Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMnutesBOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES August 10, 2011 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Janet Duellman, Dennis Penney, Kathryn Larson, Jane Cryan, Robert Krasniewski, EXCUSED: none STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of July 13, 2011 were approved as presented. (Penney /Carpenter) Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the Board member's personal information was removed from the City's website as requested. Mr. Cornell responded that he sent the link to Mr. Muehrer the next day and the information was removed promptly. Ms. Duellman arrived at 3:31 pm. ITEM I: 3475 N. MAIN STREET James J. Thomas - applicant, Crown Cork & Seal Co. USA Inc.- owner, requests the following variance to permit a ground sign in the front yard setback: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Front Yard Setback 30- 30(B)(1) 30' 8' Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. The property is located on the west side of N. Main Street in the City's North Industrial Park and is zoned M -3 General Industrial District and is being used by "Crown Cork & Seal" for manufacturing purposes. The applicant is proposing to install a non - illuminated double -sided identification ground sign 8' from the east property line with the intent of relieving congestion and enhancing traffic safety by properly directing traffic to the appropriate facility entrance. A second sign for "shipping and receiving" is included with the application materials but does not require a variance. The parcel is developed with a principal structure, a 23 stall off - street parking facility along the east side of the parcel and off - street loading facilities on the south and west sides of the structure. The original facility was constructed in 1978 and access to the property occurs via two driveways located on N. Main Street one for the loading facilities and one for employees and visitors. Proper identification signage on high traffic volume streets is critical for safety and there are limited options to place a ground sign within the required setback. If the sign was placed near the driveway at the required setback, it would have limited visibility and an existing parking stall would need to be eliminated. If placed in the front yard area, visibility and effectiveness would be reduced due to vehicles parked in the existing lot and being located too far from the driveway entrance therefore none of the by -right options appear practical. Board of Appeals Minutes 1 August 10, 2011 James Thomas, 3475 N. Main Street, stated that he has been trying to do this for some time and is trying to do it right. Their business has a lot of truck traffic and they have the need to differentiate between the two driveways on the site. Ms. Larson questioned if there were other commercial signs located as close to the street in this area. Mr. Thomas responded that out of 25 businesses along this street, 17 have signs in this location and he needs to identify his business for the truck traffic that is accessing the site. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if Crown Cork & Seal owned the property. Mr. Thomas replied affirmatively. As the site plan was not exactly clear as to the distance from the curb for the proposed sign location, board members discussed the setback from the trees on the site and how far the right -of -way extends in comparison to the location of the trees. It was determined that the proposed sign location would be 23 feet from the curb. Ms. Larson questioned the 30 foot setback as it seemed rather excessive. Mr. Muehrer responded that the parcel has a nonconforming front yard setback for the parking lot and as much of this area was developed prior to the current code standards; a vast majority of businesses in this location have signs within the setback area. Mr. Krasniewski inquired about the quality of the proposed signage as the rendering provided was very vague. Mr. Thomas assured the board that the signage would be high quality. Ms. Larson questioned if there would be any landscaping features placed around the base of the proposed sign. Mr. Thomas responded that they were not planning on installing any landscape features and the sign would be non - illuminated and for directional purposes only. Mr. Penney inquired if the other signs in the area placed within the setback were grandfathered as nonconforming or if variances had been granted for the placement of said signs. Mr. Muehrer estimated that three or four of the signs had variances granted. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit a ground sign with an 8' front yard setback. Seconded by Penney. Motion carried 5 -0. Finding of Facts: Least variance necessary. No harm to public interest. Safety factor. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 August 10, 2011 ITEM II: 2402 JACKSON STREET Seth I./Erin D. Murphy - applicant /owner, requests the following variance to permit a ground sign in the front yard setback: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Front Yard Setback 30- 24(B)(3)(c) 20' 10' Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. The property is located on the northeast corner at the intersection of Jackson Street and Bacon Avenue and is zoned C -1 Neighborhood Business District and is being used by "Mike's Place" for commercial dine -in restaurant purposes. The applicant is proposing to remove an existing monopole ground mount commercial identification sign located in the northeast corner of the front yard parking lot and install a new sign in the southwest corner of the front yard parking lot to identify the business more clearly and assist with safer access to the establishment. The original request indicated the variance was also for an electronic message center section on the sign however this aspect of the request has been withdrawn. The parcel is developed with a principal structure constructed in 1973 with associated off - street parking and loading facilities accessed via two curb cuts on Jackson Street and two on Bacon Avenue. If the new sign were placed at code requirements in the southwest vicinity of the lot, it would obstruct the existing drive aisle and placing it in a similar location as the existing one is not desirable as existing mature trees on the parcel to the north obstructs the view. Limited practical alternatives are present for by -right placement options due to the historical development of the parcel and no harm to the public interest will occur if the variance is granted as sight lines for vehicular and pedestrian traffic will not be an issue. Seth Murphy, 1922 Cliffview Court, stated that it would be beneficial for the business to move the sign to the proposed location as it has been hit by vehicles on numerous occasions and traffic from the north cannot see the sign in time due to the mature trees on the parcel to the north. He distributed photos of the site for the board to review and commented that trucks have a difficult time making the turn into the driveway without hitting the existing sign. Mr. Penney commented that he went by the business himself last week and missed the driveway as he did not see the sign in time. Mr. Krasniewski stated that the various exhibits included with the application do not seem to match and desired to confirm the location for the proposed sign and if it would have the same setback as the existing sign. John Beck, Beck Signs, Inc., 2269 Allerton Drive, indicated that the sign would have the same setback as the original sign and confirmed the location of the proposed sign on the site plan. Ms. Larson questioned if the sign would be internally lit. Mr. Beck responded affirmatively. Mr. Cornell confirmed the location of the changeable copy on the proposed sign. Ms. Larson inquired if the changeable copy area of the sign would interfere with the vision line on Jackson Street. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 August 10, 2011 Mr. Murphy indicated that it would not. Mr. Cornell questioned if the property to the north of this parcel was in the City or Town and if there was anything the City could do regarding the removal or trimming of the trees on the site. Mr. Muehrer replied that the property was located in the Town of Oshkosh and the City has no jurisdiction in this area and even if it was within the city limits, the City does not have an ordinance that covers such issues. Mr. Murphy commented that he has discussed the issue with the property owner and they are not willing to do anything about it. He further commented that he did plan to do some landscaping around the base of the proposed sign. Motion by Carpenter to approve the request for a variance to permit a ground sign with a 10' front yard setback. Seconded by Penney. Motion carried 5 -0. Finding of Facts: Safety factor. No harm to public interest. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Cornell reported that he attended the Plan Commission meeting to support the proposed text amendment to the zoning ordinance covering Nonconforming Use Regulations and the amendment was unanimously passed and will be proceeding to the Common Council for approval in a few weeks. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if any other board members applied to serve on the Oshkosh Citizens Academy as he had made application and only one member from a board can participate. The other board members indicated that they had not applied to serve on the Academy. Mr. Krasniewski also questioned the time limit a petitioner has once a variance has been granted to comply. Mr. Muehrer responded that the variance, once approved, has a six month time limit on it to obtain the building permit which is valid for twelve months. Ms. Larson inquired if there was a time frame for saving the board packet materials. The other board members concurred that there was no need to save the materials once the meeting has occurred. The documents are available on -line if necessary. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:58 p.m. (Cryan/Carpenter). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner /Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 4 August 10, 2011