Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-Board of Zoning Appeals (mintues) BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OCTOBER 16, 1985 PRESENT: Ronald Ames, Anne Hintz, Tom Kimberly, Kevin McGee, Dave Neu STAFF: Bruce Roskom, Associate Planner; Chuck Lamine, Associate Planner; Mary Jo Anderson, Recording Secretary Chairperson Kevin McGee called the meeting to order and roll call was taken. There was a quorum of five members present. Ms. Hintz moved to approve the minutes of October 2, 1985 as distributed. Motion seconded by Mr. Neu. Motion carried. I. 402 W. 8TH AVENUE - Viola H. Schultz Mr. Roskom explained that the applicant was requesting approval for an 18 ft. front yard setback. The Board had approved a 19'6" front yard setback on September 18, 1985, but due to an error on the site plan they have returned requesting the corrected front yard setback. Ms. Viola Schultz, 5256 Leonard Point Road, Omro, applicant, appeared to answer any questions. Mr. McGee confirmed that even with the 19 1/2' setback they not build a garage and meet the setbacks. Ms. Hintz stated that the reasons for the last request must still hold. Mr. Kimberly moved approval of the 18 ft. front yard setback. Motion seconded by Ms. Hintz. Motion carried 5 -0. With regard to findings of fact, Ms. Hintz stated that clearly it was the only location on this particular lot on which to construct a garage and it was designed with the lease infringement possible. No garage exists and it is necessary, therefore, to grant the variance because of the size of the lot. II. 123 N. SAWYER STREET - Joseph Langkau Mr. Roskom explained that this item had been heard at the previous meeting but was laid over as a result of a 3 -1 vote. The applicant is requesting a variance to erect a ground sign with a 4 ft. front yard setback from N. Sawyer Street. Mr. Curtis Rolland, 708 Cass Street, Portage, Wisconsin, explained that they do not have an ID sign for their gas station and they would like one so that people know who they are and so that they do not lose any potential customers. Presently they have a sign on the canopy which is 50 ft. from the road. The proposed sign would be 25 ft. from the road. The ID sign is 6' x 8' and more within view when driving down the road. He added that on Sawyer Street there are three trees and you cannot see the canopy until you are past those three trees. The vast majority do not have canopy signs and many people miss them. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 1985 PAGE TWO It will cost over $800.00 to install the sign. They definitely would not be in business long if they purchased signs they did not need. Signs are a big factor in marketing oil. Places like Ponderosa, etc. all have names on the building and ID signs. McDonald's has their golden arches and they are hard to miss. If people didn't see the arches they would probably go to Hardee's instead. People go to the Phillips 66 gas station because they do not see J & L Oil. They have over 100 gas stations in seven states. Customers of J & L Oil from other cities come to a city of this size and look for J & L. If they do not see the sign they will drive on by. Mr. Neu asked if they would have a sign below their ID sign. Mr. Rolland indicated yes, a price sign. Mr. Neu asked if it would be a composite. Mr. Rolland replied that it will still be there but just transferred to the other pole and will list the gas prices. Ms. Hintz asked where the price sign is located now. Mr. Rolland replied 25' back from the road and 2' from the sidewalk. Ms. Hintz asked where is that relative to the present post. Mr. Rolland replied that J & L Oil has a light going through it. Ms. Hintz asked what the situation is regarding the light posts. She added that there is a service station on Jackson and Murdock which keeps adding more and more light posts. She questioned whether the Ordinance requires setbacks for those too. With the existing light post coming down she questioned if the sign should be permitted. Discussion ensued on additional signage being used by the pizza business next door. Mr. McGee questioned whether the Board needed to give a variance regarding the location. He added that in terms of a gas station this has been pretty standard. He presumed a sign located 25 ft. back would present a hazard. Two weeks ago they questioned whether or not a ground sign was necessary and if the existing sign on the canopy was sufficient. He pointed out that the variance approval by the Board last December stipulated that any signage on the canopy would be removed. He thought that the Board would impose this same provision to approval of the variance. He questioned whether a ground sign was a right of the property owner and whether the existing sign fulfilled the needs of the business. Mr, Roskom asked if the applicant had a feasible alternative or not. Mr. McGee asked if there was a feasible alternative and stated that the applicant argued that there was not. The Code is not specific about what signs are necessary and what are not. This is determined by the Board's interpretation. Ms. Hintz stated that the Phillips 66 station on the corner was granted a variance and they have a canopy too. