Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Madison Board of Zoning Appeals approves sign variance for 606 East Main
Summary
The Madison Board of Zoning Appeals on May 11 approved a variance allowing a replacement sign at 606 East Main that keeps the previous 8-foot footprint, will be double-sided and unlit, and was granted after staff found the three variance criteria were met and Historic Quarter Review issued a certificate of appropriateness.
Madison’s Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance on May 11 allowing a replacement sign at 606 East Main, the board heard. The board acted after staff presented findings that the project met the three legal criteria for a variance and after the Historic Quarter Review issued a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed design.
Chris Heights, speaking for Height Sign Company, told the board the original sign at the Gardner Insurance/CEG Properties building had fallen into disrepair and in places had come off the structure. “We are wanting to replace the sign…we're basically just going to use the same footprint,” Heights said, adding the new sign will be double-sided, unlit and will feature fixed tenant panels so multiple small businesses in the building can be identified more reliably.
Board and staff discussion centered on an ordinance change that merged a specialty district into the HDR district, which staff said currently treats HDR like residential districts and limits mounted signs to about 2 square feet — a size staff described as intended for yard or political signs and not suited for multi-tenant business wayfinding. Staff told the board the sign will keep the prior 8-foot footprint, have no lights and should reduce maintenance hazards compared with the deteriorated original.
Staff read the three findings of fact required for a developmental-standards variance — that the proposal is not injurious to public health or safety; will not substantially adversely affect the use or value of adjacent properties; and that strict application of the terms would create a practical difficulty unrelated to financial hardship or self-creation — and recommended approval. Board members voiced agreement with staff’s conclusions.
A board member moved to approve the variance “with dimensions and design as given”; the motion was seconded and the board carried the motion in a roll-call vote. The transcript records affirmative responses to the roll call and the chair declared the motion approved. The record does not list every member vote by name in the transcript excerpt provided.
The board noted Historic Quarter Review had granted administrative approval (a certificate of appropriateness) for the design. Staff also said the city plans to revisit sign regulations in the HDR area with the plan commission and council in about six months to consider targeted adjustments.
No members of the public opposed the request during the meeting. With no further business the board adjourned.
