Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.11-2022 Board of Appeals MinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 December 8, 2021 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES May 11, 2022 PRESENT: Robert Krasniewski, Kathryn Larson, Dan Carpenter, Barbara Schmitz, Jeff Armstrong EXCUSED: Wesley Kottke STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Zoning Administrator; Rachel Anderson, Recording Secretary Chairperson Krasniewski called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of December 8, 2021 were approved as presented. (Larson/Schmitz) ITEM I: 175 E COUNTY ROAD Y Joseph Noll-applicant/Church of Christ of Oshkosh Inc.-owner, requests the following variance to permit an illuminated monument sign in the minimum front yard setback: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Front Setback 30-50 (G) 30’ 14’ Mr. Muehrer presented the item. The petitioners are proposing to construct one new freestanding internally illuminated monument sign for church identification purposes. The existing freestanding externally illuminated monument sign located in the vicinity would be removed. The current sign is nonconforming for setback purposes at 7’. Once the existing sign is removed the nonconformity is removed and a new sign needs to meet setback or obtain a variance. The new sign is double-sided and 7’ wide by 7’ in overall height. It is proposed to be located mid-parcel along County Road Y north of the church. The required setback is 30’ in this district and a variance is requested to place the new sign at 14’. The parcel was impacted when County Road Y was reconstructed circa 2010 and improved with public infrastructure. As the below aerial photos (one from 2009 pre-improvements & one from 2020 post- improvements) demonstrate the land acquisition (i.e. 7’ was acquired) reduced the setback of the sign from the north property line and created unique physical limitations. Therefore the hardship in this instance is the direct result of a situation outside of the petitioner’s control and the setback restriction is unnecessarily burdensome. If the proposed sign was required to meet setback in this instance it would be placed behind the front plane of the church making it unreadable for motorists. The sign is an important wayfinding instrument for visitors to the site and reducing the setback will not create any harm to the public interest as it is not located in any vision triangles. Finally, both the Department of Public Works, as well as the Inspection Services Division have reviewed the proposed sign and its location and have no objections or further recommendations. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 December 8, 2021 Staff report accepted as part of the record. A site inspection was done by Mr. Armstrong. Joe Noll (175 E. County Road Y Oshkosh WI 54901) introduced himself to the board. Mr. Noel is asking for new sign to replace the 30 year-old sign which is falling apart. Currently faced with having a new sign or no sign at all for the church. Monica Schneider (2400 Holly Road Appleton WI) introduced herself to the board and is with Appleton Sign Company. Ms. Schneider explained if the 30 foot set back code was enforced you would not be able to see the sign. Proposing a new sign that will be visible and is not in a vision triangle. The new sign would be an improvement from what they currently have now for a sign. Mr. Carpenter asked what the current sign is set back now. Mr. Muehrer answered it is about 7 feet. This would be doubling the current set back. Mr. Armstrong asked if the current sign is lit and is the new sign a self-illuminating sign. Ms. Schneider answered that the lights would be in the sign. Mr. Noll said the spot lights would be removed. Mr. Armstrong stated the spot lights are right next to the sidewalk. Mr. Noll said the new sign would be lit with internal LED lighting that would be on a photo cell. They tried to make the sign both visible and not a lot of verbiage on it. On page 14 you can see the photos of the sign during the day and at night. Only the upper portion would be lit. Ms. Larson asked on the lower portion of the sign are you going to put any verbiage about services. Mr. Noll answered no, most people use their phones to find out about services and other information about the church, so they eliminated all extra verbiage on the sign. Mr. Carpenter asked if there will be any landscaping around the sign. Mr. Muehrer answered no landscaping with the new sign. The board can add it as an additional condition if they want to. Mr. Krasniewski replied that is what was proposed and shown to us that there is landscaping around the sign. Mr. Muehrer said there is no detail but there is some line shrubs around the sign. Ms. Larson asked are there shrubs proposed. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 December 8, 2021 Mr. Noll answered they could put shrubs or put some mulch around the sign. Mr. Muehrer said if the board wants to add this to the motion that would be an additional comment. Mr. Krasniewski asked the setback was originally 14 feet set back was this in the city at that time. Mr. Muehrer answered yes the parcel was annexed in 1991 and the church was opened in 1992 and the setback was a different zoning distract then. Mr. Muehrer could not recall the previous zoning. Mr. Krasniewski liked the idea of something around the sign to dress it up a little bit. Mr. Carpenter motioned to approve the variance with the condition of landscaping around the sign. Ms. Schmitz 2nd the motion. Mr. Carpenter said one of the things we talked about is signs in the past that it helps people that are driving by and find their location. The board has talked about the Grand Opera House and so forth it helps people and thinks this will be beneficial. Ms. Schmitz said it’s nice when it’s close enough so people are not slowing down looking for the sign. Mr. Krasniewski replied the signs are big enough because if you can’t read it going 30 miles an hour it’s not worth having a sign, it looks like a good sign. Ms. Schmitz said it is also internally lit. Approved 5-0 Findings of facts: Land acquisition created parcel hardship to place sign at required setback. The proposed 14’ setback is twice what is currently being used and placing the sign at the required setback will make it unreadable. The sign will be placed outside of the vision triangle and have no impact on vehicular traffic. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:44 p.m. (Schmitz/Armstrong). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Zoning Administrator