Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES August 8,2018 PRESENT: Robert Cornell,Robert Krasniewski,Kathryn Larson,Wesley Kottke EXCUSED: Dennis Penney STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Zoning Administrator;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. Mr. Cornell opened the floor for nominations for Chairperson. Motion by Mr. Krasniezvski to nominate Mr. Cornell. Seconded by Ms.Larson. As there were no additional nominations for Chairperson, the floor was closed for nominations. Motion carried 3-0-1. (Mr. Corbell abstained) Mr. Cornell opened the floor for nominations for Vice-Chairperson. He noted that Mr. Penney, excused from the meeting,would not be seeking re-election. Motion by Ms. Larson to nominate Mr. Krasniezvski. Seconded by Mr. CorneII. As there were no additional nominations for Vice-Chairperson, the floor was closed for nominations. Motion carried 3-0-1. (Mr.Krasniezvski abstained) The minutes of May 9,2018 were approved as presented. (Kottke/Krasniewski) ITEM I: 1755 W 7Tn AV'ENUI River Valley One LLC/Excel Properties LLC-owner and John I. Davids-petitioner requests the following variance to permit an altered pylon sign to exceed the 30' maximum pylon sign height standard: Description Code Reference Required Proposed Max Pylon Sign Height 30-312(C) 30' max 60' Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. The subject .44 acre property is zoned Suburban Mixed Use (SMU). The irregular-shaped corner lot is located southeast of the W. Th Avenue and S. Koeller Street intersection. Vehicular access to the parcel occurs via a curb cut located on W. 711, Avenue.Adjacent land uses to the subject parcel include commercial in all directions except the north, which is an institutional use. The parcel obtained a building permit in 2002 to construct a 60' tall illuminated pylon sign for a commercial retail tenant located on the west side of the property fronting S. Koeller Street. The zoning ordinance by-right permitted signs up to 60' in maximum height in 2002 because the parcel was located in the Highway 41 Overlay Zoning District. The zoning ordinance standards and map changed January 1, 2017 following multiple Board of Appeals Minutes 1 August 8,2018 workshops, review and input by the Zoning Ordinance Re-write Steering Committee, Plan Commission and Common Council. The applicants are proposing to alter the existing 60' high nonconforming sign by removing the top cabinet and replacing it with a new cabinet for a proposed new business. The location of the sign would not change and would continue to front S. Koeller Street. The zoning ordinance states that nonconforming signs proposed to be altered need to then meet compliance. Current code standard permits pylon signs to be a maximum of 30' high in this district and location. A variance is requested to maintain the 60' overall height. While it is understandable the proposed business would want to retain the existing 60' high sign to capture visibility for clients and advertising purposes, there are no physical property hardships creating unnecessarily burdensome circumstances in this instance. Instead, the request is based on financial and franchisor circumstances.The zoning ordinance specifically addresses nonconforming sign height and how to address those requests to bring appropriate scale to signs and property as alterations are proposed. Additionally, the previous community standard of allowing 60' high signs was rejected when the current sign standards where adopted in 2017 to reflect the desired standard of 30' high pylons. Ignoring both of these facts would result in harm to the public interest if the variance request were to be granted. Baked on the information provided within this report, staff recommends denial of the variance as requested. Mr. Muehrer then stated that there was communication outside of the Board meeting via email that is considered Ex Parte Communication. Per hearing requirements all members must hear the same information at the same time. Mr. Muehrer then asked if the board received an email from the property owner Andy Dumke, all members responded they received it. Mr. Muehrer then read the email into record along with the deed. He then asked if the board members received an email from GO-EDC (Greater Oshkosh Economic Development Corporation), all members responded they received it. Mr. Muehrer then read the email into record. A letter from the Chamber of Commerce was also received via email to the Planning Director Darryn Burich, Mr. Muehrer read that into record, no Board members had received the email previously. A letter from Ann Froekle and Mr./Ms. Suhm was received via mail, Mr. Muehrer read that into record. Mr. Cornell informed the audience and board members that the Board of Appeals is regulated by the State of Wisconsin and are unable to discuss any items outside of the board hearing. All members need to receive the information and come to their own opinion on the matter at the same time at the meeting. Julie Davids, 1560 Arboretum Drive, Oshkosh WI. John Davids, 1560 Arboretum Drive, Oshkosh WI. Mr. Davids started by handing out flyers and brochures about the company. (These items were obtained for the record.)He then asked Julie to explain about the company and how it started. Ms. Davids stated that in 2009 she was given a medical diagnosis where she was unable to care for her family. Her husband was traveling for work and they had two small children. Her mother had to move in and help her meal prep, take care of their children, go to and from the doctors, and more. Then her grandfather insisted on living alone with Alzheimer's and ended up falling in his home and did not remember he had his life alert on which resulted in him living in a nursing home for the last three years of his life. These instances pushed their family towards wanting to open a business to help individuals live in their home with assistance. Mr. Davids handed out photos of their proposed location along with the emails that the board previously received off the record. (These items were obtained for the record.) He stated that when looking at companies to work for that there were five they were looking at. They choose the one that closest resembled their mission and goal. After three years in business they have won many awards and Julie is their inspiration for the care given. He went on to discuss the hardship and why they were asking for the variance. He stated that essentially their hardship is the landscaping trees in the roundabout. If they have to reduce the sign down to a 30 foot sign, it Board of Appeals Minutes 2 August 8,2018 will not be visible. He referenced the first photo in his packet and stated that if someone was traveling south the photo represents what someone would see. Referencing photo two he stated the top photo shows the sign just over the roofline and the bottom photo is around the curve and one can get a glimpse of the "Red Robin" sign. Referencing photo three he stated traveling west one could see the "CVS" sign barely through the trees and that sign is the same in height, if it were reduced it would not be viewable either. Referencing photo four, he stated was the view from the round-about going north and what one would see. He stated their business currently employs 80 caregivers and six office staff. They are growing out of their office space now and need a new space. Their franchise requires them to be in a high traffic location and if they are unable to get the variance may need to move out of the area. Mr. Krasniewski asked if Mr. Davids knows why the landscaping in the round-about is located where it is. Mr. Davids responded so that drivers were not concerned with traffic across the way. Mr. Krasniewski answered that it was a safety factor for slower traffic in the round-about. Mr. Davids stated his understanding but that it is a hardship for his potential business location. Mr. Krasniewski mentioned that the sign is facing the wrong way, that if it was moved 90 degrees it would be more visible.He then asked if Mr.Davids looked into the sign height versus the Highway 41 intersection. Mr.Davids answered he did not. Mr. Krasniewski stated that there are exceptions for signs and measurements from the centerline in the highway, he asked if that was investigated. Mr. Davids responded affirmatively and mentioned a request for a zone change. Mr. Krasniewski stated that he was not referring to that, there is a rule with the highway for signage. Mr. Davids stated he is well beyond the 300 yards for the rule Mr. Krasniewski is referring to. Mr.Larson stated that if she was driving down Highway 41 looking for "Red Robin vs Applebee's" she could see the need for a sign to be that tall, she then asked why a sign is important for their business as people are not likely to drive up and down the highway looking for that type of business. Mr. Davids answered that they had two people in the past week walk in and they were in "Walgreens" and saw their sign. He stated that foot traffic is not as high but very important to their business. The sign helps build credibility and helps people find their location. if they reduce their sign height they will not be located as easily. Mr. Kottke asked if an individual could see the sign when going through the roundabout. Mr. Davids confirmed one would see the sign at some point. Mr. Krasniewski stated that Mr.Davids references other non-conforming signs in the area. Mr. Krasniewski then stated that all the signs are legal non-conforming but with the new ordinance will be addressed at some point and all brought down to the same height. Mr.Davids responded unless they have a hardship. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 August 8,2018 Mr. Krasniewski stated that finances cannot be looked at as a hardship. Mr. Davids responded their hardship is the landscaping specifically for their property. Mr. Kottke stated that looking at the photos the petitioner gave them wouldn't other businesses he mentioned have the same hardship. Mr. Cornell commented that he understood the advertising issues although he currently is using "Preferred Home Healthcare" and the building that company is using has no sign at all and they receive ample amounts of business. He has a struggle with the importance of the sign and height being an issue. Mr. Davids responded that they need to be easy to find for caregivers to locate them and also their franchise owner states they need visibility.The number one way to succeed in the business is to have caregivers. Mr.Krasniewski stated that their hardship was then economical. Mr.Davids replied that their hardship was the landscaping. Mr.Krasniewski asked if perhaps the petitioner should then be asking the City to remove the landscaping. Ms. Davids stated she believed the hardship would be the community needs their type of business and to do so caregivers need to be able to see their sign and be visual in the community. Caregivers are needed to give the care to people and they do not apply online, they typically do at the agency and look for signs. Mr. Davids stated that if his franchise owner said he couldn't go there and wouldn't let them it would be an economic hardship and not the boards issue and created by themselves. Although the hardship in their case is the landscaping that is preventing individuals from seeing the sign which is what is unique to the property. Mr. Kottke asked if there was any point in time when someone entered the roundabout that they would not see the sign. Mr.Davids replied that once entering the roundabout they would see the sign at some point. Andy Dumke, 2060 Menominee Drive Oshkosh WI, property owner stated that he apologized for the email, he was unaware he could not do that. He said his intention when buying the property was to lease the property not sell it as he could make more money that way as he didn't necessarily want to buy the property to begin with. He bought the property and had a deed restriction added for the type of business that could buy the property. When the petitioner came to him and asked to buy the property he heard their story and agreed with them. Referring to the neighbors that disagree with the variance, he asked if they were informed of the ramifications to what would happen if the sign stayed that way or he leased it out with a company that could use that sign. Then he mentioned he wrestled with the idea of keeping the restriction on the deed as the property has very limited parking and he knows that a national chain will not occupy the property with a 30 foot sign. He currently is in favor of the petitioner's variance. Mr. Krasriiewski motioned to approve a inonunient sign to exceed the rnaxinnrni pylon sign faeight. Seconded by Mr. Kottke. Board of Appeals Minutes 4 August 8,2018 Ms. Larson stated that she understood and sympathized with the petitioner but it goes against the ordinance and all the work that has been done on it. Mr. Kottke stated that it is a great company that would be great for the community but due to the ordinance he felt as though the board's hands were tied in the matter. He stated the board has to take their feelings out and go with what the requirements are. Mr. Krasniewski stated that there is a reason why the ordinance was changed but eventually all the signs in the area will be brought down to the 30 foot requirement. He did have sympathy also for the petitioner but felt there was nothing the board could do but there are other options. Mr. Cornell stated there were other options and as he spent the last three years helping to rewrite the ordinance he has a better understanding of why the ordinance was made. Both sides see emotion as he is experiencing the need for their business but it comes down to there are other options. Mr. Muehrer mentioned from a procedure standpoint that Mr. Davids was approached by staff of other alternatives rather than the Board of Appeals because as Mr. Du r ke mentioned there are site limitations: substandard parking, building proximity to the property lines, etc. There have been other variances requested in the past that were denied and then other alternatives were taken and the goal was met. Given the administrative powers of the board that is why the staff came up with their recommendation on the variance. Deniers 4-0. Findings of facts: There is no hardship unique to this property for the granting of the variance. Requirements of the franchise cannot be used as the basis for the granting of the variance. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m. (Larson/Kottke). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 5 August 8,2018