04/01/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Koberna suggested the applicants are asking for too much. Mr. Konold asked the applicants what the minimum signage needed would be. Mr. Schramm suggested the minimum signage needed would be, the plastic letters over the bays,as well as plastic letters over the store, and eliminate the metal sign. They have applied to have the logos be their trademark. Mr. Konold announced the applicants are asking for too much. Mr. Schramm repeated Mr. Umek's earlier statement, about residents not knowing they are a full car care facility. Only 35% of the business is tire care the rest is car repair. Mr. Conway suggested 65% of their customers already know it is a total car care facility. Mr. Umek indicated Mr. Conway was correct. Mr. Konold suggested the issue is not just what you can live with, but what the City can live with there has to be a compromise. There was confusion as to what the exact size of the proposed signage was. Mr. Conway asked what the dimensions of the signs were and reviewed that the Architectural Review Board had reviewed the signage and suggested the flags be removed. Mr. Schramm suggested because he has presented the same signage to so many cities and each city is different he didn't put the size on the drawings. Mr. Conway asked if Mr. Schranun was suggesting that other cities don't care what size signage is used. Mr. Conway reviewed the size of the letters one at a time. He indicated the logo is 4'x 4'foot, and the other letters are 2'foot 6"inches each and asked if he was correct. Mr. Schramm indicated Mr. Conway was correct. Mr. Conway then asked why Mr. Schramm suggested the letters were smaller. Mr. Schramm suggested he was confiised. Mr. Kremzar indicated then the letters can be reduced to 1'foot or 2'foot. Mr. Schramm suggested they could be reduced but they would like to have them as big as they can. Mr. Conway asked if the owner had thought about a monument sign. Mr. Umek indicated they didn't think there was enough room. Mr. Schramm suggested the amount of parking spaces would not allow a grotmd sign. Mr. Gomersall indicated the size being requested was too much and could not except the proposal as it stands. W. Schramm asked what the board could live with so the case could be settled. Mr. Gomersall suggested they would like 2'foot and 3'foot, as well as eliminating the third wall sign. Mr. Conway suggested the board diinensions each sing individually and the building department would work up the final sizes for the vanances. Mr. Gomersall motioned to grant Conrad's Total Car Care of 4799 Great Northern Blvd. their request for variance (1123.12), and the proposal is changed with the applicant's agreement as follows: 1) The west elevation sign to be reduced to 3' by 22'foot, total square foot being 66square feet. 2) An 88 square foot variance for building use signage, (code permits 114sq ft, applicant requests 202sq ft), (1163.11 a) 3) A variance to install two wall signs, (code permits one, applicant requests two), (1163.12 a). 4) A 48 square foot variance for business use signage, (code permits 154sq ft, applicant requests 202sq ft), (1163.11 a). 5) A 61 square foot variznce for signage of wall sign #2, (code permits 75sq ft, applicant requests 136sq ft), (1163.12 a). 6) A variance to incorporate the logo requested, (1163.16 d). Which is in Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section (1163.11 A, and 1163.12 A). The motion was seconded by W. Kremzar and unanimously approved. Variances Granted. Timberview Homes (Curt Dunlop); Porter Road: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of a new home. The following variances are requested: 1) A 20'foot front setback variance (Code requires residence district A,B, and C minimum front setback 50'feet, applicant proposes 30'foot front setback), (1105.06). 2) A 2'foot side yard variance (code requires dwelling with attached garage to have the sum of the two sides to be not less than 15'feet, applicant proposes 13'feet), (1135.07 a). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125, sections (1105.06, and 1135.07 a). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward, and reviewed the variances requested. Mr. Dtullap, from Timberview homes, came forward to present his proposal. Mr. Gomersall suggested one of the footprints shows the garage to the left and the rest of the prints show it to the right, so which side will it be on. Mr. Dunlap reviewed that it would be on the left side of the house. Mr. Gomersall indicated the house will be very close to the lot on the left. If the neighbor to the left builds a garage it would not be safe. Mr. Conway suggested that the owner to the left would have to stay within his sideyard setbacks to erect a garage. He further suggested granting the variance to build the home does not penalize the neighbor. The building department would not hold the neighbor to the 15'foot between a house and a garage, he would just