11/11/1987 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS NOVENBER 11, 1987 PAGE 3 would devaluate the neighboring nronerty; he does not want to live in the shadow of a sign which could fall on his house; the location of this sign violates the 50 foot buffer zone between residential and commercial nroperty; sign is 41 feet higher than what is allowed and almost 1,000 square feet, code only allowes 100 square feet on both sides; he is requesting that the Board reject the request for the variance. Mrs. Holly suggested putting signs .further out onthe freeway. At the Law Director's suggestion neighbors located their homes in relation to the sign as shown on the,drawing. Law Director Gareau stated that in the nast 14 years, he knew of onlyo une nole sign that fell and it was knocked over by a motorists. Other neighbors agreed that they did not want the sign stating: other businesses at the interchange would request similar signs; since sign is located adjacent to the bike path, they are concerned that children will try to climb the uole; and that the sight plan using a 32 square foot niece of plywood is not com- parable to a 900 square foot sign. Irlr. Grace stated that the existing sign could be seen coming.from the airport and suggested that they remove the red script sign and replace it with.the b lue logo. Mr. Carlisle responded that they needed the exposure from the west as well. Chairman Remmel stated that the Board could stinulate that an 8 foot fence be installed around•the base of the sign. to keep children from climbing it. -M-r. 6za-ee-be i-r evs ?that .. s-irree-the-nhiTosoghy-af the cit-Y has-heen-to-e=l-imin.a.te-UO-le-s-i-gns ; ?t-i-s-up -to=t"he Boar`Ic-to upho-l-d-this uhi?s'ohv--so t afi t North-n-1ms-ted-doe ns b oce me a-t,ruc-k-s-top: Mr: Remmel stated that pole signs are permitted in' the Zoning Codes. He then read Section 1123.12 of the Zoning Code, varagraphs one; two, and three., which stipulate:, the criteria- for.granting variances: Law Director Gareau clarified that the hardship should have nothing to do with money, it has to do with the size, shape, or topograpli.y of a. particular piece of land that is uniq_ue to that particular pie of land that is not shared by other nieces of land in the immediate vacinity. Mr. Carlisle stated that there are hardship in relationship.to the adjacent citing a drnp in grade from the surrounding nropert_y. Chairman Remmel stated that he would like to make a motion nertaining only to the.idea or location of the sign, not the particulars.of the sign itself, those could be dealt with if-the concept ot the sign were approved. Mr.. Grace stated that before the motion is,inade he would like to noint out that when Biskind Development nresente'd the pro- posal for the motel to the City they stated that this area was the ideal location for the motel with the most visible access. Mr. Carlisle stated that he nresented.the pronos al and did not present it in that manner. C. Remmel moved to grant to Hamnton Inn the request fqr the variance for the location of a pole sign as requested b_y the Hampton Inn per the drawings presented, the details .f.or the sign will be senartely handled, seconded by B. Grace. Roll call on motion: Remmel and Gomersall, yes. Grace and Bugala, no. Motion failed to pass. Variance denied. 5. Richard Linnevers, 3982 Tennyson Lane Request for variance (1123.12). Request 11 foot rear yard variance to . construct an addition. Violation of Ord. 87-93, Section 1165.02. Chairman Remmel called all interested parties before the Board. The oath was .- administered to G. Kitchen, contractor, and Mr. Linnevers. Board has no objection to the pronosal. C. Remmel moved to grant the 11 foot rear yard variance for Mr. Richard Linnevers, 3982 Tennyson Lane, seconded by R. Bugala, and unanimous ly approved. Variance granted.