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 1985 PAGE THREE Mr. Rolland stated that they have no signage on their canopy. Ms. Hintz stated that the problem was that signage on the canopy could not be seen on one side. Mr. McGee stated that a ground sign is only useful tilted and could not be seen on one street, therefore, it was not particularly useful for one street. Mr. Rolland questioned whether this was a C -1 district. He added that there are others in the C -1 area. To Witzel and Faust included Phillips 66 and themselves and on the corner of Porter and Sawyer there is a Standard Gas station. They both have ID signs. Mr. Roskom stated that the question is not the ID sign, but the location. Mr. Rolland argued that the Phillips 66 sign hangs over the sidewalk and the Standard sign is closer to the street too. Ms. Hintz stated that the Standard station has been there for a long time, but she remembered the variance for the Phillips 66 station. It is rare to have stations in a C -1 district. In C -2 or higher there is no placement problem except to meet the setback. Mr. McGee argued that you still have to establish a hardship for placement of the sign closer than 25 ft. He questioned if the business has an alternative. Whether having the sign on a canopy or on the ground the same issue applies. Ms. Hintz stated there have been a number of variances granted in the C -2 district on Jackson. These stations were granted variances because the City took their curbs to neaten up the area. This shrunk their area causing a hardship. This was all C -2 or C -3. Mr. McGee asked if the property line changed. Ms. Hintz replied yes. She was not sure that all the stations had canopies at that time. Even with a very large corner the 25 ft. setback puts this in a traffic pattern. Mr. Rolland stated that in this case it would put it next to the pumps. Ms. Hintz stated that even if he were in C -2 he would be before the Board for the location of the sign. Mr. Rolland stated that if placed next to the pumps it would be difficult to pump gas. Mr. Ames moved approval to erect a ground sign with a 4 ft. front yard setback from N. Sawyer Street with the condition that all signage on the existing canopy be removed as would be the light pole. Motion seconded by Ms. .Hintz Motion carried. 5 -0. Regarding findings of fact, Mr. Ames stated that he saw no reason to argue with a previous Board decision. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 1985 PAGE FOUR Mr. McGee stated that it was his feeling that a ground sign is a normal accessory part of a business and denying it would impose . a hardship on the individual and also there is no location within the setback in which a ground sign could be located. The Code was imposing a hardship on the individual. Ms. Hintz stated that it should be considered whether a sign is a necessary use with canopies being a trend. Canopies, ground signs and light poles should be considered. Mr. Neu stated that things seem to sprout out of ground signs, and that becomes a major problem. Mr. McGee stated that those additional signs are not legal. Mr. Roskom stated that when an individual requests a sign variance, the Board can control signage in this process. III. 941 W. 12TH AVENUE - Dan Monday Mr. Roskom explained that the applicant is wishing to construct an enclosed porch with a 13'9" front yard setback. The average front yard setback of the block is 14'2 ". The owner had removed an old porch some years ago and now wishes to replace it. Mr. Ames moved approval of the construction of the enclosed porch with a 13'9" front yard setback. Motion seconded by Ms. Hintz. Motion carried 5 -0. Ms. Hintz confirmed that there is no change to the dimension of the house and that the porch is enclosed. Mr. Roskom stated that the porch will replace the one which had been removed. Ms. Hintz confirmed that the proposed porch is not any bigger than the old one. Mr. McGee stated that the fact that it is coming before the Board means that the applicant no longer has the right to the new porch. Ms. Hintz asked what it looks like, and will it look better. Mr. McGee asked how does the current Code address averaging front yard setbacks. If the other setbacks are not 25 ft., then what is the setback? Mr. Roskom explained that you have to meet the average setback; if not, you have to meet the prescribed setback. Ms. Hintz asked if the stoop that exists is part of the porch. The walls that are going up do not change the exterior structure. Are they going any further into the setback area? Mr. McGee stated that he is not building a new porch, he is enclosing an existing porch. Ms. Hintz stated that as long as it is there, it is usable.