Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES December 10, 2008 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Edward Wilusz, Cheryl Hentz EXCUSED: Mark Nielsen, Moss Ruedinger STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Hentz called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of November 12, 2008 were approved as presented. Penney/Carpenter 4-0-1. (Hentz abstained as she was not present at the meeting.) ITEM I: 310 WEST IRVING AVENUE HEARING CONTINUANCE Thomas Wagner–applicant/owner, requests a variance to permit multiple commercial identification signs. Section 30- 37 (F)(1)(a) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Sign Regulations does not permit commercial identification signage in a residential zoning district. Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He reviewed the discussion from the last meeting where it was decided to lay this item over as the property owner was not present and board members requested that a lighting inspection be completed to determine if the light levels at the property line exceeded City standards. Mr. Muehrer stated that his inspection concluded that light levels exceeded .5 foot candles at the property line and he issued a correction notice to the owner informing him that light levels would be required to be reduced. Board members had also discussed the concept of only allowing the signage being illuminated during business hours to help alleviate the disturbance to neighboring properties therefore this was added as a condition on the request. Ms. Hentz questioned how many signs the applicant/owner was requesting. Mr. Muehrer responded that Mr. Wagner was requesting approval of four signs, two per façade, with two illuminated. Jerry Garcia, Garcia Tax Service, 310 West Irving Avenue, was present on behalf of Thomas Wagner-applicant/owner, who was not able to attend the meeting due to illness. Mr. Garcia stated that the illuminated signs were to be located with one facing Irving Avenue and one facing Jackson Street for safety reasons and to assist clients in locating their business. He further stated that they had experienced vandalism issues and felt that the lighting would help to alleviate further instances of this nature. He requested to have the signs illuminated from dusk until dawn and agreed to install lower wattage light bulbs in the signs to meet City lighting standards. Board members discussed the condition limiting the hours the signs could be illuminated to business hours only and questioned what the petitioner desired as far as hours to have the signs illuminated. Mr. Garcia stated that they would like the signs illuminated from 6 or 7 pm until morning for both advertising and safety reasons. He further stated that the signs are not flashing and with the lower wattage light bulbs installed, he did not feel it should be disturbing to the neighbors. Mr. Wilusz asked what hours the business was in operation. Mr. Garcia responded that his hours fluctuate, but during the tax season he is working until 9 or 10 pm. Ms. Hentz inquired why the owner selected this location for the business. Board of Appeals Minutes 1 December 10, 2008 Mr. Garcia replied that the building was purchased for a favorable price and it was laid out appropriately for their purposes and not far from their previous location at 1910 Algoma Boulevard. Ms. Hentz commented that their previous location was not in a residential area therefore the signage was acceptable at that location; however it may not be appropriate in this residential neighborhood. Since the petitioner was requesting to have two illuminated signs, one for the tax service and one for the insurance agency, board members discussed the concept of having the signs turned off at different times to accommodate both businesses’ customer hours. The insurance agency is open from 8 am until 5 pm, Monday through Thursday and 8 am until 4 pm on Fridays. The tax service is open from 7 am until 8 pm Monday through Friday and as late as 9 or 10 pm during tax season. They also have weekend hours from 10 am until 7 or 8 pm during tax season. Mr. Muehrer cautioned the board that with the fluctuating hours of the two businesses, approving the variance with the condition that the signs could be illuminated during business hours only would create an enforcement issue. It was determined that a more definite time limit should be set for the hours the signs could be illuminated instead of during customer business hours. Ms. Hentz commented that this was a college district area and problems such as the vandalism were going to occur from time to time and she did not feel that the lighted signs would offer any property protection. She further stated that she did not agree that the lighted signs were necessary to locate the business as this was a well known intersection and with today’s GPS and other mapping sources, she did not feel that the illuminated signs were justified for that reason. Mr. Wilusz asked about the lights installed under the overhang on the structure. Mr. Garcia replied that the lights under the overhang already existed on the building and stated that he felt they could settle on a set time to have the signs illuminated. Karla and Harmon Seaver, 651 Jackson Street, were present again and stated that this was not just an issue with them, but a neighborhood issue and commented that the business had seven total signs on the building with some located in the windows. Mr. Muehrer stated that the city can only regulate exterior signs attached to the building and does not have ordinances that apply to signage located in the windows. He displayed which signs would be affected by today’s action and which ones that would be allowed to remain and the signs that would have to be removed if the variance was not approved. Ms. Seaver stated that she did not feel that the illuminated signs would help to alleviate vandalism. She also discussed the hours of operation of the business and commented that she felt it was a matter of aesthetics and she did not believe the signage was appropriate, neither the size or the illumination, in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Seaver added that the previous business that was located on this site did not have illuminated signage and his clients did not have any issues finding the office to his knowledge. He further commented that they would have objected to the business locating here when they received a notice regarding the consideration of the conditional use permit if they had known they would be installing illuminated signage. Mr. Penney questioned if the Seavers would still have an issue with the illuminated signs if they were limited to being on only during business hours and inquired if 9 pm would be an acceptable time. Ms. Seaver replied that they would prefer no lighted signage at all. Board members discussed their disappointment that Mr. Wagner could not be present to discuss this matter. There was also discussion relating to the location in a residential area and the reasons the owner was requesting the illuminated signage as well as the obtrusiveness of the signage and the distraction it posed in this neighborhood. Discussion continued on what hours would be appropriate to have the signs illuminated and Mr. Carpenter questioned if the sign could be placed on the lawn instead of attached to the building. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 December 10, 2008 Mr. Muehrer stated that the signage could not be located on the lawn as it would create setback issues. Mr. Cornell questioned if the square footage of the signage was also an issue and if the signs would have to be removed if the variance was not approved. Mr. Muehrer responded that there were four issues to be considered with this variance request as follows: the number, size, and illumination of the signage and the allowed hours for the signs to be lit. He further stated that if the variance was not approved the exterior signs would be required to be removed and the owner would have to pursue a new variance request if he wished to have signage on the site. If Mr. Wagner, the owner, did not wish to reapply for the variance, Mr. Garcia could bring a request forward as the petitioner providing that the owner gave his consent for the variance application. Motion by Penney to approve the request for a variance to permit multiple commercial identification signs for property located at 310 West Irving Avenue with the following conditions: 1. The internally illuminated wall signs shall be illuminated with hours not to exceed 8 pm. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion denied 1-4. Ayes-Wilusz. Nays-Carpenter/Cornell/Penney/Hentz. DISCUSSION OF BOA PROCEDURES Board members discussed attendance issues regarding one member of the board who has not been present for some time now at meetings. Mr. Muehrer stated that he looked into the matter and it was the responsibility of either the Chairperson or the Mayor to contact the individual to see if they desired to remain a board member or if they wished to resign the position. It was noted that the member is an alternate and no items have been required to be dismissed for a lack of quorum and currently there is only one application on file to be considered for membership. Board members discussed avenues of finding interested and qualified parties to participate on the Board of Appeals. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:28 p.m. (Cornell/Carpenter). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 3 December 10, 2008