Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 March 11, 2015 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES March 11, 2015 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Kathryn Larson, Robert Krasniewski EXCUSED: Tom Willadsen, Reginald Parson STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Brian Slusarek, Planning Technician; 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 January 14, 2015 were approved with a question from Mr. Krasniewski regarding the reference on page 3 that the Design Standards guidelines would not apply to the handicapped ramp. Mr. Muehrer stated that he would have to check on that and would follow up with a correction to the minutes if necessary. (Larson/Carpenter) It was determined after researching the recording from the January 14th meeting that the minutes were correct as presented. ITEM I: 1302 S. MAIN STREET Description Code Reference Required Proposed Prohibited Signs 30-37(E)(5) On-premise Off-premise Mr. Slusarek presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property was zoned M-2 Central Industrial District and is being used for industrial purposes with existing development including a principal structure used by “Davis Painting”. The general area is characterized as mixed-use in nature. The City received a complaint in October 2014 of an alleged sign ordinance violation at the subject property which revealed signage for “Fratello’s Restaurant & Brewery” had been installed on the existing sign structure that was previously used by the “Pioneer Inn” and is defined as off-premise signage as this establishment is physically located at 1501 Arboretum Drive. A code violation was issued to the property owner in November 2014 and city staff met with the applicants to discuss the violation and the applicant was granted an extension until December 31st to allow them to explore alternatives. They have since requested a variance to allow the sign to remain however the pre-existing sign structure has not been utilized since 2007 therefore it lost any nonconforming off-premise/billboard rights tied to the Municipal Code. The request does not meet the Board of Appeals standards for approving a zoning variance and granting the request would be contrary to the public interest. Denial of the variance is recommended. Jay Supple, 1501 W. Arboretum Drive, stated that when Randy Davis purchased the property he approached Mr. Davis to utilize the billboard on the existing sign structure on the site. He further stated that the Pioneer Inn had utilized the sign for years and he replaced the content of the sign structure with signage advertising his restaurant. Scott Steffen of Wisconsin Signs installed the new signage and the property owner subsequently received a code violation notice regarding the off-premise signage which is not part of his expertise. Scott Steffen, Wisconsin Signs, 311 E. 11th Street, Fond du Lac, stated that he has been installing signage for over 15 years and he looked at this project as a normal billboard sign and was not aware that it would be considered off-premise in this area. The sign structure with billboards is usually leased out a month at a time and the lease agreement was taken care of prior to the sign installation. The complaint came in after the Board of Appeals Minutes 2 March 11, 2015 work was completed and he read portions of the City’s code relating to signs and to billboards and he felt the real issue was if it was considered a billboard. From his understanding of the staff report, the existing sign lost its nonconforming status from its lack of use for more than a 12 month period and now it is considered a nonconforming sign. He discussed the re-use of other signs on buildings when changes in ownership occur. He explained that the sign is safe and sturdy and gave the dimensions of the sign’s structure. He felt that if Davis Painting could use it that there should be no reason that a variance could not be granted to allow the billboard to come back into compliance and be used for this purpose. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the sign was proposed to be illuminated. Mr. Steffen responded negatively and stated that any electronics related to the previous sign structure had been removed. Mr. Supple stated that he was not interested in illuminating the sign as it was adjacent to residential properties. Mr. Krasniewski commented that to his recollection the sign was a directional tool providing guidance to the Pioneer Inn when it was still operational. Mr. Supple responded that it was and that there were two signs for directional purposes for the Pioneer Inn in that area. Mr. Muehrer stated that the City has issued notices to have the signs removed and that it was part of a larger lawsuit underway with the property owner. Mr. Krasniewski commented that the current use was a change in nature from the original use of the existing sign structure and questioned if a permit was necessary to change the content of the sign. Mr. Muehrer stated that once the sign went to a blank structure, it would have needed zoning review from the City for approval of the content for allowing its re-use and the need for a building permit would have to be researched with Inspections Services if the sign structure was to remain intact. Mr. Krasniewski inquired how far the setback was for the existing sign structure. Mr. Steffen responded that it was approximately 10 feet from the sidewalk. Mr. Muehrer stated that the structure was nonconforming from a dimensional standpoint but the use also had to be taken into consideration in this case. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the site that is currently occupied by Davis Painting was previously part of the Buckstaff property. Mr. Muehrer replied that after researching the site, a bank owned the property for a time period after Buckstaff’s discontinued operations and was later purchased by Adaptive Properties in 2013. Ms. Larson commented that she did not see how a variance could be granted for this request. Mr. Krasniewski stated that a billboard could be placed at that location however it would have to be utilized by either Adaptive Properties or Davis Painting. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 March 11, 2015 Heidi Supple, 1501 W. Arboretum Drive, questioned if Davis Painting could have signage on the site why they could not lease it out for their use. Mr. Muehrer responded that the code would allow Davis Painting to utilize the existing sign structure but it would have to be for their business only as off-premise signage is not allowed in the city. Mr. Penney inquired if a variance could be granted for a 25 foot setback for the sign structure. Mr. Muehrer responded that the code would allow for a 0 foot front yard setback for the sign structure in this zoning district and that the existing structure was conforming as far as dimensions and explained the City’s code standards for signage which could be permitted through a conditional use permit if the establishment was located on the Pioneer Inn site. He further explained that the City made every attempt to make this work however it was not possible with the City’s ordinance regarding off-premise signage. Mr. Penney questioned if this is against the City’s code, could a variance be granted. Mr. Muehrer replied that under the circumstances, the request is not allowed by the City’s code and it is located in a residential neighborhood and is not the traditional variance request that the Board reviews. Mr. Penney commented that it was a financial hardship that could not be considered under the Board’s criteria to grant a variance. Mr. Krasniewski added that it would also be considered a self imposed hardship which also cannot be considered. Mr. Steffen questioned if the sign was considered a billboard. Mr. Muehrer explained that when the existing sign went to blank content for more than 12 months, it could not be utilized with off-premise content as it would be considered a nonconforming billboard. He further explained the circumstances by example of existing taverns in residential areas which are allowed to remain as long as they are operational, however if they are vacant for more than 12 months, they cannot be re- established although the structure would be allowed to remain. Mr. Steffen commented that there are other billboards in the city that contain off-premise content. Mr. Muehrer explained that they are allowed to remain as they were pre-existing to the ordinance, however if they are damaged, removed, or unused for more than 12 months, they could not be replaced or re-used. Mr. Steffen questioned the process to permit a billboard with off-premise content. Mr. Muehrer explained the process of conditional use permits which have been utilized by hotels and motels or the development being located in a planned development area and it was permitted in that fashion. If this sign was within a planned development and approved as part of the development, or if the property being advertised was partnered with the property owner, the sign could be used. Mr. Supple inquired why a variance cannot be granted to allow the sign to remain. Mr. Krasniewski responded that the existing sign should not be there according to code requirements. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 March 11, 2015 Mr. Muehrer reiterated the nonconforming regulations for use and structures and discussed how the code was meant to eventually make these situations become conforming by disallowing the use over time as they are not appropriate for the city. Ms. Supple commented that the sign has been there for nine years, not in use, and looked rather unsightly and they have improved the sign and now cannot utilize it. Mr. Muehrer discussed nonconforming situations such as taverns and other issues such as fire damaged homes that have existing garages still standing and how they are handled as well as the new zoning ordinance that is currently in the process of being re-written. He also discussed policy questions regarding businesses that cease operations and how the signage for these facilities is handled or how it should be handled under the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Krasniewski stated that the current code states that signs will be removed after one year of the business ceasing its operations. Mr. Steffen commented that he understands the philosophy regarding items such as the tavern use however with this situation, this location for the sign does not create any safety issues or is not detrimental to the neighborhood so he does not understand the reason a variance could not be granted under these circumstances. Ms. Larson explained that the use of the sign structure would have been grandfathered-in if it was utilized within a 12-month period however that time period has long expired. Mr. Supple questioned if the sign structure could be used if Davis Painting desired to do so and it could be much larger in size. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively. Mr. Cornell explained the state statutes and municipal code standards that the Board has to adhere to when considering granting a variance. Mr. Penney described some of the circumstances that would have to apply for the Board to grant a variance. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit an off-premise/billboard sign. Seconded by Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter commented that this request does not meet the necessary criteria to allow the Board to grant a variance. Mr. Krasniewski stated that the City should have issued the notice to remove this sign seven years ago. Ms. Larson added that since the 12 month period of not utilizing the sign has expired, a variance could not be granted at this point. Motion denied 5-0. Finding of facts: Board of Appeals Minutes 5 March 11, 2015 No hardship. Not a unique situation. Exceeded 12 months. Illegal to grant variance. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:04 p.m. (Carpenter/Krasniewski). Respectfully submitted, Brian Slusarek Planning Technician