Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 May 13, 2015 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES May 13, 2015 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Tom Willadsen, Dennis Penney, Reginald Parson, Kathryn Larson EXCUSED: Robert Krasniewski STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; John Zarate, Chief Building Official; 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 March 11, 2015 were approved as presented. (Penney/Willadsen) ITEM I: 400 N. SAWYER STREET Description Code Reference Permitted Proposed Display EMC Sign 30-37(F)(2)(f) Commercial (exc.C-1) Residential & Industrial Districts District Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property was zoned R-5 Multiple Dwelling District and is being used for institutional purposes with existing development including a single-story church and associated off-street parking facilities. The general area is predominately commercial in nature. The applicants are proposing to install a double-faced illuminated ground mount sign on the west side of the property fronting N. Sawyer Street for “Zion Lutheran Church”. The variance is requested as the proposed sign includes an electronic message center (EMC) section which is prohibited in Residential Districts. The proposed sign would be setback 25’ from the west property line and 7’8” in height with the EMC cabinet section at 8’6” x 3’8” per side. The location of this property to a commercial corridor provides a degree of uniqueness as the west side of N. Sawyer Street is commercially zoned and the general vicinity possesses four EMC’s in this same corridor. The existing multi-family dwelling to the east will not be impacted as the principal church structure will block the view of the sign making the code restriction unnecessarily burdensome. The alternative would be to rezone the property to a commercial district however approval of such a request would be difficult as subsequent land use and redevelopment options would intensify and possibly create a negative impact on the immediate area. Approval of the variance with conditions is recommended. Tim Cullen, N7255 32nd Court, Weyauwega, of TLC Sign, stated that the church would like to have new signage and update the appearance as well as reach out to the community. He questioned if the Board was familiar with the existing sign on the site that was conditioned to be removed if the variance was granted for the new EMC sign. He proceeded to describe the existing sign which was a large concrete structure, non- illuminated, and setback a considerable distance from Sawyer Street. He displayed on the site plan the current location of the existing sign and the potential costs of removing it. Mr. Parsons questioned if the proposed EMC sign would create issues with lighting for vehicular traffic. Mr. Cullen responded that his company installs all types of signage and EMC’s that cannot change brightness automatically can be an issue and explained how his proposed sign works as it adjusts to ambient Board of Appeals Minutes 2 May 13, 2015 light. He further explained that the true situation is that EMC signs are not distracting for drivers which are why they are used by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the setback for the proposed sign is adequate. Mr. Cornell questioned if the sign would be on 24 hours a day but will adjust brightness at night. Mr. Cullen responded affirmatively and explained the use at night and what they recommend for content to be placed on the message board during those hours. Mr. Cornell inquired about the content and that the church would not be displaying anything extraordinary on the message board. Mr. Cullen responded that it would be messages regarding their events and would not be like a commercial sign. Mr. Carpenter asked for clarification of where the sign would be located and where the existing sign was now. Mr. Cullen displayed on the site plan the two possible locations where the EMC sign was proposed to be placed and the location of the existing sign. Mr. Carpenter then inquired what portion of the sign would be illuminated. Mr. Cullen displayed on the rendering of the sign where the EMC would be located as well as the dimensions of the message center, and overall cabinet. He stated that the sign is not as large as it appears on the rendering. Mr. Penney commented that the non-illuminated sign should be removed according to the conditions recommended for this request in the staff report and questioned if the petitioner was suggesting keeping the existing sign as well. Mr. Cullen stated that he understands the city ordinance that only allows one sign per property however the existing sign is right in front of the church, is non-illuminated and could be costly to remove. The proposed EMC sign will be perpendicular to Sawyer Street while the other sign is set back by the church structure and could potentially be a memorial sign donated by a church member. Mr. Cornell questioned if the church was not aware that the other sign would have to be removed if the variance was approved for the proposed EMC sign. Mr. Cullen responded that the church has seen the staff report however they have not yet decided on this issue as yet. Mr. Willadsen inquired if anyone was present from the church to speak on this matter and if Mr. Cullen had any evidence that the existing sign was a memorial of some nature. Mr. Cullen replied that he had looked at the sign and was not sure if it was a memorial or not and no party was present representing the church on this issue. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 May 13, 2015 Mr. Cornell commented that this could be a sensitive issue for the church as far as the removal of the existing sign however it was not a concern of the board when considering the variance request. Mr. Muehrer stated that the signs would be close in proximity and the Board would have to make the decision if a hardship exists that would allow the current sign to remain on site. The EMC sign requires a variance to allow it in a residential area and he reviewed the corridor on Sawyer Street which is predominantly commercial uses. Mr. Penney stated that there was a request for a variance for the EMC sign and questioned if the Board could amend the staff’s recommendation by removing condition #1 requiring the removal of the existing ground mount sign. Mr. Muehrer responded that the Board can amend the conditions to allow both signs to remain on site if it chooses. Mr. Carpenter questioned how involved was the process to change the sign messages as he had concerns with enforcement issues. Mr. Cullen responded that whoever is responsible for programming the sign it can be changed easily and explained how the process worked to program the messages to be displayed on the sign. He reiterated that the process was very simple to handle and questioned how the city does a check for the illumination of 0.50 foot-candles at the property line. Mr. Carpenter stated the Mr. Muehrer would have to go out to the property with a light meter to check for compliance with the code. Mr. Cullen recommended that the city check with other communities on how they estimate the illumination levels for signs as there is a formula that can be used to calculate this and stated that the 0.50 foot candles at the property line should not be a problem. Mr. Carpenter questioned how many people would be trained on programming the message center sign content. Mr. Cullen responded that it is usually only one. Ms. Larson inquired if the sign content would include special effects along with the messages. Mr. Cullen responded that the sign has capabilities for these features and questioned if this requirement would apply to commercial properties. Mr. Muehrer stated that the Transportation Director would make the determination if the display is too distractive by its content if complaints are received. Mr. Cullen commented that some communities have ordinances to restrict certain features and explained the various features that this sign was capable of displaying. He further stated that TLC Sign is part of the World Sign Association who can be contacted with questions if necessary. Motion by Penney to approve the request for a variance to permit an electronic message center sign in a residential district with the following conditions: Board of Appeals Minutes 4 May 13, 2015 1) The existing “Zion Lutheran Church” non-illuminated ground mount identification sign is removed. 2) Sign illumination shall not exceed 0.50 foot-candles at the property line. 3) Messages & non-text images shall not change appearance more than once every 60 seconds and transitions between messages shall be via instantaneous change. Seconded by Willadsen. Mr. Penney stated that his only concern was finding some reason to leave the existing sign in place as its removal could be an issue for the church but it could create issues with other submittals if two signs were allowed on this property. Mr. Carpenter commented that he would rather have the church come back and request the retention of the existing sign if they did not wish to remove it from the site. Ms. Larson questioned if the church could request a re-consideration at a later date if they wished to retain both signs on site. Mr. Muehrer responded that the church has received a copy of the staff report and had sufficient time to review the conditions recommended and have not contacted Planning Services regarding the retention of the existing sign. He further stated that the church could submit another variance request to allow both signs on the site but they would have to prove some type of hardship relating to it and it could not be personal or financial concerns over the cost of its removal. Mr. Willadsen commented that the request should be voted on as presented. Mr. Parson questioned how long the church would have to remove the existing sign if the variance was granted for the new EMC sign. Mr. Muehrer responded that they would have to remove the existing sign as soon as the new sign is installed. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of facts: This type of sign is appropriate given the extensive commercial nature of the immediate corridor. New sign is replacing an existing sign and with the descriptions applied in the conditions the new reader board sign will have no adverse impact on the residential properties. This type of sign is an accepted structure in use in religious institutions. ITEM II. 1323 W. 5TH AVENUE Mr. Zarate presented the item and stated that Josh & Stephanie Jungwirth, owners, are requesting a variance to the City of Oshkosh Building Code. Per Oshkosh Building Code Section 7-33, persons may file an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals as provided in the City Zoning Ordinance, Section 30-6(B)(2)(a) if an equivalent degree of health, safety and welfare is proposed. All appeals shall be accompanied by supporting data. This appeal is to allow for finishing a portion of the basement without providing the minimum headroom height of 6’- 4” beneath projections such as beams and duct work. SPS 321.06 requires that a Board of Appeals Minutes 5 May 13, 2015 minimum headroom of 6’-4” beneath beams, girders and other projections. The applicant