Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES August 8, 2012 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, 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 11, 2012 were approved as presented. (Penney/Cryan) ITEM I: 815 WITZEL AVENUE Beck Signs-applicant, LE Wickman LLC-owner, request the following variance to permit a double-faced internally illuminated ground mount sign in the front yard setback: Description Code ReferenceMinimum Proposed Front yard setback 30-25(B)(2)(c) 25’ 12’ Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property was zoned C-2 General Commercial District and is being used by a commercial veterinary clinic and the general area is characterized as a blend of commercial and government land uses. The applicant is proposing to construct a double-faced internally illuminated commercial ground sign in the front yard setback adjacent to Witzel Avenue. The subject single-story veterinary clinic was developed in 1973 and currently has a non- illuminated wall sign on the north elevation of the structure. The principal structure is setback 32’ from the property line and possesses an internal sidewalk further limiting front yard placement options. Proper identification signage for vehicles and businesses on high traffic volume streets is critical for overall public safety and the proposed placement of the sign appears reasonable in this case. Alternatives present include installing a larger wall sign or projecting sign however aesthetically and functionally these alternatives appear to be the least desirable and granting the variance will not result in harm to the public interest. John Beck, Beck Signs, 2925 S. Oakwood Road, stated that the business has no identification sign other than the wall mounted signage on the front of the structure and it is a safety issue for clients attempting to locate the clinic. Mr. Cornell questioned if the sign would obstruct the visibility of the driveway location. Mr. Beck responded that the driveway was 30-40 feet in and the sign should not obstruct the view of the driveway entrance. Mr. Krasniewski commented that there was an inconsistency issue with the applicant’s submission as on page 7 the site plan shows the sign on the west side of the pedestrian access walk and on page 11 the photo shows the sign on the east side of the walk. Board of Appeals Minutes 1 August 8, 2012 Lowell Wickman, owner of the property, stated that the preferred location for the sign was on the west side of the pedestrian access walk. He further commented that he had been to Oshkosh on several occasions in the past and never knew the clinic was located there as the wall signage is not very noticeable from the street. Mr. Krasniewski stated that he felt it may be beneficial to install a driveway sign on the site as well. Mr. Muehrer responded that the petitioner could contact him to discuss the ordinance regulations for this type of signage. He further commented that the site plan on page 7 is accurate showing the sign on the west side of the pedestrian walk. Ms. Larson commented that she felt the City may need to review the ordinance on signage requirements as there are three requests on today’s agenda for a variance to the code for sign placement. She also stated that she felt that 10 feet in height seemed excessive for the sign. Board members discussed the ordinance regulations in regards to the size of signage allowed and what is effective and acceptable. Mr. Carpenter questioned the size of the existing temporary signage on the site. Mr. Beck indicated that the temporary sign was 4 by 8 feet but the size of the proposed sign could be reduced. Ms. Larson commented that she did not feel that changeable copy was necessary for the signage. Mr. Beck responded that the changeable copy was to let people know what is available and for other advertising purposes. Mr. Penney stated that the discussion was focused on the size of the sign and not the location which was the purpose of the variance request. Mr. Muehrer commented that the Board can make adjustments to the size of the sign if necessary as a condition could be added to the request to address that issue. Mr. Wickman stated that the business across the street on Witzel Avenue has a sign that is about 30 feet in height and the City of Oshkosh Parks Department sign adjacent to his sight is only eight or nine inches off the sidewalk. He felt that the changeable copy was necessary and critical to his business. Mr. Carpenter commented that he felt the changeable copy would be better than an electronic message center sign. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if an electronic message center sign was allowed in this area. Mr. Muehrer replied that it would be as this area was zoned C-2 General Commercial District. Mr. Penney stated that he did not see an issue with a ten foot sign in this location. Ms. Larson felt that the applicant could compromise by lowering the sign somewhat. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 August 8, 2012 Mr. Beck commented that accumulating snow in winter creates issues with signage that is installed too low to the ground. Mr. Cornell stated that the Board needs to decide whether an eight or ten foot sign was being considered for the variance and a condition could be added to not exceed eight feet if the Board felt that was more appropriate. Motion by Carpenter to approve the request for a variance to permit a double-faced internally illuminated ground mount sign with a 12’ front yard setback with the following condition: 1.Sign not to exceed eight feet in height. Seconded by Krasniewski. Mr. Krasniewski discussed signs in other communities and how their zoning regulations differed from the City of Oshkosh in what was allowed. The 12 foot setback was the issue with the variance request; however, he felt that the sign should be limited to eight feet in height. Board members discussed whether two votes were required for this request, one for the eight feet in height and one for the 12 foot setback and determined that voting on the motion as presented with the limitation of eight feet in height was appropriate if approved. Motion carried 3-2. Ayes-Carpenter/Cryan/Krasniewski. Nays-Cornell/Penney. Finding of Facts: No harm to public interest. Beneficial to public. ITEM II: 2401 OMRO ROAD Michael Brefczynski-applicant, Kielisch Properties 1 LLC-owner, request the following variance to permit a double-faced internally illuminated ground mount sign in the front yard setback: Description Code ReferenceMinimum Proposed Front yard setback 30-98(B)(2)(c) 25’ 6’ Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that it is zoned C-2 ETZ General Commercial Extraterritorial District and is being used as a financial services office. The property will be annexed into the City of Oshkosh in 2018 and can be characterized as a blend of commercial and residential land uses. The applicant is proposing to install a double-sided, internally illuminated ground mount sign for way-finding purposes as the business appears to be a residential structure. Unique circumstances are present with the subject property as it was originally developed as a residential structure and constructed in the Town of Algoma with different setback standards. Surrounding commercial properties feature legal nonconforming setbacks for signage and the development arrangement is providing difficulty to make the sign visible from the street. No vision/traffic issues are anticipated with the proposed sign placement and granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public interest. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 August 8, 2012 Michael Brefczynski, 3438 Charlie Anna Drive, displayed photos of other signs on properties adjacent to his site that are not located within the 25’ minimum setback and stated that there was no room to locate his sign 25 feet back from the lot line. He also questioned why the condition regarding the shrubbery around the sign was placed on this request. Mr. Muehrer explained that landscaping at the base of a ground mount sign was an aesthetic enhancement. Mr. Cornell inquired if the adjacent properties to the east and west were commercial uses. Mr. Brefczynski responded that the property to the east was residential; however, all the remaining properties in the area were commercial uses. Mr. Muehrer clarified that the existing residential property to the east was a legal nonconforming use in a commercial district. Mr. Krasniewski suggested that the setback for the sign should be amended to be eight feet rather than the six feet requested. Mr. Brefczynski stated that the sign would be located too close to the buildings with the inclusion of the landscaping feature around the base. Mr. Krasniewski responded that the neighboring properties had an eight foot setback for their signs and he felt this sign should be consistent with the adjacent properties’ signage. Ms. Larson inquired if the sign would be internally lit. Mr. Brefczynski replied that it would have the capability to be internally illuminated. Ms. Cryan questioned if there were sidewalks in this area. Mr. Brefczynski responded negatively. Mr. Krasniewski reiterated that he would prefer to see the variance amended to an eight foot setback instead of the six foot setback requested as it would be more consistent with neighboring properties. Motion by Krasniewski to amend the variance request to permit a double-faced internally illuminated ground mount sign with an 8’ front yard setback. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Motion by Penney to approve the request for a variance to permit a double-faced internally illuminated ground mount sign with an 8’ front yard setback with the following condition: 1.Low-lying plantings and shrubs (as depicted in the submitted color rendering) are installed no later than June 1, 2013. Seconded by Cryan.Motion carried 5-0. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 August 8, 2012 Finding of Facts: No harm to public interest. Amendment will make it consistent with other setbacks on neighboring properties. ITEM III: 3135 OREGON STREET Oshkosh Corporation-applicant/owner, requests the following variance to permit a ground mount sign in the front yard setback: Description Code ReferenceMinimum Proposed Front yard setback 30-28(B)(1)(b) 25’ 15’ Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. The property is zoned M-1 Light Industrial District and is being used by Oshkosh Corporation for defense program purposes. The lot is located on the southwest side at the intersection of Oregon Street and W. Waukau Avenue and is characterized as mixed industrial-residential. The applicant is proposing to install a double-faced, non- illuminated commercial ground sign adjacent to Oregon Street for way-finding purposes for the principal structure which was constructed in 1964. Proper identification signage for vehicles and businesses on high traffic volume streets is critical for public safety and the facility is located on an arterial route within a speed transition zone. The presence of a directional sign and large mature trees reduces alternative by-right placement options and the proposed location appears to be the safest and most practical alternative. Ryan Meyers, 1220 Fairfax Street, stated that the site is unique as the building itself protrudes into the setback area and the proposed sign will not be illuminated. Ms. Larson commented that the proposed sign appears to be closer to the road than the utility poles which would place it in the right-of-way. Mr. Meyers responded that it was an error in the rendering and the sign would be setback further than the utility poles. Mr. Muehrer clarified that the proposed sign would be no closer to the street than the nonconforming setback of the existing structure’s façade. Mr. Cornell inquired if there was any signage on the site currently. Mr. Meyers replied negatively other than a directional sign located further to the north. Thomas Muraski, 3087 Oregon Street, stated that he was concerned with traffic in the area as it has become more intense and stop lights had recently been installed at the intersection. He was present to ensure that the sign would not create a vision issue. Mr. Meyers stated that the sign would not obstruct the view from a traffic standpoint as it is not located in the vision triangle. Mr. Muehrer added that the proposed sign was not located near the intersection. Board of Appeals Minutes 5 August 8, 2012 Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit a ground mount sign with a 15’ front yard setback. Seconded by Penney.Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: Safety issue. Unique situation. Hardship with location of building. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m. (Carpenter/Cryan). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 6 August 8, 2012