Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Zoning Appeals (minutes) - 12/05/1984 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 1 00 S Koeller Street, proposes to erect projecting signs on a mansar• rooT 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.