is requesting the variance as the work to reframe the entire first floor system would require significant structural modifications and expense. The current use as an unfinished basement is different from finished living space as it is likely to be occupied on a more regular basis. The code as written was intended to allow for persons to safely exit an occupied area and the lower beam would be an obstruction to a person taller than 6’2” particularly in the event of a fire. An assessment must be made regarding what measures the applicant has proposed to offset the safety issues addressed by the code and if it would be unreasonable to prohibit the owners from utilizing their basement for additional living space. Staff is recommending approval of the variance with conditions. Matt Simonson, MJ Simonson Builders, 2739 Oak Dale Court, explained the height of the beam and how to slope the beam appropriately from the floor joist and that he was meeting the code requirements with the floor joists. He further explained that there were only two beams effected and explained the remodeling project to be done in the basement area which would include a bathroom. Mr. Parson stated that he was confused if this area was going to be living space. Mr. Simonson responded that the remodeling project was to create a recreational room for the children and there would be no bedrooms in the basement area. Mr. Parson stated that he was concerned with safety issues. Mr. Simonson explained that the main beam height is the only portion that would be at 6’2” and that the rest of the remodeled area ceiling would meet code requirements at 6’9”. Mr. Willadsen questioned how tall the property owners were. Mr. Simonson responded that Mr. Jungwirth was approximately 6 feet tall and his wife was about 5’6”. Mr. Penney questioned if this would be similar to an addition to the existing home. Mr. Simonson responded that they were trying to optimize the ceiling height while adding additional usable space to the home. Mr. Parson inquired if this variance, if granted, would compromise the integrity of the home as far as the structure. Mr. Simonson responded negatively. Mr. Carpenter asked to confirm that this area would not be allowed for use as a bedroom. Mr. Zarate responded that there would be additional code requirements to have bedrooms in the basement and staff would not have recommended approval of the variance in that situation. He gave some history on City codes regarding older homes which allowed a ceiling height of 6’6” and the City’s exception to the Uniform Dwelling Code but they never changed the projection for older homes to allow ceiling height of less than 6’4” as older homes cannot meet the current state requirements. He also explained the City’s code regarding smoke detectors and that installing a dry wall ceiling in the basement area would make the situation safer as it would prevent fire from spreading to the rest of the home as quickly as it would without the dry wall. He also explained the allowable finished heights incorporated into the City’s code requirements Board of Appeals Minutes 6 May 13, 2015 for areas such as finished attic space where the entire ceiling does not meet the height requirements due to sloping and that the issue with this project is the projection. Ms. Larson questioned if the basement area has egress windows. Mr. Simonson responded that there were two larger windows on the west side of the home in the basement area. Mr. Parson inquired if the residents would be able to exit the home from the basement in case of fire. Mr. Simonson replied that they would have to exit via the egress windows but that it would be possible and described the layout of the basement and window locations and height. Motion by Larson to approve a variance to the City of Oshkosh Building Code to allow for finishing a portion of the basement without providing the minimum headroom height of 6’4” beneath the main basement beam with the following conditions: 1. The finished area not be used for sleeping areas or bedrooms. 2. The ceiling be tapered from the flat ceiling to the beam to eliminate the sharp edge at the projection. Seconded by Willadsen. Mr. Penney commented that he gives credit to the property owners for applying for a variance in this case rather than just proceeding with the project. Mr. Willadsen questioned what impact this variance, if granted, would have when the house is sold. Mr. Muehrer responded that it likely will add value to the home as it is an older home with smaller dimensions. Ms. Larson commented that she felt it was unnecessarily burdensome to require the reframing of the entire first floor system and the significant structural modifications and expense to meet the code requirements in this case. Mr. Parson questioned if the variance and conditions related to it would continue with the home if it is sold. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of facts: No harm to public interest. This interior project will have no adverse impact on surrounding properties. Historically basements have been converted to family or recreational rooms long before current codes dictated the new height and to require them to have higher ceilings it is not always feasible in older homes and would unnecessarily restrict their use of the property. Board of Appeals Minutes 7 May 13, 2015 This is a minor reduction of the ordinance requirement and with the proposed slope to eliminate the sharp corner the safety concern has been addressed. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:22 p.m. (Larson/Penney). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator