1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ZNR MINUTES 9/22/94 PAGE 4 CONDITION: That applicant file deed restriction, with Dane County Register of Deeds Office, that subject building be considered demolished if during the course of restoration, enlargement or other improvement, more than 50% of the pre-existing structure is removed or must be replaced to maintain structural integrity. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Structure erected sometime in the mid-1950 's in its present location. 2) . Adjoining owner's property survey and fencing disclosed shed encroachment. 3) . Structure utilized for lawn mowers and yard equipment. 4) . Consideration given to time structure has existed without objection. CONCLUSION: 1) . Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public interest. 2) . Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without injustice to applicant. Motion carried - 4-0. #2560. Appeal by Marina Bay Partnership for a variance from required sign setback from road and minimum clearance as provided by Section 10. 83 (2) and 10.77 (5) to permit apartment complex sign at 5330-36 Westport Road in the NW 1/4 NW 1/4 - Section 26, Town of Westport. Also, appeal of Zoning Administrator's interpretation of provisions of Dane County Zoning Ordinance Sections 10. 83 (2) and 10. 77 (5) pertaining to sign location. IN FAVOR: B. Kuehling OPPOSED: --- COMMUNICATION: Town Board DREPS/KLOPP to deny requested variances from height of bottom edge of ground sign, from setback from right of way of Westport Road and to find that Section 10. 77 (5) is applicable and sign location may not interfere with the visibility for ingress or egress of a driveway. Also, to uphold the Zoning Administrator's interpretation pertaining to sign location (Section 10.77 (5) Dane County Code of Ordinances) at right-of-way intersection with driveways. FINDING OF FACT: 1) . Applicant proposes on-premise ground sign to identify apartment complex. 2) . Sign location desired at 5 foot setback from Westport Road and 5 feet from (South) of driveway. 3) . Bottom edge of sign proposed at 1 foot above grade. 4) . Ordinance enacted to promote public safety and intent is not to obstruct vision at intersections. CONCLUSION: VARIANCES: 1) . Unnecessary hardship was not proven. Motion carried - 4-0.