replied that it is to protect the house on the othe r side. Mr. McGee asked if it would be a chain link fence? Mr. Baehman replied that it would be a split wood fence so that no light would shine on the house. Ms. Hintz stated that it would be sort of like building a wall . Mr. McGee asked what the setback would be for a building. Mr. Lamine replied, nothing in M-1 . The house may still be within the industrial district. If within a residential district, it would be 5 ft. abutting a residential district.