HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
Board of Appeals Minutes 1 February 14, 2007 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 2007 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Larry Lang, Edward Wilusz, Cheryl Hentz EXCUSED: Dennis
Penney, Moss Ruedinger STAFF: David Buck, Principal Planner; Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary; Karin Gehrke, Recording Secretary
The meeting was called to order at 3:30 pm by Chairperson Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of January 10, 2007 were corrected to show Moss Ruedinger
was excused, not present, at the meeting. With the incorporation of that correction, the minutes were then approved as distributed. Lang/Cornell 5-0. I. 2201 JACKSON STREET Choice Bank-applicant,
Tom Rusch-owner, request a variance to permit a sign with a setback of 10’ on Jackson Street. Section 30-25 (B)(2) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: C-2 General Commercial District of the
City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 25’ front yard setback. It should be noted this is the second hearing for this application. The original hearing occurred on November 8, 2006
and was denied 2-3. Choice Bank-applicant, has altered their proposal and is requesting the second hearing. Generally speaking, there are two significant changes since the original hearing.
One, the applicant is now proposing to construct a pylon sign instead of a monument sign. Two, the applicant is now proposing a front yard setback of only 10’ instead of 12’. Mr. Muehrer
presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. Ms. Hentz questioned the fact that other businesses with signs in the setback area were being displayed in the photos.
She stated that, in the past, the board was not allowed to take into consideration previous applications when reviewing a current one. Mr. Buck responded that these photos were to help
put things into context and basically show what is in the area surrounding the applicant’s property. Mr. Lang questioned if this was a new application and if so, was the review fee paid
a second time. Mr. Buck replied that it was a new application and the necessary fees had been submitted. Ann Simon, Appleton Sign Company, 2400 Holly Road, Neenah, distributed photos
of the site and stated that she felt that the pylon sign being submitted for review was aesthetically pleasing to the eye and would not be blocked from visibility by the power box from
the neighboring apartment building.
Board of Appeals Minutes 2 February 14, 2007 She was hoping to obtain approval of this sign option with a 10’ setback as visibility of it would be compromised if it were to be set back
further from the street. Mr. Lang questioned if the bank owned or leased this building and if the building was newly constructed or if it previously existed. Stan Liedel, Choice Bank,
2450 Witzel Avenue, replied the building was newly constructed and leased by the bank. Mr. Lang referenced the photos in the staff report displaying other businesses with signs in the
setback area. He asked how long the signs have been there. Mr. Liedel stated that he did not know, but he would guess five to ten years. Mr. Lang asked if they were assuming that since
old signs were approved that this sign would be permissible as well. Mr. Liedel responded that the neighboring duplexes were too close to the street for their sign to be seen at a safe
distance. He felt that it was a safety issue, as traffic would not have ample time to stop to avoid avoid missing the bank’s driveway without the sign at a more visible location. Mr.
Lang inquired if there was a vertical limit on signage. Mr. Muehrer replied that the vertical limit was 30 feet. Mr. Lang asked if the sign could be placed on the top of the building
instead. Mr. Buck responded that it could not as roof signs are not permitted in the City. Mr. Cornell commented that although the sign situation may be self-created, he felt that this
proposal was a more reasonable request than the initial application. Mr. Liedel stated that the initial proposal was based on the fact that a sign had existed at this location previously
and they assumed that a variance would be granted to place one there again. Mr. Carpenter asked where all the signs came from that are currently in the setback area. Mr. Liedel replied
that they were temporary signs for construction purposes and would be removed. Mr. Carpenter inquired how tall the low-level plantings would be that are being applied as a condition
to the approval of the pylon sign. Mr. Buck responded that they would be less than 24 inches at maturity and would not interfere with visibility. Mr. Wilusz commented that the combination
of commercial and residential properties seems to create a unique situation. Mr. Buck replied that in most areas high-density commercial properties are surrounded by multi-family apartments
and then graduate to residential properties. The unique situation here is that the commercial properties were developed prior to the residential area.
