Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-Board of Zoning Appeals (minutes) BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OCTOBER 2, 1985 PAGE 5 Mr. McGee stated that in this case the Ordinance is imposing a hardship. V. 123 N. Sawyer Street - Joseph Langkau Mr. Curtis Rolland of J & L Oil, 708 Cass Street, Portage, Wisconsin 53901, appeared before the Board. Mr. Roskom explained that this was the second time this item had come before the Board. The Board had approved a 3 ft. front yard setback in December for a ground sign. However, the 6 month construction period for this variance has expired and the applicant is returning to request approval again, with a change in front yard setback to 4 ft. Mr. Rolland stated that the reason for not erecting the sign during that period was because they planned to use a sign which is from a station in Illinois which they are selling. Some legal matters delayed the sale of the station, moving the erection of the sign beyond the expiration of their variance which was June 5. Mr. McGee asked Mr. Rolland to explain how this poses a hardship. Mr. Rolland continued stating that they do not have an ID sign and everyone else does. It is nice to get some local customers, otherwise they buy gas from the station down the road. Ms. Hintz asked if they have a canopy. Mr. Rolland replied yes. Ms. Hintz asked if they could put their name on the canopy. Mr. Rolland replied that the canopy is a bit off the road and people don't look up on a canopy. He reminded the Board that he had a variance, but it just ran out. Mr, McGee asked if a gas station is permitted use in C -1. Mr. Roskom replied yes, it is a special use. Mr. McGee stated that ground signs are not permitted in C -1 and that doesn't make sense for a gas station. Mr. Rolland stated that they had to move the sign location because the base was too small and they have already dug a hole which allows for a 4 ft. setback. Mr. Neu asked what size is the sign. Mr. Rolland replied that the sign is 6' x 8' and 12' off the ground, 20' maximum height. Mr. Neu asked if there was anything else on the sign other than the company name. Mr. Rolland replied just J & L Oil. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OCTOBER 2, 1985 PAGE 6 Mr. McGee asked if the zoning were C -2, how far would the ground sign need to be set back. Mr. Roskom replied 25 ft. Mr. Rolland explained that they can't have it further back because it would be on the asphalt next to the pumps, and it would be in the way of the cars getting to the pimps. Right now it would be in a 6 ft. island surrounded by bushes and it would be away from the traffic. Ms. Hintz confirmed that the present sign on the canopy just says J & L Oil. Mr. Rolland that it is real small print and it is a ways back from the road. He stated too that there is a small post there now but that it will be removed. Ms. Hintz asked does the Ordinance place a hardship by only addressing identification on the canopy as it has now. She asked too if there was any other place the sign could be put up. Mr. McGee stated that even if the Board accepts the idea that the ground sign is permissible, he didn't know whether a sign could be put behind a 20 ft. setback and into a traffic path. Discussion ensued on sufficient sign size. Mr. Roskom stated that with a special use permit in C -1 stations are allowed, but ground signs are not permitted. The other aspect is to determine if the hardship is economic or not. The competition between stations would be primarily economic. Mr. McGee stated that if a sign is a normal ancillary use to a filling station, the argument is is it appropriate. However, if permitting signage on the canopy is sufficient, is permitting signage other than on the canopy usual for a station. Mr. Rolland stated that their approved variance was conditioned that they remove other signage on the canopy. He continued stating that they have 11 other cities with stations and this is the only station without an ID sign. Ms. Hintz stated that most stations are not in C -1. Mr. Rolland stated that the Phillips 66 has a ground sign and they think it is very important. Ms. Hintz stated that they shouTd think of the City at large which is inundated with signs and is very unattractive for our City. Mr. Rolland stated that the last time he had brought a list of signs the other stations have. They have by far the least number of signs. Ms. Hintz stated that they are probably not legal, and just because they exist is no reason to grant more signage. This is the real problem. Mr. Rolland stated that the only other hardship is that they brought the sign up from a warehouse in Illinois. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OCTOBER 2, 1985 PAGE 7 Ms. Hintz stated that this is not a hardship which the Board addresses. Mr. Rolland stated that they brought it up as a result of the approval of the variance which was granted. The delay was due to legal problems and had they known this would be a problem for requesting approval again they would have bought one. Mr. McGee asked that judging from the perspective of limiting signage, does it make more sense to have a ground sign or a canopy sign. Mr. Rolland stated that it is easier to see a ground sign from a car. A canopy off from the road is above normal view and it would be a hazard if all stations had signs on their canopies because you would have to look up rather than at the car in front of you. They could see it in their view instead of looking in other directions. Mr. McGee stated that that is from a business perspective, what about from a planners perspective? Mr. Roskom replied that in viewing a station at the time of the onsite, it is helpful to look at the neighborhood as a whole. If the block consists of residential and schools, is it going to be detrimental to the surrounding neighbors. We consider the bright lights and signs. Mr. Rolland stated that when considering a canopy sign setback it is more aesthetically appealing than locating it in the front. In terms of a planning aspect that would be the only consideration. Ms. Hintz asked Mr. Rolland if his clients were from town. Mr. Rolland replied that he didn't really know. However, a sign would attract visitors coming to the university. He added that customers of their gas stations in Illinois would recognize them, but since they don't have a sign they would drive right by. Re stated that they still do get billed as Fill 'm Fast and they ask people to rebill then. Ms. Hintz stated that this would not help because they are not being billed from the sign on the street, but from records being kept in an office. Ms. Hintz moved approval of a ground sign with a 4 ft. front yard setback from N. Sawyer Street. Motion seconded by Mr, Kimberly. With a vote of 3 -1 the item was laid over. VI, 509 S. Washburn - Gerald P. Clarke, MD Mr. Roskom explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to erect a sign with a 0 ft. front yard setback, Mr. Ron Johnson, Pelles & Johnson, 2920 W. 20th, appeared representing Dr. Clarke. He explained that the plot plan has a unique property line. The next door building is set out and creates a visual problem. There is also a line of trees and telephone poles which interfere. The corner of the building is set 25 ft. to the property line. The property immediately to the north is set out farther which totally blocks out his front completely.