Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-Board of Appeals (minutes) BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES NOV 21, 1984 MEETING PAGE FIVE To the best of his knowledge, Mr. Borgeson stated there is no signage on the canopy. Any contingencies the Board may place in this regard would be okay with Mr. Borgeson because he would not want to clutter the canopy. Mr. McGee inquired how close is the nearest residential property on Witzel Avenue? Mr. Borgeson believed there is about 58' to the property line. Regarding the alternate plan, Mr. Larson inquired if it was done by the Planning staff? Ms. Porter replied no, it was submitted by Mr. Borgeson. Mr. Borgeson stated the alternate plan is feasible, but by centering the canopy over the gas island as proposed, we would allow for a fire lane between the gas islands and the building. The alternate plan would have the canopy closer to the building and would clutter up the area. Mr. Borgeson pointed out that the proposed location of the canopy will not impair the vision at the intersection because it will be 13'6" high. Mr. McGee inquired if there is any reason why a canopy will not be over the pumps on Sawyer Street? Mr. Borgeson believed Mr. Thoma's concern was traffic on Sawyer Street. Motion by Marlene Herzing to move the appeal with the condition that there be no signage on the canopy. Motion seconded by Dan Goldthwaite. Motion approved 5 -0. Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. Goldthwaite felt it is a hardship not to have a canopy over the gas pumps at a self - service station. In dealing with the existing structure and traffic, Mr. Larson felt the canopy will be placed in the only location that is not moderately offensive. IV. Appeal of Curtis Rolland, agent for Joseph Langkau, owner of the property located at 123 N. Sawyer Street, proposes to erect a 6' x 8' ground identification sign and requests the following: A 2' front yard setback from N. Sawyer Street is proposed; whereas a 20' front yard setback is required. Ms. Porter stated the appellant proposes to erect a ground identification sign with a 2' front yard setback from N. Sawyer Street. She pointed out that there is signage from both directions on the canopy and it also states the price of gas. She questioned whether another sign is needed. Mr. Curtis Rolland, 708 Cass Street, Portage, Wisconsin, representing J & L Oil Inc., stated the signs on the canopy do not state the price of gas and has not for some years. The station was purchased from another company that did have prices, but because they are difficult to change, it is no longer there. Mr. Rolland stated they prefer a sign because not many people look at the canopy. Mr. Rolland indicated the signs on the canopy could be taken off because J & L Oil cannot be seen without looking up at the canopy. A sign by the road is needed because the 6% State law mark -up needs to be shown and customer loyality is essential. However, customers need to know the name of the station. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES NOV 21, 1984 MEETING PAGE SIX Mrs. Hintz stated she is concerned about adding additional signs on the bottom of the sign. She indicated this has happened at other locations. Mr. Rolland stated there is already a cigarette sign onthe ground. He continued the existing price sign would remain, but a new pole would be put up to support the proposed identification sign. Ms. Porter stated if the pole is removed, then an identification sign and a price sign is proposed. Mr. Rolland stated the sign will state J & L Oil and beneath it will be another sign stating the price. Mrs. Hintz stated the 6' x 8' identification sign is the only one being requested at this time. Ms. Porter informed the appellant that he is asking for two signs within the front yard setback. She suggested that Mr. Rolland request that the appeal be laid over until the next meeting so that a picture of both signs can be submitted and variances for both signs can be requested. Mr. Rolland requested that the appeal be laid over until the next meeting. V. Appeal of Douglas Redlin, owner of the property located at 534 Jackson Street, proposes to convert a single family dwelling to a duplex and requests the following: A 19'7" front yard setback exists; whereas a 20' front yard setback is required. Ms. Porter stated the appellant proposes to convert a single family dwelling to a duplex. She pointed out that the existing front yard setback should be 16'1 ", not 19'7" as indicated on the agenda. She continued that this is an illegal duplex which the appellant wants to make legal. She continued that the appellant will make interior improvements as required by the Housing Inspector. Mr. Larson inquired if the appellant is just requesting a front yard setback? Ms. Porter replied yes. Mr. Douglas Redlin, 1905 Mitchell Street, stated that from the Assessor's records this has been a two apartment house since 1971. He indicated the house was probably converted some time prior to 1971. Mrs. Hintz stated the property is zoned for a duplex and all other setbacks are met. Mr. McGee felt the Board has allowed other conversions unless the requirements that are not met are substantial. Mr. Goldthwaite inquired of Mr. Redlin how long he has owned this property? Mr. Redlin replied 5 years. Motion by Kevin McGee to move the appeal. Motion seconded by Dan Goldthwaite. Motion approved 5 -0.