Board of Appeals Minutes 3 February 14, 2007 Ms. Hentz asked if it would be a safe assumption that the applicant had no objections to the plantings around the base of the sign. She also
inquired why the applicant changed their request from a 12-foot setback to a 10-foot one. Mr. Liedel responded that they had no objections to the plantings. Ms. Simon added that the
change in the setback was due to safety concerns in winter with ice and snow build up. They wanted to make sure the sign was far enough from the driveway to prevent someone from sliding
into it. Mr. Lang asked if the placement of the sign was not part of the original building plan. Mr. Liedel replied that the monument sign on the initial application was part of the
original plan. Mr. Lang inquired if the applicant was then assuming that a variance would be granted as the original plan did not allow for the required setback or if the zoning code
was not looked into at the time. Mr. Liedel responded that they had not checked into what the zoning ordinance was for signs and had assumed since they were essentially replacing an
existing sign in that location that it would not be a problem. Mr. Lang commented that it was his impression that the applicant assumed that since someone else had a sign in this location
that they would be able to obtain approval for their sign as well. He felt that this was an owner caused hardship since the building was constructed with a minimum setback, which did
not leave sufficient area to erect a sign. He would not support this variance request. Mr. Cornell stated that he had safety concerns with the original application for a monument sign
but he feels that this has been adequately addressed with the new application for a pylon sign and he would not have an issue supporting this variance. Mr. Wilusz commented that he felt
it was somewhat of a unique situation and he felt that the zoning codes should allow a business owner to advertise their location. He felt that it was a well-designed proposal and he
would not have a problem supporting the variance. Mr. Cornell added that part of the analysis of granting a variance is if it would harm public interest. He felt that since the safety
concerns had been addressed that it would not be any harm to the public and he would support granting this variance as well. Ms. Hentz stated that she felt it was human nature to assume
that since an existing sign had been located in this location that a new one could be erected in its place. She also felt that since the safety concerns with the monument sign had been
addressed that she would be in favor of granting the variance also. Motion by Carpenter to approve the request for a variance to permit a sign with a setback of 10’ on Jackson Street
with the following condition: (a) The sign base shall be landscaped with low-level plantings. Seconded by Cornell. Motion carried 4-1. Ayes-Carpenter/Cornell/Wilusz/Hentz. Nays-Lang.
Board of Appeals Minutes 4 February 14, 2007 Finding of Facts: Safety issues had been addressed. Unique situation with commercial and multi-family developments in close proximity. No
harm to public interest. Consistent with other signs in area. Minority Finding of Facts: Another ugly corridor in the City. Opens door to create a unique situation to get a variance.
Building plans were flawed. Self inflicted hardship. II. S. KOELLER STREET (VACANT LOT) Brian Wogernese-applicant, Andy Dumke-owner, request a variance to permit the creation of a shared
access drive with a 0’ side yard setback. Section 30-34 (D)(4)(b) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code: Highway 41 Corridor Overlay District requires minimum side yard setbacks to be 15 feet.
Mr. Muehrer presented the item and stated that Paul Schroeder, 1750 W. Fifth Avenue, Apartment F, Oshkosh, had contacted him regarding this item and indicated that he had no objections
to the applicant’s request for a shared drive, but he would like to recommend that dense evergreen screening be placed on the southeast corner of the lot in order to buffer adjacent
residential properties. Brian Wogernese, 1103 Washington Avenue, Oshkosh, stated that they could address the plantings along the lot lines with the neighbors and that would not be a
problem. He further stated that they had developed other sites in Oshkosh and were pleased when this site became available giving them an opportunity for another development. It is hard
to find a lot like this one in town. Mr. Dumke, 2030 Menominee Drive, Oshkosh, stated that the City is in favor of limiting curb cuts particularly on busy streets for safety reasons.
He commented that a shared access agreement must have been in place previously as there were only two curb cuts entering the Anchor Bank property who previously owned the vacant lot
as well. Mr. Wilusz stated that if the variance for a shared drive was not approved, it was his understanding that the curb cut for this property would have to be located in the middle
of the lot eliminating eliminating a good deal of the parking stalls for the site. He was wondering if there was any other way this could be resolved. Mr. Wogernese responded that the
site could be developed without the approval for the shared access drive, but it would be very difficult. Mr. Dumke added that it would also create a lot of access points in a small
area on a busy street, which would be a safety concern. Mr. Wilusz commented that there was definitely a practical problem with this site and he felt that the shared access drive would
be a good solution to the issue. Ms. Hentz stated that since 50 percent of the parking would be lost if this site required its own curb cut, she would support the granting of this variance.
Motion by Cornell to approve the request for a variance to permit the creation of a shared access drive with a 0’ side yard setback. Seconded by Wilusz. Motion carried 5-0. Ayes-Carpenter/Cornell/Lan
g/Wilusz/Hentz.
Board of Appeals Minutes 5 February 14, 2007 Finding of Facts: Improves safety by minimizing curb cuts. No harm to the public interest. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Hentz inquired about the variance
that was issued for an ornamental fence at Paine’s Arboretum. She was wondering why construction had not yet begun on the project. Mr. Buck replied that the applicant has six months
to obtain a permit for the project and he was not aware if they had done so yet. Mr. Muehrer stated that he could check into the matter and inquired when the variance was approved. Ms.
Hentz did not recall exactly when it was approved and stated it was some time last summer to the best of her knowledge. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:15
pm. Lang/Wilusz 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator