Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES JANUARY 28, 2004 PRESENT: Robert Cornell, Thomas Feavel, Cheryl Hentz, Larry Lang, John Schorse, and Edward Wilusz STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; and Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Schorse. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Minutes of the January 14, 2004 meeting were approved as mailed. Hentz/Lang. Unanimous. I: 1510-1560 S KOELLER STREET Oshkosh Koeller LLC, applicant, and J. Peter Jungbacker, owner, are requesting a variance to permit a second real estate sign on a commercial parcel, 150 sq. ft. in size, in addition to the existing 32 sq. ft. real estate sign, whereas Section 30-37(C)(2)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires one real estate sign per commercial parcel, not to exceed 32 sq. ft. in area. Matt Tucker introduced the item and passed around pictures of the site. Peter Jungbacker, representative of Oshkosh Koeller LLC, stated that in November, 2002, Oshkosh Koeller LLC acquired the subject property of which 90% of the stores were vacant at that time. Mr. Jungbacker stated they have been able to fill 65% of the stores since, however, the space south of the Big Lots store is still vacant. Mr. Jungbacker handed out a packet of pictures showing the subject site and other real estate signs in the City (on file in the Department of Community Development office). He stated the sign they are requesting the variance for is approximately 400’ from the sidewalk of S. Koeller Street. He stated trees and landscaping block the view of the smaller sign on site. The sign ordinance permits the subject property, an 18 acre site which is near 1,000,000 sq. ft. in area, the same allowances as much smaller site, such as the neighboring McDonalds site. He stated they would like to keep the sign on the mansard of the structure, which is 150 sq. ft., approximately five times larger than what is allowed by the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Jungbacker stated with this vacancy the City is loosing out on contributions to the tax base, and they are relying on a 4 x 8 sign, which in his opinion is not very visible, to advertise vacancy. Mr. Jungbacker continued to compare the sign in question with other signage around the City and stated that he feels the allowance in the sign ordinance is out of sync when compared to the size of the property it is designed to serve. He also stated his company isn’t utilizing billboards or off-site signage. Mr. Lang questioned if there was a limit to the number of signs allowed on one property. Mr. Tucker replied that one real estate sign, up to 32 square feet in area, is permitted per property. Mr. Jungbacker stated the acreage involved in this request is quite large for only one sign, and reiterated that there appears to be no relationship to the size of a sign vs. the size of a parcel in the Zoning Ordinance. Board of Appeals Minutes -2 -January 28, 2004 Ms. Hentz questioned if Mr. Jungbacker felt that the smaller sign is useless because it is so far in front of the building. Mr. Jungbacker stated that he felt that to be true in this case. He stated the size of the sign compared to the size of the parcel appears to make it virtually invisible on the site. Ms. Hentz questioned how the sign on the mansard was put up. Mr. Jungbacker replied that a vendor put up the sign. He added that even if the variance would be denied, perhaps the ordinance could be amended in the future to permit more signage for properties like the subject site. Ms. Hentz questioned if the banner sign would be in compliance if the 32 square foot sign were to be removed. Mr. Tucker stated only one real estate sign is allowed per parcel not to exceed 32 square feet in area. Ms. Hentz stated if the Board would consider approval, she would like to make an amendment for removal of the smaller sign and allow the banner on the mansard to stay. Mr. Lang stated that the existing ground real estate sign was visible from both Koeller Street and Hwy. 41. Mr. Jungbacker replied that the existing 32 square foot sign on the property is 50’-60’ away from the traffic on Koeller Street. Mr. Tucker made reference to the picture sent around earlier which shows the location of the sign on the property, in the grass between the parking lot and the sidewalk of S. Koeller Street. Mr. Jungbacker stated he hoped this case would be used as an example for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to permit real estate signage to relate to the size of the property being offered. Mr. Jungbacker again referred to the packet of pictures he handed out earlier and questioned the period of time real estate signs are allowed on a site. Mr. Tucker stated many of the signs pictured in the packet handed out by Mr. Jungbacker are not in compliance and some have been sent violation/correction notices. Discussion followed regarding real estate signs seen around Oshkosh, the frequency of such signs and how they can be placed on a site, such as on the subject site, according to where the vacant space is located. Chairman Schorse questioned how much space was vacant on the site at this time. Mr. Jungbacker stated there was a 20,000 square foot vacancy, and the site could accommodate twelve tenants when full. Chairman Schorse questioned if a sign could be in each storefront. Mr. Jungbacker stated he understood a sign could be placed inside a storefront window, and could be as big as one wished. Mr. Lang noted that he had visited the site. Ms. Hentz stated she had also been to the site. Chairman Schorse stated he understood the hardship and felt that Mr. Jungbacker had presented a good argument. Mr. Tucker informed the Board that the staff was in the process of updating the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance in regard to signage, and will be looking at real estate signage allowances during the review process. He stated the schedule for adoption is around June of 2004. Mr. Lang stated he would not support the variance because he felt the Board is not in a policy making position, and he didn’t feel he had the authority to question the ordinance. Board of Appeals Minutes -3 -January 28, 2004 Mr. Feavel stated that he would support the staff’s recommendation to deny the variance request. Mr. Wilusz stated that even though he agreed with many of Mr. Jungbacker’s arguments, he did not feel The Board of Appeals is the proper forum to deal with amendments to the existing Zoning Ordinance, and would agree with staff’s recommendation for denial. Ms. Hentz stated she understood the fairness of having signage correspond to the size of the property and would support a temporary real estate sign placed on the mansard with the condition for the existing 32 square foot sign to be removed. Ms. Hentz added that the Zoning Ordinance had recently been amended regarding the size of storage sheds on a parcel, and variances were granted before that was adopted by the Council, therefore she had no problem with granting a variance in this case. Chairman Schorse stated he agreed with Ms. Hentz in this case where a large property was represented with only a portion vacant. vacant. Mr. Cornell stated that he felt it was a policy issue and would not support this variance, instead would like to recommend the City explore an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to have real estate signage correspond to the size of the property. Ms. Hentz stated she would rather see signs up on a temporary basis than to see empty buildings. Motion by Hentz for approval of a variance to permit a temporary real estate sign 150 square feet in size with a condition for the removal of the existing 32 sq. ft. “For Lease” real estate sign. Seconded by Schorse. Motion denied 2-3. Nays: Feavel, Lang, and Wilusz. Ms. Hentz questioned the enforcement of other sign violations. Mr. Tucker stated violation notices are sent out weekly. Mr. Cornell questioned if the signage amendments the City was considering would be addressing the interior or exterior of a structure. Mr. Tucker stated the amendments would be aimed at addressing all types of signage, including interior and exterior signs. Mr. Feavel commented that signs don’t sell – real estate brokers sell. Ms. Hentz stated this property was available for lease, not for sale. Mr. Feavel stated there are people who make a living by leasing or selling property. II: 520 & 560 W. LINWOOD AVENUE Holly Anderson of Signs Now, applicant, and Dale R. King, owner, are requesting a variance to construct a second identification sign on a multi-family property that will have 0 foot side yard setbacks and a 13 foot front yard setback, whereas Section 30-37(F)(1) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires one identification sign per multi-family property and Section 30-21(B)(5) requires a 10 foot side yard setback and a 25 foot front yard setback for a ground sign. Mr. Tucker read a correspondence received from the petitioner regarding their need to have the item laid over until the February 11 meeting where they intend to be in attendance. Board of Appeals Minutes -4 -January 28, 2004 Motion by Lang to lay over the item until the February 11th meeting. Seconded by Hentz. Unanimous. III: 709 VIOLA AVENUE Marion Zobel, applicant and owner, is requesting a variance to permit a detached garage to be located in a side yard setback area with a 2.5 foot side yard setback, whereas Section 30-17(B)(4)(c)(iv) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 7.5 foot side yard setback for detached garages located in a side yard area. Mr. Tucker introduced the item and passed around pictures of the site. Mr. Lang made reference to the site plan submitted by the petitioner, and noted the owner would have to move the garage to be in compliance. Marion Zobel, 709 Viola Avenue, stated Mr. Tucker had done a good job in presenting the item and had nothing more to add. Chairman Schorse stated the garage is considered to be in the back yard now, however, with an addition to the principal structure it would be considered to be located in a side yard, and it doesn’t make any sense for the owner to move the garage. Joseph Harra, 702 W. Gruenwald Ave., stated he has a big back yard adjacent to the subject property, and has no objection to the variance, and felt it might be an improvement to the property. Motion by Lang to approve a variance to permit a detached garage to be located in a side yard setback area with a 2.5 foot side yard setback. Seconded by Hentz. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of the Fact: Ms. Hentz stated it was the least possible variance to solve the problem, and it didn’t appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Schorse also stated it was a unique situation and the hardship was not self-created. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Lang noted he had received six pages on the parliamentary procedures and motions and voting requirements included in the packet of information he received for this meeting. He stated he didn’t find any information on abstention in the material sent and couldn’t believe such a vote would be included with the majority vote. He stated he was growing tired of waiting for this issue to be resolved. Chairman Schorse asked Mr. Lang if he had researched any other information, specifically referencing Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR). Mr. Lang stated he shouldn’t have to do any further research as he hoped to find answers from City staff. Mr. Tucker stated he would inform the City Attorney of the request for the specific information Mr. Lang was looking for. Mr. Lang stated he wanted to see the bound volume of the Hybrid Version of Robert’s Rules of Order by which the Common Council and various boards used as their set of rules for conduct at meetings. Board of Appeals Minutes -5 -January 28, 2004 Mr. Tucker stated that he was under the understanding that City Boards and Commissions operate under a Hybrid Version of Robert’s Rules of Order. Ms. Hentz stated she also wanted to see the copy of the Hybrid Version of Robert’s Rules of Order that the Common Council and various boards use so people would know what rules the various boards follow. She also stated she remembered the City Attorney stating he had a copy of the document. Mr. Tucker stated he was under the understanding that the Board wanted to see a generalized chart. Ms. Hentz stated she also did not feel that an abstention or present vote would be counted with the majority. Mr. Tucker encouraged the Board to contact the City Attorney if they had any specific questions. Ms. Hentz stated the City Attorney could listen to the tape recording of the meeting. Mr. Schorse stated he would stop in the Attorney’s office after the meeting to discuss the matter. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/vlr