Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-Board of Zoning Appeals (mintues) BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 1984 PRESENT: Dan Goldthwaite, Marlene Herzing, Anne Hintz, Jim Larson, Kevin McGee STAFF: Paul W. Ehrfurth, Planning Director; Catherine W. Porter, Associate Planner; Bruce Roskom, Associate Planner Darlene Matulle, Recording Secretary Vice - Chairperson Anne Hintz called the meeting to order. Roll call was taken and a qourum declared present. A motion was made, seconded, and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of November 21, 1984 as recorded. I. Appeal of Curtis Rolland, agent for Joseph Langkau, owner of the property located at 123 N. Sawyer Street, proposes to erect a ground identification sign and requests the following variances: (1) A ground identification sign is proposed; whereas ground signs are not permitted in the C -1 district. (2) A 2' front yard setback from N. Sawyer Street is proposed; whereas a 20' front yard setback is required. Ms. Porter stated this appeal was laid over from the last meeting. The appellant proposes to erect a ground identification sign in a C -1 district and ground signs are not permitted in the C -1 district. The appellant is also proposing a 2' front yard setback from N. Sawyer Street. She pointed out that this is a service station with a canopy which has existing signs on it. She questioned whether additional signage is needed. If the variances are approved, Ms. Porter suggested they be contingent upon removal of some of the existing signage. Mr. Curtis Rolland, 708 Cass Street, Portage, Wisconsin, stated the station in question now has a price sign on a pole and no identification sign. This is the only station in the area without an identification sign. He did not feel that people can see the signs on the canopy. Mr. Rolland distributed pictures of the proposed sign. (Said pictures not made part of these minutes.) Mr. Rolland also pointed out that there are some stations (i.e. Amaco) that have identification signs and signs on the canopy. Mr. Goldthwaite inquired of Mr. Rolland how he feels about removing the signs on the canopy? Mr. Rolland stated the canopy was put up with the signs on. He indicated that it would cost a lot to replace the canopy panels, but it could be done. He continued that the existing price sign will be removed and a new pole but in this location with the proposed signs. Mrs. Hintz inquired if the variances are denied, will the existing sign remain? Mr. Rolland replied yes. Mrs. Hintz pointed out Mr. Rolland would also have the signage on the canopy if the variances are denied. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES DEC 5, 1984 MEETING PAGE TWO Mr. Ehrfurth stated his concern is that the proposed ground sign serves the same purpose as the canopy signage, which he felt is visible now. Mr. Rolland stated that every station he surveyed, all had canopies and ground signs. He continued that the companies feel identification signs are better than canopy signs because you have to look up at canopies for identification and this would be hazardous. Mr. Rolland pointed out that this is the only J & L station without an identification sign. Mr. KcGee inquired if filling stations are allowed in C -1 districts? Mr. Ehrfurth replied filling stations require a special use permit in commercial districts. Motion by Kevin McGee to move the appeal contingent upon removal of any signage from the canopy. Motion seconded by Dan Goldthwaite. Before roll call was taken, discussion ensued regarding the existing cigarette sign on the property in question. It was the consensus that the sign is a code enforcement violation and not part of this appeal. Roll call was taken. Motion approved 5 -0. Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. McGee felt that by granting the appeal, this is no different treatment than what the Board has accorded to others. The Board has frequently allowed signs placed in this location because cars cannot run into them. II. Appeal of Bren Hartinger, agent for Copp's Corp., owner of the property located at 1200 S Koeller Street, proposes to erect projecting signs on a mansard roof and requests the following variances: (1) 3 projecting signs are proposed; whereas only 1 project sign is allowed in the C -2 district. (2) The projecting signs will project 22 ", 30" and 36 ", whereas projecting signs cannot extend more than 18" from the building. Ms. Porter stated the appellant proposes to erect three projecting signs on a mansard roof which will project 22 ", 30" and 36" from the building. The Ordinance allows only 1 projecting sign and it cannot project more than 18" from the building. She continued this is another appeal dealing with mansard roofs, similar to variances requested by Menard's. Mr. Bren Hartinger, 9204 Highway 29 West, agent for Copp's Corp., appeared to answer questions. Motion by Dan Goldthwaite to grant the appeal. Motion seconded by Marlene Herzing. Motion approved 5 -0. Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. Goldthwaite stated this appeal is similar to Menard's who have been granted variances for signs on mansard roofs.