Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Permit 1113 Main Street topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cross Plains board approves replacement signage for Kelsher Implement, signals review of sign ordinance
Summary
Trustees approved three replacement signs for Kelsher Implement locations after staff had denied the permit because existing signage exceeded the village sign code; the board asked staff to return with proposed ordinance changes to address nonconforming signs and manufacturer certification plaques.
Cross Plains Village President Lango and trustees voted to allow three replacement signs for Kelsher Implement after village staff denied a sign permit for 1113 Main Street and associated buildings on the same site.
The denial came after village staff concluded the proposed signage deviated from the village sign ordinance: some wall signs exceeded square-footage limits tied to building frontage, and multiple unpermitted manufacturer/certification signs on connected buildings pushed the total number of signs beyond the code’s maximum for that façade. Village Administrator Carla (Carla) told the board the storage building’s primary implement sign is a legal nonconforming sign (it existed when the ordinance was adopted) and therefore could be replaced in the exact same size, but adding additional, unpermitted signs would violate sizing and number limits.
Board members and the business’s representatives debated several remedies: removing unpermitted certification signs, physically combining multiple cabinet faces into a single permitted sign, relocating a sign to another building face, or amending the village sign ordinance to allow replacements and certain certification signs by policy. Business owner Glenn and sign contractor representatives said manufacturers require visible brand signage for dealer certification and that the company could remove or relocate some signs if necessary. Staff said they could not find permits for several of the existing signs and therefore could not confirm their legality.
After extended discussion about nonconforming sign rules (which require an identical replacement to keep grandfathered status), the board agreed to approve the three main replacement signs proposed by the applicant with a clarifying condition that one of the signs would be slightly adjusted in size to meet the nonconforming/permit requirements. Trustees also directed staff to draft proposed ordinance language to resolve recurring conflicts—such as how multi-logo sign cabinets are counted, and how manufacturer certification plaques are treated—and return to the plan commission and board for formal amendment.
Trustee roll call on the main motion recorded: Trustee Grama — yes; Trustee Borchard — yes; Trustee Brown — yes; Trustee Holmucoffee — no; Trustee Kettleblader — yes; President Lango — yes. The motion carried.
The board emphasized that any future changes to the permitted sign set or orientation (for example, moving the coyote/certification sign to a different façade) should be coordinated with staff so that permitted signage stays within the square-footage allotment for each building face. Staff will return with ordinance language for a first reading and guidance about handling certification signs in industrial zones.
The board voted on the permit and ordinance-direction in open meeting; no closed-session material pertains to this item.
