Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Board of Appeals Minutes 1 September 13, 2017 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES September 13, 2017 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Robert Krasniewski, Dennis Penney, Tom Willadsen, Kathryn Larson STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Zoning Administrator; Andrea Flanigan, 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 August 9, 2017 were approved as presented. (Larson/Krasniewski) ITEM I: 2150 S. WASHBURN STREET Riviera Ventures LLC–owner & David Juedes-petitioner request the following variance to permit a new freestanding monument sign in the minimum front yard (west) setback: Description Code Reference Minimum Proposed Front Setback (west) 30-52(G) 25’ 13’6” Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. The subject 2.74 acre (approximately 119,354 square feet) property is located on the east side of South Washburn Street. It is zoned Suburban Mixed Use and used for commercial purposes. The parcel is bordered by a commercial use to the north; vacant land/storm easement to the south; an industrial use on the west; and infrastructure (i.e. Interstate 41) to the east. The applicant is proposing to install a new permanent freestanding monument sign in the west front yard setback along S. Washburn Street. A variance is requested as the proposed sign will intrude 11’6” on the required west front setback. While it is understandable the owner/petitioner wants to capture as many vehicles as possible for advertising purposes there are no physical property circumstances creating a hardship with this request. Granting the variance in this instance will be contrary to the ordinance’s purpose and establish a strong precedent for future requests in the vicinity. Based on the information provided, denial of the variance as requested is recommended. David Juedes, 3762 Candlish Harbor Lane Oshkosh. Attorney John Schuster, 2214 Omro Road Oshkosh. Rebecca Koleman, 2431 Minerva Street Oshkosh. Mr. Schuster handed out pictures that were not included in the staff report. (Obtained for the record) He referenced the first page for the sign design stating that it is a beautiful sign for the neighborhood. He then stated that Fox World Travel will be building a training center there and will serve for 2150 and 2130 S. Washburn Street. He stated that there are no direct neighbors as there is a cemetery and storm easements on both sides. Issues that may arise from moving the sign are that the company would lose up to five parking spaces along with visibility. Stating that on page two of the pictures given it shows how much Board of Appeals Minutes 2 September 13, 2017 green space is available for the sign placement and there would be no safety issue with moving the sign into the setback area. Mr. Krasniewski clarified that there was a four foot difference not three foot. Mr. Juedes stated that they are trying to place the sign in front of the existing parking lot. Mr. Krasniewski asked the dimension from the parking lot to the road, as it looked more than 25 feet. Mr. Juedes replied that it is 40 feet. Mr. Penney asked what the 27 foot horizontal mark was referring to. Mr. Muehrer responded to a highway sign. Mr. Krasniewski asked if the site was the southern most of the two properties. Mr. Schuster replied affirmatively. Then stated that what they are not doing is putting it so close to the road that there would be any traffic concern. Also that further down the street there is a daycare with a sign close to the road as an example to refer to in regards to being too close to the road. He is unsure if that sign got a variance for the location. Ms. Larson asked if those signs Mr. Schuster were referring to were directional signs. Mr. Muehrer answered that they are direction signs and they were approved by code previously. Mr. Krasniewski stated that with all the measurements they still have plenty of room without needing to remove parking stalls. Mr. Juedes answered that the grass area is not really the starting setback. Mr. Krasniewski responded that they should have 11 feet to put up the sign, giving plenty of room. Mr. Schuster replied that they view it as vacant green space and their preference of location. Mr. Cornell stated that the Board has to look if there is a hardship unique to the property and in this case he does not see the hardship, as discussed there is plenty of room. Mr. Krasniewski asked why they wouldn’t put the sign between the two properties making it more visible. Mr. Carpenter mentioned that they had a previous item that wanted a sign on the corner and the Board did not allow that variance either. Mr. Juedes stated that they are calculating the setback differently than they did. Mr. Krasniewski replied that they can only go with information they are given and it appears accurate. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 September 13, 2017 Mr. Schuster directed a question to Mr. Muehrer asking him where the staff came up with their recommendation. Mr. Muehrer responded that they went with the fact that there are other alternatives to the sign location that do not need variance and then asked the petitioner how they determined they would lose five stalls. Mr. Schuster responded that if one were to park an SUV right next to the sign that one would not see the sign. Mr. Muehrer responded that he and the sign contractor did discuss raising the sign or moving it to another location and ultimately this is the decision they made for the location where there are other alternatives that would be approved by code. Mr. Krasniewski replied that they can only work with the information given. Mr. Muehrer mentioned that there was a staff turnover for the applicant and perhaps that is why the measurements are different. Mr. Krasniewski moved to approve a new freestanding monument sign in the minimum front yard (west) setback. Motion seconded by Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Krasniewski stated that there is no issue as the sign can be put up without a variance needed. Mr. Carpenter replied that he believes the variance lacks hardship and precedent. Mr. Cornell stated he understands the need to advertise the business but there is no hardship to grant this variance. Denied 5-0. Findings of facts: There are no physical property circumstances creating a hardship. Practical alternatives are present to modify the sign that would be visible for business purposes while meeting the safety and regulatory intent of the ordinance standards. Granting the variance i will be contrary to the ordinance’s purpose and establish a strong precedent for future requests in the vicinity. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m. (Krasniewski/Carpenter). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Zoning Administrator