Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JUNE 8, 2005 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Moss Ruedinger, Dennis Penney, Ed Wilusz, and Cheryl Hentz, Chairperson EXCUSED: Larry Lang STAFF: Susan Kepplinger, Principal Planner, Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Hentz. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Motion by Cornell for approval of the April 27, 2005 minutes with correction of a typo. Seconded by Carpenter. Unanimous. I: 319 PEARL AVENUE Marie Maves, Orde Advertising Inc., applicant and Phil Weston, owner, are requesting a variance to construct a ground sign with a five (5) foot four (4) inch front yard setback, whereas Section 30-35(B)(1)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback. Phil Weston, 935 Brighton Drive, Menasha, owner, stated he was trying to establish commercial consistency along the south side of Pearl Avenue, between Jackson and Division Streets. Mr. Weston passed around pictures of commercial signs on the abutting properties and across the street that don’t meet current setback requirements. He stated his building is the only one on the block that is set back quite a distance from the street and is also hidden by trees. Mr. Weston stated that staff has suggested an alternative to place a sign on the building, however, he doesn’t feel the sign will be noticed as all other signage on the street is in the same sight line. He stated his customers most often times are new doctors who are not familiar with the area. He stated there are large numbers (319) above the door on the building, but he doesn’t feel it is being seen since customers are used to looking out front where the other signs are located. He stated John Iwata’s business is also in the same building and he has stated that customers have a hard time finding his place of business. He reiterated that he is looking for commercial consistency and Marie Maves has designed a sign that is consistent with other signs in the neighborhood. Marie Maves, Orde Advertising Representative, 1825 Nimitz Drive, DePere, stated the owner requested a sign to be designed that would fit in with the neighborhood. She stated she passed the location twice in her attempt to meet with the owner. She stated the building is set back quite far and the area is dark. Mr. Weston displayed pictures of the residential properties across the street and the sign on the building. He also pointed out that the houses across the street have not been occupied for quite some time. Mr. Weston also mentioned a letter was sent to staff from Alexander & Bishop, Ltd., 325 Pearl Avenue, stating they had no opposition to the variance request. Board of Appeals Minutes -2-June 8, 2005 Marie Maves stated the sign that has been designed for Mr. Weston’s business would not pose a threat to the neighborhood, instead it would create more beautification in the area and show that the owner is committed to operating a business in the downtown area of the City. Mr. Wilusz questioned if the tree would remain on the property. Mr. Weston stated that he would like to keep the tree on the property, even if some customers would miss the sign from one direction. Mr. Cornell questioned if the sign was perpendicular to the right-of-way. Mr. Weston confirmed it was. Chairperson Hentz questioned if the sign would be similar to the Thomas Insurance Group sign. Ms. Maves stated the sign would be same color and internally lit, however, it would be shorter. Mr. Wilusz stated they do have the option of either putting a sign on the building or putting up an entrance and exit sign on the lot. He questioned if an entrance/exit sign could have any other verbiage on it. Ms. Kepplinger stated she believed an entrance /exit sign could only include the number of the address on the sign. Mr. Wilusz questioned if there was a size limit for entrance/exit signs. Mr. Kepplinger stated the size limitation was included in the staff report. Mr. Ruedinger questioned if the business name was allowed on an entrance/exit sign. Ms. Kepplinger stated the business name is not allowed on said sign. Mr. Weston stated there is cooperation between the property owners in regard to the parking lot availability. He stated the parking lot can be accessed from many points and they would like the parking lot to retain its openness. He stated he feels an entrance/exit site would confuse the motoring public. Mr. Cornell stated that he recalls that an entrance/exit sign doesn’t require a setback. He stated the Board should be concerned about other options available for signage not the commercial consistency with signs in the neighborhood. Ms. Kepplinger stated that the other two signs in the area were installed prior to the zoning ordinance requirements currently in place and these signs are considered to be legal nonconforming signs. She stated the Schwab sign was placed on an existing base, which had been installed prior to the ordinance limitations. Mr. Weston questioned if the Schwab sign had the same status as the other signs. Ms. Kepplinger confirmed the sign was legal non-conforming. Mr. Wilusz asked if the buildings on either side of 319 Pearl Avenue met the required setbacks. Ms. Kepplinger stated a 25’ setback is required and the adjacent buildings did not that meet that requirement. Chairperson Hentz questioned how much traffic was in the area. Mr. Weston stated he photographs approximately 2 new doctors a day who are not familiar with the Oshkosh area. John Iwata, 325 W. New York Avenue, stated he just opened a business in the area in January, and the traffic to his office is light, however, he needs to give very