Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesBoard of Appeals Minutes 1 August 12, 2015 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES August 12, 2015 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, Reginald Parson, Kathryn Larson, Robert Krasniewski EXCUSED: Tom Willadsen 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 July 8, 2015 were approved as presented. (Penney/Parson) ITEM I: 830 S. WESTHAVEN DRIVE Description Code Reference Required Proposed Front Yard Setback 30-17(B)(2)(c) 25’ minimum 12’ Electronic Message Center 30-37(F)(1) R-1 Prohibited 16 sf/side Mr. Slusarek presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is located on the east side of S. Westhaven Drive and is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District and is being used for institutional purposes. The site is developed with a single-story church and parking facilities and the general area is predominately institutional and residential uses. The applicant is proposing to install a double-faced illuminated monument sign setback 12’ from the west property line along S. Westhaven Drive with variances requested for intrusion into the front yard setback and for the inclusion of an electronic message center (EMC) which is prohibited in residential districts. These signs are prohibited as they may result in harm to the public interest due to adverse impacts on neighboring residential properties and there is no evidence of a hardship unique to this lot or any physical limitations that would require the use of an EMC and no other nearby institutional uses have any EMC signs at this time. The proposed new sign would change from the existing single-faced and parallel to the street frontage to double-faced and perpendicular and the location is reasonable given the location of the existing parking lot and limited front yard options and is consistent with other signage setbacks in the vicinity. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed ground sign in the front yard setback but denial of the EMC sign in a residential district. Brian Hamill, 210 N. Main Street, stated that the applicant was requesting the variance in two parts as discussed and he hoped that at least the front yard setback portion would be approved. He further stated that he felt there was a unique nature of this property as it no longer appears to reflect a residential area where the sign is proposed to be located. He described the other uses currently in this area and stated that there were no residential properties that would be in direct view of the sign and that the area had become more institutional and commercial in nature over time. He discussed the size of the proposed sign which he did not feel was oversized as it was important to have adequate visibility in this heavily traveled area. He also discussed the various people who need to find the church for event purposes other than just mass as the church holds a number of other activities and the EMC portion of the sign was necessary to advertise their functions and it would be helpful to have the variance granted to allow the use of the proposed EMC sign. He also discussed the possible changes to the City’s Zoning Ordinance that is in the process of being updated Board of Appeals Minutes 2 August 12, 2015 which may result in changes to the current restrictions on the use of EMC’s and the wide open area where the church is located and the amount of landscaping in this area which also inhibits the visibility of the current sign. Mr. Parson questioned what type of sign currently exists on the site. Mr. Hamill responded that it was a changeable letter sign. Mr. Penney discussed the fact that he had heard that St. Raphael’s church was planning to move the church to another location in the future. Fr. Doug LeCaptain, pastor for St. Raphael’s church, indicated that the church was not pursuing the relocation of the church and that this was just a rumor. He further stated that the current sign is situated parallel to the road and that they have used various temporary signs in the past for advertising their events. He commented that St. Vincent’s church has an EMC sign on their site and that their proposed sign would be chrome in color as to not be too intrusive and that the EMC display would not be overdone. He also discussed the various activities that occur at the church and how the EMC sign would assist to alert people of not only the events but to changes to scheduled events when times have been altered or events cancelled. Board discussion ensued on the amount of landscaping in this area and the lack of visibility that the current sign possesses. Mr. Krasniewski stated that St. Vincent’s church is located in a commercial district and is therefore allowed to have the EMC sign that exists on their property. Mr. Cornell further explained the zoning criteria which regulates signs and that commercial districts are allowed to display EMC signs without a variance however they are prohibited in residential districts. Ms. Larson inquired if the church could be rezoned to a commercial district. Mr. Slusarek responded that the City was not likely to approve such a request as this would be considered spot zoning which is not supported by the zoning ordinance as it is not considered good planning practice. Mr. Krasniewski discussed the dimensions of the proposed sign and the size of the entire structure encompassing it and requested explanation of the zoning criteria regulating its size. Mr. Slusarek explained the zoning ordinance requirements in relation to the size of the cabinet and face of the sign itself. Mr. Carpenter questioned if it would be possible to have the proposed sign with illumination but without the EMC feature. Mr. Slusarek replied that the sign could be illuminated. Fr. LeCaptain stated that this would not help to have an illuminated sign as it would still require staff to change the messages manually where the EMC would be able to change on its own. Mr. Krasniewski questioned how many staff the church employed. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 August 12, 2015 Fr. LeCaptain responded there were eight employees. Mr. Parson inquired how much of a precedent would be set by the approval of this variance request for the EMC. Mr. Slusarek indicated that it would set a large precedent as there are many more establishments in the city that would like to utilize EMC signs at their businesses. Mr. Carpenter discussed how often EMC’s were allowed to change messages and if the frequency could be limited. Mr. Muehrer discussed limitations that could be placed on these types of signs and that it had been done in the past on other EMC signs as a conditional of approval. Mary Jane Ryan, 1318 Faust Street, stated that St. Vincent’s church is located at the intersection of South Park Avenue and Oregon Street with their parking lot situated to the west of the structure and residential homes within close proximity. She questioned why their property was zoned commercially which allowed them to have an EMC sign. Mr. Slusarek responded that churches and funeral homes are generally located in R-1 zoning districts however this area previously possessed a commercial zoning classification. Ms. Larson commented that Oregon Street was generally commercial in nature previously when zoning classifications would have been designated. Gerald Stephens, 2913 Prairie Wood, stated that he was the party that worked with the sign company on the development of the proposed sign and he selected what he felt was the least intrusive color and was also instrumental in choosing the location. He further stated that the sign would only be visible from about 100 yards and the residential properties on 9th Avenue would be blocked from view of it. He felt the current sign did not possess adequate visibility and reiterated the church’s purpose for an EMC sign. He continued to discuss the reasons for the sign’s necessity and the time spent on its development as well as the possible changes in regulations for EMC sign placement with the updated City Zoning Ordinance. He explained that they began the process with a sign that would meet the City’s zoning ordinance code and discussed the reason for the size of the sign structure as they desired to have it look similar to the church building. They then opted to make the cabinet larger to be more aesthetically attractive and discussed the church’s mission as a parish. He felt the proposed sign would help welcome people to the church and discussed the church’s other various events and activities that they wanted to make the public aware of. Mr. Cornell inquired if the proposed sign was approved without the EMC feature but in the same position, if Mr. Stephens felt it would still be effective. Mr. Stephens responded he felt it would not be as effective and since the lettering would have to be changed manually, it would also be more labor intensive to maintain and less convenient. Mr. Krasniewski questioned how often the messages on the sign would be changed. Mr. Stephens replied that it could be anywhere between every 60 seconds and 24 hours and reiterated all the events the church holds other than just posting mass times that they would like to display. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 August 12, 2015 Mr. Krasniewski discussed the purpose for having changeable signs and the issues with constantly changing sign content and the amount of lighting emitted from EMC signs. Mr. Stephens again mentioned that the amber color chosen for the sign was the best option as it was the least intrusive and how the changing messages were a necessity for the church. Motion by Penney to approve the request for a variance to permit an electronic message center sign in an R-1 zoning district. Seconded by Krasniewski. Mr. Penney commented that the purpose of the Board of Appeals is to determine a legal reason to grant a variance and discussed the nature of the area which may be residentially zoned but has become more institutional and commercial. He felt that there would be no harm to the public interest by granting the variance to allow the EMC in this case. Mr. Krasniewski agreed that the area has become more institutional however there is another church in the same area that does not have an EMC sign and it is still located in a residentially zoned district. He felt it would be setting a precedent to grant such a variance in an R-1 zoned district. Mr. Carpenter agreed that by granting this variance for the EMC it would set a precedent for other properties to request the same type of variance and it could become an issue. He felt the petitioner could benefit from waiting until the updated Zoning Ordinance is complete as it may allow for more flexibility for EMC’s for institutional type establishments. