Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2002 PRESENT: Carl Ameringer, Fred Dahl, Cheryl Hentz, Joel Kluessendorf, Don Krueger, Edward Wilusz EXCUSED: John Schorse STAFF: Matt Tucker, Associate Planner; Mary Lou Degner, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Krueger. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of February 13, 2002 were approved as mailed. (Hentz/Ameringer). I: 280 S. KOELLER STREET Paul Jiang, owner, and Fox Cities Corporation, applicant, are requesting a variance to construct a parking lot with a 0’ rear yard setback, whereas Section 30-34(D)(4)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance requires a 5’ rear yard setback. Matt Tucker introduced the item. Keith Decker, Fox Cities Construction, said since the building is more than 50% destroyed due to the fire, they are unable to rebuild where the building was situated prior to the fire. He said the original setback was 35’, now the required setback is 50’, and since they have to move the building back 15’ it has affected the parking area. He noted the parking lot had a 0’ setback before the fire and they are again requesting a 0’ setback. Mr. Decker presented a plan of the subject site. Ms. Hentz asked if there would be a problem with ingress and egress. Mr. Decker responded it would be the same as it is now. Discussion continued on the issue of the ground sign. Mr. Decker noted the relocation of the ground sign would be an additional expense for the owner and added there is a transformer pad also in the area. Mr. Tucker explained that staff has recommended a condition for the previous variance for a ground sign, be voided because it is no longer necessary since the building location problem that warranted the variance no longer presents a hardship. He added this would allow the site to obtain overall compliance. Discussion continued on the present sign and the fact that it is compliant as far as size is concerned, however the transformer beneath it is not compliant. It was stated the transformer serves the entire site. Chairman Krueger said he agrees with staff, that it is a perfect opportunity to bring the site into compliance. He said, in his opinion, it is a reasonable trade off to approve the 0’ rear setback for the sign to become compliant. Discussion continued on the price of a new sign. Ms. Hentz offered an amendment to remove the condition from the variance, stating she understands staff’s position, however, the fire was not the fault of the applicant or the owner. She noted the Board of Appeals previously approved the variance and the owner did not create the problem. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct a parking lot with a 0’ rear yard setback. Seconded by Dahl. Chairman Krueger stated the previous variance was approved when the building was closer to the highway, and now the building is going to meet the 50’ setback requirement so there is no reason to have the sign 9’ from the street. He said, in his opinion, a trade off is needed. Ms. Hentz said the applicant already proposes reconstructing the building to meet the 50’ setback, so the applicant is already giving something in return. She added she isn’t necessarily sure that a trade off is necessary because the hardship was not self created. Mr. Kluessendorf stated the variance was granted for an old setback and now the setback is being rectified, so in his opinion, it makes the variance null. Mr. Tucker concurred, stating that was the legal opinion he got from the City Attorney’s Office. He noted the variance was granted for a previous circumstance and hardship. Mr. Ameringer asked if the present location of the sign would create a problem as far as identifying the establishment. Mr. Decker responded that moving the sign back would hamper the view from traffic heading north on HWY 41. He said the sign is now 9’ off the property line and probably 30’ from Koeller Street. Discussion continued on the recommended condition and on the face and lettering of the existing sign. Ms. Hentz withdrew her motion and Mr. Dahl removed his second. Motion by Hentz for approval of the variance to construct a parking lot with a 0’ rear yard setback with the following condition: 1.) The existing sign to remain in its current place and only the lettering can be changed, however if the existing sign is ever removed or replaced it is required to relocate the sign to the 25’ setback requirement. Seconded by Dahl. Motion approved 4-1. Nay, Krueger. Finding of the fact: It was concluded it satisfies the requirements for a variance, the hardship was not self created, the variance is the least possible to remove the hardship and there would be no adverse impact on the neighboring properties. II: 1120 S. KOELLER STREET Flyway Signs, applicant for Wisconsin Hospitality Group (dba/Pizza Hut), is requesting a variance to permit a roof sign, whereas Section 30-37(E)(3)(c) of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance defines roof signs as prohibited signs. Matt Tucker introduced the item and circulated photos. Scott Steffen, Flyway Signs, provided photos of the building with the new signage for Pizza Hut. Jim Metko, Wisconsin Hospitality, presented photos of the current building type and the new proto type. He noted on the new style there is no roof sign. Mr. Steffen questioned the condition of the sign not being internally lit. Mr. Tucker explained that an internally lit sign would be considered an expansion of the sign. He said staff supports putting the sign back to the way it was before, which would be the minimum variance necessary to address the hardship. Discussion continued on the use of floodlights and internally lit signs. Mr. Metko asked the committee to reconsider the variance with exception to the condition of the sign not being internally lit. Mr. Ameringer asked about the intended time frame for the new building. Mr. Steffen answered 2 ½ to 3 years. Mr. Ameringer suggested adding to condition #3 the time frame indicated for reconstruction. Motion by Ameringer for approval of the variance to permit a roof sign with the following conditions: 1.) The new sign area shall be no larger than the area of the old sign. 2.) The new sign shall not be internally lit. 3.) The variance to permit a roof sign shall become void at the time the building is reconstructed to the new corporate architectural design or January 1, 2005, whichever is earlier. Seconded by Hentz. Motion approved. 5-0. Unanimous. Finding of the fact: It was concluded it was the least possible solution to put the sign back to the way it was before and there would be no adverse impact on the neighboring properties. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Matt Tucker Associate Planner MT/mld