The Board of Zoning Appeals met 11/21/2022. It was a pretty straightforward meeting in which Valley Packaging Inc was asking for a variance to install a second ground sign on their property even though city code 23-522(a) only allows one ground sign per parcel. The Board ended up voting 4-0 to grant the variance.
I’ve prepared a full transcript of the meeting for your downloading pleasure.
Although nobody from Valley Packaging Inc itself appeared at the meeting, Eric Cates from Appleton Sign did come as their representative because he was working with Valley Packaging Inc to install the new signs. Although he was able to competently answer all sign-specific questions, he did not have full knowledge of Valley Packaging’s plans for traffic control and was not able to answer those questions as clearly as might have been desired, but that did not ultimately prevent the board from voting in favor of the variance.
The basic reason for wanting to install a second sign was that Valley Packaging had opened a new business inside their building called The Hub. Because of this new business, they needed to update their signs and make sure traffic was directed properly. They have two driveways so wanted to use one for trucks and buses and the other for Valley Packaging employees and visitors to The Hub. Separating pedestrians from large vehicle traffic would improve safety. I’ve added some annotations on the map/diagram the Board of Zoning Appeals was provided to more clearly show where the proposed signs are and which driveway is which.
The property actually already has two ground signs installed, one of which is old and will be replaced with a newer sign. This was because the property has two mailing addresses so they thought each mailing address could have its own sign and only found out after the fact that, regardless of the two mailing addresses, the entire property was only one parcel.
Due to the layout of the driveways, it didn’t seem feasible to install only one large with arrows telling drivers where to go. Particularly if a truck driver was approaching from the south, they might pass the driveway they were supposed to enter before they ever saw such a sign.
Board member Scott Engstrom ended up making a motion to approve the variance in light of the impact on drivers of not having a second sign. He also believed two signs would benefit the flow of traffic and would be in keeping with the spirit of the municipal code.
Section 23-522(a) of the municipal code was the applicable code which limited the property two only 1 ground sign. After some brief discussion, Mr. Engstrom ended up amending his motion to clarify that the variance for this property would allow two ground signs subject to the conditions in Section 23-522(b) of the municipal code which, for properties with two signs, limits the maximum size of those signs to one primary sign no larger than 118 square feet and one secondary sign no more than 32 square feet in size.
That restriction was not going to impact Valley Packaging’s plans because one sign was only 30 square feet and the other was going to be well below the 118 square foot maximum for the primary sign.
The board proceeded to vote 4-0 to approve the variance request, [and I’m sure that upon that vote, the entirety of Appleton breathed a sigh of relief that Valley Packaging is now able to legally install a second ground sign.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1051225&GUID=B5BA21FE-A96D-4CFA-BFDC-57328E0BB1A5
Be the first to reply