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if the updated Zoning Ordinance will include a specific zoning district for institutional uses. Mr. Cornell commented that he has participated in the working group sessions on the Zoning Ordinance and signage has yet to be addressed. Mr. Muehrer added that the entire Zoning Ordinance is being rebuilt including regulations for signage and an institutional zoning district may be created as standards for institutional uses have been reviewed. Depending on how the ordinance is developed, EMC signs could be granted by conditional use permit approval but the existing code contains strict standards for EMC sign placement. He also discussed the option for the petitioner of erecting a standard sign without the EMC feature at this point with the potential of changing out the face of the sign to an EMC in the future if the updated Zoning Ordinance allows it. He stated that the Board needs to consider the current code standards regarding EMC placement at this point. Ms. Larson questioned if an amendment to the current Zoning Ordinance could be acted on now as some of the points brought up are legitimate and possibly small reader boards could be allowed with an amendment to the current code. Mr. Muehrer responded that an amendment could be made to the current code however it is a lengthy process and would not be done in a timely fashion. Mr. Carpenter discussed whether there is a justifiable hardship in this case as the existing sign may not be working for the church however is an EMC sign really a necessity. Board of Appeals Minutes 5 August 12, 2015 Mr. Cornell further discussed the upcoming changes to the Zoning Ordinance but stated that he cannot see how the Board could justify granting the variance for the EMC sign at this point. Once the new ordinance is adopted, regulations could change in the future that would allow it. Board discussion ensued regarding approval of the variance for the EMC and under what conditions as well as the procedures that would follow if the petitioner decided to appeal the Board’s decision and the options for approving the sign without the EMC feature. Motion denied 4-1. (Ayes-Penney. Nays-Carpenter/Cornell/Larson/Krasniewski) Findings of facts: Denial of the variance will not prevent the owner from using this property for its permitted purpose. In the absence of any physical limitations to the property, approval of this variance would allow a special use not enjoyed by other property owners in similar circumstances. Approval of this variance without hardships is contrary to the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and reflects the wishes of the property owner. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit a double-faced illuminated ground sign in the front yard setback. Seconded by Carpenter. As the motion was made and seconded without the inclusion of the condition that the existing ground mount sign is removed, the motion was withdrawn. Motion by Krasniewski to approve the request for a variance to permit a double-faced illuminated ground sign in the front yard setback with the following condition: 1) The existing “St. Raphael the Archangel Catholic Church” ground mount identification sign is removed. Seconded by Carpenter. Mr. Krasniewski discussed the distance from the parking lot to the property line as depicted on the site plan and stated that it appeared to be 35 feet which would allow for the sign to be placed with the appropriate setback without granting a variance. Mr. Slusarek responded that this would place the sign in the parking lot which would not be visible from the street. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of facts: The change from single-direction visibility to north/south visibility is a reasonable signage need. There is limited distance in the front yard for placement of a sign. The existing parking lot also restricts placement of a sign in accordance with setback regulations. Placement of this sign would be consistent with setbacks of other signs in the immediate area. Board of Appeals Minutes 6 August 12, 2015 ITEM II: 1126 S. KOELLER STREET Description Code Reference Required Proposed Total ground sign area 30-37(F)(2)(d)(ii)(cc) 1,600 sf 1,684 sf Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is located on the east side of S. Koeller Street and is zoned C-2 General Commercial District and is being used by multiple tenants for commercial retail purposes. The site is developed with two principal structures and 130,000 sf in retail space and the general area is predominately commercial in character. The applicants are proposing to install a 5’x10’ double-faced internally illuminated cabinet sign on an existing pylon structure which is needed for a new tenant however combined with the existing signage on the site will exceed the total signage allowed by the municipal code. The parcel’s size, multiple buildings, and identifications signs are creating a justifiable hardship and unique circumstances in this case. Properly identifying each of the tenants becomes challenging due to the sheer volume of establishments and is important for public safety due to the high traffic volumes on S. Koeller Street. The sign area restriction appears to be unnecessarily burdensome in this instance and by-right alternatives are not desirable due to the limited visibility and staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. Nick Lison, Jones Sign Company, 1711 Scheuring Road, DePere, stated that he agreed with how the item was presented in the staff report and had no additional comments to add. Mr. Carpenter commented that he visited the site and signs on the structure cannot be seen from the street. Mr. Krasniewski agreed and added that there is a multitude of various signs in the vicinity. Board discussion ensued regarding the number of tenants occupying this parcel and the need to identify their location. Motion by Carpenter to approve the request for a variance to permit more than 1,600 square feet of total ground signage at a commercial strip mall development. Seconded by Larson. Mr. Penney commented that he felt it was a safety issue as it was a heavy traffic area and retail identification was a necessity to avoid vehicular incidents. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of facts: Safety issue. No harm to public interest. Based on the existing conglomerate use of this property with multiple businesses, each with their own sign, and given the size of the property, a variance to allow a sign for the business is both reasonable and necessary. The existing circumstances of multiple businesses, each with their own signs, create a very real hardship for any new venture on this property. An on-premise sign is necessary for any business to attract customers. The sign will be on an existing pylon and will be in accordance with the commercial use of the property. Board of Appeals Minutes 7 August 12, 2015 ITEM III: 2795 KILLARNEY COURT Description Code Reference Required Proposed Rear Yard Setback 30-20(B)(4) 25’ minimum 18’ Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is located on the southeast corner of the Killarney Court and S. Oakwood Road intersection and is zoned R-3 Multiple Dwelling District and is being used for two-family dwelling purposes. The site is developed with a single-story two-unit condominium built in 2000 and the general area is predominately comprised of low- density residential uses. The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a 12’x12’ building addition to the principal structure for a four-season room in the rear yard and will intrude 7’ into the rear yard setback. There does not appear to be any degree of hardship present as the lot and principal structure are currently conforming and there are no geographic features prohibiting or directing development on the parcel. The stated hardship is based on personal preference and granting the variance in this instance would set a strong precedent and would run contrary to the zoning restriction and denial will not affect the dwelling principal use, therefore staff is recommending denial of the variance. Dan Krier, 206 E. River Drive, Omro, stated that several neighboring property owners have submitted letters indicating that they have no objections to granting the variance and he felt that there was a hardship as the property owner cannot utilize the southern exposure of the home. He further discussed that without the ability to construct the building addition for the four-season room requested, creating the additional ventilation desired to the existing structure would cause extensive remodeling to the home. He also discussed other properties in the area with similar situations which he felt were allowed to be built into the setback areas by designating the location as a side yard area rather than the rear yard. He felt this property owner should have the ability to consider the rear yard of their property as a side yard as well. Ms. Larson requested an explanation of what is considered the front and side yards in this instance. Mr. Muehrer reviewed the site and explained that since the house fronts Killarney Court, that the area proposed to contain the building addition is the rear yard and the portion of the property on Oakwood Road is considered the street (front) yard. Mr. Cornell stated that since this structure is a condominium, that the property owner should have some type of approval from the condominium association regarding their approval of this proposal to make alterations to the exterior of the structure. Mr. Krasniewski added that any condominiums have a specific set of rules or signed agreement relating to any structural alterations. James Geldmeyer, 2795 Killarney Court, stated he was the property owner requesting the variance and that he had submitted a written statement from the other owner of the condominium and that in this case they were the only two parties involved. He further explained that both property owners are responsible for their own maintenance as there was no official condo association as the condominium was comprised of just the two adjacent units. He commented that he was requesting the variance for the addition of a four-season room for health reasons and that the home did have an existing patio in the rear yard but it was too hot to be adequately utilized in summer. He gave further explanation of his health conditions and that he desired to utilize the four-season room to add more living space to the residence and make it more energy efficient and economical. He stated that he did not understand why the city would object to his proposed addition and they have adequate landscaping on the property to screen the structure from view and the other neighbors are Board of Appeals Minutes 8 August 12, 2015 not objecting to it and it would add tax revenue as it would increase the value of his property. He described it as a win/win situation for all involved. Mr. Penney questioned how long Mr. Geldmeyer has lived at this residence. Mr. Geldmeyer responded that they have resided there since 2000. Mr. Krasniewski inquired if he was aware of the property dimensions at the time he purchased the home. Mr. Geldmeyer responded that he did not know for sure and described improvements made to Oakwood Road since he purchased the property. Edward Huebner, 2793 Killarney Court, stated that he was the owner of the adjacent condominium and he had no objections to this variance and that he felt Mr. Geldmeyer should be able to do what he wants on his own property. He further explained that they do have a legal document for the condominiums and that they both have to agree on any exterior alterations. Mr. Carpenter discussed condominiums and the bylaws related to these types of associations as well as the state statutes that also regulate them. Mr. Muehrer commented that those statutes and regulations do not override the City’s Zoning Ordinance code standards. Mr. Krasniewski discussed the size of the existing structure and that it is already larger than the other unit of the condominium. Mr. Penney requested that the property owner explain how this addition was related to his health conditions. Mr. Geldmeyer indicated that the four-season room would provide more air from the east, west, and south side of the home as it would have windows on all elevations and that there was only a patio door in this location at this time. Mr. Cornell commented that the property owner was requesting the Board grant a variance based on personal preference and that the state does not allow this based on that criteria. Mr. Krier questioned if the fact that other properties are allowed to have this type of addition would matter as he has seen other residences that possess this feature. Mr. Cornell responded that the Board cannot consider precedence when determining granting a variance as they are only allowed to consider the individual property and the circumstances related to it. Mr. Geldmeyer discussed a patio on a neighboring property that he felt was very close to the lot line and questioned why they were allowed to have it in that location. Mr. Krasniewski responded that this request is not for a patio but a building addition and that the required setback from the lot line is only two feet for a patio, therefore the patio in question would not have required a variance in its existing location as it is a conforming structure under the City’s code standards. Board of Appeals Minutes 9 August 12, 2015 Mr. Muehrer confirmed this calculation and stated the required setback for a building addition was greater than the setback for a patio and provided details on the amount of setback required for each feature. Ms. Larson commented that she felt that granting this variance would set a precedent as it did not meet the required criteria that the Board has to consider. Mr. Muehrer agreed and explained that each variance request stands by its own merit and property circumstances have to be unique to itself and the Board cannot consider other properties when making their determination. He further stated that this was a conforming lot and that the Board would have a very narrow window to consider approval of the variance requested in this case. Mr. Penney stated that it appeared that the home has both windows and doors fronting Oakwood Road and questioned if they did not provide adequate ventilation. Mr. Geldmeyer responded that he felt he could have ventilation from all three sides with more cross ventilation with the four-season room proposed and he would also have the advantage of the UV rays from the sun in winter time. Mr. Penney questioned if the residence had central air conditioning. Mr. Geldmeyer responded affirmatively. Mr. Krasniewski questioned if there was no step down from the patio to the outside now or if this would change with the proposed addition. Mr. Geldmeyer indicated that there was a step down and this aspect of the home would not change with the proposed alteration. Ms. Larson questioned if the home was currently a conforming structure but the square footage exceeded the maximum allowed. Mr. Muehrer replied that the dimensions and area of the subject parcel and principal structure are all currently conforming as far as code standards. Motion by Larson to approve the request for a variance to permit a 12’x12’ building addition in the rear yard setback. Seconded by Penney. Mr. Penney stated that there was nothing the Board could do in this case in regard to granting a variance as there is no way to support that it is a hardship and it is the property owner’s personal preference. Mr. Krasniewski commented that the petitioner has lived there for a number of years and not granting the variance request would not prevent the owner from using the property for its permitted purpose. He further commented that the home has adequate yard area and the variance would continue with the property after the current owner no longer resides there. Motion denied 5-0. Board of Appeals Minutes 10 August 12, 2015 Finding of facts: No unique situation. Variance is for owner’s personal preference. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. (Carpenter/Larson). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator