Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Board of Appeals Minutes 1 July 12, 2017 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES July 12, 2017 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Robert Krasniewski, Dennis Penney, Tom Willadsen EXCUSED: Kathryn Larson STAFF: Brian Slusarek, Assistant Planner; Katie Breselow, 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 June 14, 2017 were approved as presented. (Krasniewski/Penney) ITEM I: 1206 Ontario Street Amber Perrington: Signarama - petitioner requests the following variance to permit an electronic message board sign within 100 feet of parcels within a residential zoning district: Description Code Reference Required Proposed EMC distance from residential parcels 30-280(A)(7) 100’ minimum Less than 100’ Mr. Slusarek presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He described the subject 0.91 acre property as located on the northeast corner of Ontario Street and New York Avenue. It is zoned I- Institutional District and being used for institutional purposes. The parcel is bordered by residential uses in all directions as well a commercial use to the west. The applicant is proposing to remove the changeable copy cabinet on an existing monument sign and replace it with a 25’’ X 78” two sided electronic message board for Bethlehem Lutheran Church. A variance is required as the proposed electronic message board will be within 100 feet of parcels within a residential zoning district. According to the applicant, the purpose of the proposal for the electronic message board is to give the church a new, refreshed look, raise the property value, and draw more patrons to the church. The intent of prohibiting electronic message boards within 100 feet of residentially-zoned properties is to protect surrounding dwellings from adverse visual impacts tied to illuminated displays. In this instance, the electronic message board may result in harm to the public interest due to the location of the sign and its proximity to residential properties. Overall, there is no evidence of property-related hardship unique to this lot that would necessitate an electronic message board variance. Based on the information provided within this report, staff recommends denial of the variance as requested to permit the display of an electronic message board within 100 feet of parcels within a residential zoning district. Amber Perrington, N5528 Miranda Way, Fond Du Lac WI 54937. Pastor Paul Lidtke, 1227 Wisconsin Ave, Oshkosh WI 54901. Ms. Perrington stated that Mr. Lidtke did go around to the parcels explaining what they would like to do and got three out of the five to agree and sign a form. Mr. Lidtke did mention to her that the neighbors thought it was a great idea that the sign could be dimmed. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 July 12, 2017 Mr. Lidtke stated that he did get three out of the five but was unable to contact the other two residents. He mentioned that the neighbors he talked to had basic questions regarding the sign and also that a year ago was the first complaint that they had received regarding the current sign and its lighting. Eight years ago the church tried to change the sign but were unable to due to the ordinance. Now that the ordinance has changed they thought it would be a good time to try and change the sign so it could have the ability to dim. Mr. Cornell asked on page 5 which owners were okay with the sign. Mr. Lidtke responded 604, 613, and 700 New York. Ms. Perrington stated that they would be reviving the sign as a whole and making it very effective for the customer. Mr. Lidtke stated that the challenge for the congregation was as it gets older they have less volunteers and it is harder to update the sign, especially in winter. It takes roughly an hour to update the sign each time and weather permitting possibly longer. Updating the sign would help to inform members and potential new members as to when to meet, what they do there, and what they offer in an easier fashion. Mr. Carpenter asked why the current sign cannot be dimmed. Ms. Perrington answered that currently there are florescent bulbs being used and it is expensive to replace them. Mr. Lidtke answered that the sign has been there for 13 years and only one complaint has been made, stating that what they are asking for allows much more ability to dim. Mr. Carpenter asked if they had looked into the cost and how much it would be to update the lights in it. Mr. Lidtke responded negatively. Mr. Willadsen asked what the effect of the zoning designation from switching from R to I would be. Mr. Slusarek answered the property was previously residential, now institutional. Institutional does allow for electronic message boards, but residential does not. Mr. Willadsen asked about the distance for the sign. Mr. Slusarek responded that the distance applies to all electronic message boards. Mr. Cornell stated that he spent three years rewriting Zoning Chapter 30, one of the things they worked on was identifying schools, churches, etc. as being Institutional because a concern was the signage and that is why it was established that the sign be 100 foot max/min. Mr. Penney reaffirmed that the petitioner was only replacing the existing sign and not removing it. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 July 12, 2017 Ms. Perrington answered that they were not moving it, only replacing the bottom half of the sign. The top would still stay. Mr. Penney asked how long the sign had been there. Mr. Lidtke responded that since the church was built in 1957. Mr. Krasniewski asked what hardship would apply to the property if the variance was not allowed for the EMC sign. Mr. Lidtke answered that the property itself would not have a hardship although he looked at things on a bigger scale and was looking at the community also. Mr. Krasniewski asked how it would raise the property value if allowed. Ms. Perrington answered that if in the future a business were to go in there they would be able to use the sign as well if it were to be changed to an EMC sign. Mr. Krasniewski asked Mr. Slusarek if after it is no longer an institutional use if the zoning would change if the church was sold. Mr. Slusarek checked the zoning code and answered that it would depend on the allowable use, and what business was going to occupy the property. Mr. Krasniewski asked if the zoning could be changed. Mr. Slusarek answered that they would need to apply for a rezone at that time but it is possible. Mr. Cornell reiterated and asked if the church is sold and a business were to go in there, it would no longer be zoned institutional. Mr. Slusarek responded that it would still be zoned institutional unless they applied for a rezone. Mr. Penney referred to page 9 and asked if only the bottom portion of the sign is being changed couldn’t it be considered a repair. Mr. Krasniewski responded that an EMC was not allowed in a residential area even if they only change the bottom portion. Mr. Penney reiterated that the top portion of the sign was not changing at all and only the bottom portion was changed to EMC. Ms. Perrington confirmed that the top was only getting a new coat of paint and the bottom would be the major change. Mr. Cornell stated that the only difference between the new and old sign is that it would not need to be changed by hand. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 July 12, 2017 Mr. Willadsen asked to see the letters from the neighbors. Mr. Lidtke stated that he wrote out the letters and asked the neighbors to sign them. Mr. Krasniewski stated that the letters need to be put into record. Mr. Penney stated that if the worry is about setting precedence, he believes that it would only be that if they were putting in an entirely new sign and didn’t obey the 100 foot rule. Mr. Krasniewski responded to Mr. Penney stating that the code is to all EMC not just that area. Mr. Penney stated he understood and stated that he believes it is comparing apples to oranges. Ms. Perrington stated that now that the church is rezoned institutional, she respects the 100 foot mark and they are very close to that. She hates for the church to be rezoned with this opportunity and not be able to use it. Mr. Lidtke stated that after speaking with the neighbors in the 100 foot area he feels the neighbors are in favor and it would be a real positive. Mark Madison, 619 W. New York Ave, Oshkosh WI 54901. Stated that he has been a neighbor to the church for 25 years now and has not had any problems other than sometimes he is parked in. He does know of a family that currently has issues with the sign and the lighting that was mentioned previously. He would appreciate a sign that does dim but he asked what time would it dim and would it flash. He came to oppose the sign as he does not see how it would have any value or how it would help the community. He does not see how a variance is going to help them. There are many churches in the area that need to be changed by hand and wishes the church could find someone younger and able to change the sign. He mentioned that one of the neighbors that signed the form Mr. Lidtke went around with actually goes to church there and should not be considered. He didn’t believe that the sign is going to help the church gain more patrons either. Then asked if the petitioner would gain money from the sign. Mr. Cornell reminded Mr. Madison that he needs to address the board and not the applicant and that money is not of any concern for the variance. Mr. Penney motioned to approve an electronic message board sign within 100 feet of parcels within a residential zoning district. Motion seconded by Mr. Carpenter Mr. Carpenter stated that the board has seen many of these types of proposals for signs. The proximity of the houses in the neighborhood seems to be the issue and this neighborhood has a lot of houses nearby that will be effected by the sign. Mr. Penney responded that the neighborhood is already effected by the light of the sign. Mr. Carpenter questioned if perhaps that needed to be addressed. Board of Appeals Minutes 5 July 12, 2017 Mr. Krasniewski stated that if the lighting is an issue it can be addressed through the ordinance. Mr. Slusarek confirmed that there is a lighting ordinance that states how far a light can reach and if brought to attention will be looked at. Mr. Penney stated that he does not believe there is a hardship in this case. Mr. Cornell responded that it will be the same sign and same message, just electronic now, but there is the ordinance that it cannot be within 100 feet of residential area. Mr. Willadsen stated that the ordinance is pretty clear in this situation. Mr. Penney referenced a sign for another church across town. Mr. Krasniewski confirmed he was referencing St. Raphael’s and that sign is surrounded by institutional uses not residential. Mr. Penney asked that the ordinance addresses a sign within 100 feet of a residential area, but does it address if the sign is already existing if things then change. Mr. Krasniewski referenced the zoning code stating exactly what it says about residential and institutional electronic signs. Mr. Carpenter asked if Mr. Slusarek had looked at the current level of light. Mr. Slusarek said he did not but if they receive a request that they would go look at it. Denied 5-0. Findings of facts: No hardship as defined by the board. It would be contrary to the ordinance and would set a precedence going forward. Mr. Cornell mentioned in other business that per the City Manager there will be a survey sent out to all board members on all boards in regards to the Boards and Commissions. It will ask a series of questions relating to the future of these Boards and Commissions, potentially combing and eliminating some. The Board of Appeals is a board that cannot be eliminated he stressed, and to please fill it out and return it. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:12 p.m. (Willadsen/Krasniewski). Respectfully submitted, Brian Slusarek Assistant Planner