specific directions in order for his clients to find him. He stated his customers have mentioned having difficulty locating the address. Board of Appeals Minutes -3-June 8, 2005 Chairperson Hentz questioned what the reply to question #1 on the variance application form meant. Ms. Maves stated she had spoke with Jeff and was told there was no front yard setback required. She stated Matt called at a later date to inform them that a 25’ front yard setback was required. She stated they had worked in good faith based on the information received from Jeff. Chairperson Hentz questioned if Jeff had made an error. Ms. Kepplinger stated Jeff had given them the wrong information, however, there are unusual circumstances to consider with this variance request because of the residential properties across the street. Mr. Cornell questioned if the vacancy of the houses across the street had any relevance on the variance request. Ms. Kepplinger stated the vacancy of the houses wasn’t relevant. She went on to explain the viability of the area. Mr. Carpenter questioned what happens to the zoning if residential property would cease to exist. Ms. Kepplinger noted that the property was zoned for commercial use, and that zoning designation would permit any residential use permitted in the R-5 zoning designation, so while a new use might logically be commercial, it could also be multifamily residential. She stated there are commercial uses in the area. Mr. Iwata stated that three properties in the area are currently for sale. Mr. Iwata stated there had been a sign on the property similar to the American Family Insurance signage by Bim Carey. Mr. Weston stated it was not a matter of other businesses in the area needing a variance, as they were the only ones who needed a variance, it was a matter of being commercially consistent. Chairperson Hentz explained to Mr. Weston that the number of variances needed in the area was not relevant. She explained that people who are seeking a variance will regularly go out and take pictures around the city of similar situations that could have received a variance from this Board, or who are not in compliance. Mr. Carpenter stated the base of the sign remains and questioned if they could use that base for their sign. Ms. Kepplinger stated since the base was installed prior to the current ordinance taking effect, the face could be changed. Mr. Wilusz questioned if the sign was placed as far back as it could go. Ms. Maves stated placement of the sign was proposed as far back as they felt it could still be useful. Ms. Maves questioned what constituted a face change on a sign. Ms. Kepplinger explained that what had been done on the sign next door was refacing. Mr. Penney stated he visited the property and if he didn’t know what he was looking for he wouldn’t have found the site because of the setback of the building. Mr. Wilusz stated he had also driven to the site. He stated the status of the houses across the street is irrelevant. He also stated that what the applicant is requesting is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and they have a practical difficulty. He stated there is no unique physical limitations of the property, property, however, the surrounding buildings don’t conform with the Zoning Ordinance. Board of Appeals Minutes -4-June 8, 2005 He also stated he didn’t see how approving the request would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. He stated it is an attractive sign and would fit in well with the neighborhood and feels the request is fair for practical difficulties. Chairperson Hentz agreed and stated she would support the variance request. Mr. Cornell stated he also had visited the site, parked in the lot and concluded there were alternatives. He compared this request to a similar case where the alternative has been effective. Mr. Penney stated he also parked in the lot and in his opinion saw no viable alternative. He stated a sign on the building wouldn’t be effective. Mr. Cornell stated an entrance and exit sign without the street name could be placed at a 0 foot setback. Chairperson Hentz stated she looks for the name of a business rather than a number when trying to locate a business. Mr. Carpenter stated the request appears to be consistent with the other properties in the area, and the building on the subject property is set quite far back. Mr. Wilusz stated the sign is only 5’ high, and if it was as big as the others in the area he would have some concerns, therefore he has no problem with the sign. Ms. Kepplinger pointed out that the lot is required to be landscaped, and the tree constitutes 50% of the landscaping, therefore if tree would be damaged during the excavation for the sign it would need to be replaced. Motion by Wilusz for approval to construct a ground sign with a five (5) foot four (4) inch front yard setback. Seconded by Ruedinger. Motion carried 4-1. Nay: Cornell. Finding of the Fact: Mr. Wilusz stated there appears to be practical difficulties regarding placement of the sign. He also stated the proposed location of the sign doesn’t have a negative impact on the area, and is an attractive addition to the neighborhood. DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS PROCEDURES Ms. Kepplinger stated “Other Business” has been taken off the Agenda per City Attorney Warren Kraft. She informed the Board that they would need to contact staff with any other items they wished to discuss at the meeting to get it on the proper agenda. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:07 pm Wilusz/Carpenter. Unanimous. Respectfully Submitted, SUSAN KEPPLINGER Principal Planner SK/vlr