Back in September on 09/18/2023, the Board of Zoning Appeals met and took up two variance requests for a proposed sign on the ThedaCare/Encircle property.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:
Encircle had two signs along Highway 41, but with the Highway 41 expansion project, those signs would potentially be non-compliant with required setbacks and could also possibility inhibit construction on the expansion. As a result, ThedaCare wanted to tear down the two existing signs and replace it with one larger sign that incorporated an electronic message board (EMB) component on which they could list the names of the different entities that were located on the ThedaCare/Encircle campus as well as post messages about health care events and issues.
The proposed sign itself was 592 square feet in size, but city code limits ground signs along Highway 41 to no more than 200 square feet in size. Additionally, the proposed electronic message board component of the sign was 280 square feet in size, but city code limits electronic message boards to no more that 48 square feet.
The Board of Zoning appeals ended up voting to grant the variance allowing ThedaCare to install a sign that was 392 square feet larger than the maximum allowed size of a sign. Their reasoning was that ThedaCare had, in the past, been granted variances allowing it to have 2 signs along the freeway that were larger than the allowed limit. Both of those signs were around 300 square feet in size. Now, through circumstances outside of its control ThedaCare was going to have to tear down those signs, so it seemed reasonable to grant them a variance that would allow them to install one sign that was approximately the same total square footage as the combined total square footage of the two signs that were being taken down.
The board did not, however, grant the variance request to allow an electronic message board component that was 232 square feet larger than the maximum allowed size of EMBs. All but one member of the vote against the variance. The general reasoning was that the Municipal Code was very clear regarding the maximum allowed size for EMBs and there did not seem to be a hardship that would warrant overruling that maximum. While the need for a the full sign itself to be larger was apparent given how far back from the freeway it was going to have to be placed, the message board component did not seem necessary to the overall sign and, in fact, seemed more like an advertising component than pure signage. The board members felt if ThedaCare wanted to have a sign that listed the four entities that were located on that campus, there was room to do so on a static, non-electronic sign and there was no particular need for those names to be listed on a changing electronic sign. Additionally, they understood the purpose of the 48 square foot limitation on electronic signs to be to reduce distractions to drivers, and they did not a hardship that would warrant allowing a variance to create a sign that would be in direct contravention of the underlying purpose of the city code.
Board member Kevin Loosen did, however, cast the sole vote in favor of granting the variance for the larger EMB because he thought that the smaller board would not be very visible from the freeway.
The representative from the sign company managing the project for ThedaCare asked if there was some size of EMB that would be greater that 48 square feet but less than the 280 square feet that they had proposed which might be acceptable to the Board of Zoning Appeals, but he was told that the board does not issue advisory opinions and could only consider a variance request when it was brought before them.
This was not the first variance for an oversized electronic message board sign that the board has denied. Back in October of 2021, the Orthopedic and Sports Institute of the Fox Valley requested a variance to install a 694 square foot electronic sign outside of their building. They had many understandable reasons why, from a marketing and visibility standpoint such a sign would make more sense than the size of sign allowed by city code. Unfortunately, what they were requesting was just too large and too at odds with the underlying purpose of the municipal code pertaining to sign size than the board voted the request down. [It would seem to me that if businesses want to be able to install larger electronic signs, they are going to have to get the Common Council to change the municipal code regarding this issue, because the Board of Zoning Appeals has seemed unwilling to grant variances for this section of code.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1119177&GUID=6148178E-4853-407B-A060-65F25A996E03
Be the first to reply