The Board of Zoning Appeals met 05/20/2024. One of the variances they took up was a requestion from the developers of the Fox Common’s Development to install multiple wall signs along the College Avenue side of the building that had a cumulative size of 581 square feet even though the municipal code limits the size of wall signs to no more than 350 square feet total.
Of note was the fact that the municipal code also limited the size of wall signs to no more than 35% of each wall, but the building was so large that even 581 square feet of signage would only take up 1.52% of the total surface area.
The board ended up voting to approve the variance request, noting that their intention in approving it was not to allow a future owner of the building to come in and install one large sign of 581 square feet and that they would be relying on the sign permitting process to prevent that going forward.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:
The variance request was fairly straightforward. The Fox Commons/City Center building is a large building taking up nearly two city blocks. Additionally, as part of the development agreement with the city, the developers were required to maintain all existing entrances. The façade was also designed to give the appearance of the building being made up of six smaller buildings so that it blended into the rest of downtown.
The developers wanted to be able to put signs on each of the different façade areas, and if those façade areas had actually been individual buildings none of the proposed signs would be over the limits set out in the Municipal Code. The developers believed it was essential to be able to provide appropriate signage for all of their tenants, and if they could not provide that visibility to their tenants, then they would have difficulty selling that space.
The board was amendable to this request. The one concern they had was that approving the variance would open up the possibility for a future building owner to install one large sign of 581 square feet which was not the desire or intention of the board in approving the variance. They discussed methods for preventing this while still providing flexibility to the developers to make changes to their current proposed design and accommodate changing tenants.
Inspections Supervisor Kurt Craanen suggested that the sign application process might help provide that oversight. When people want to install a sign, they have to apply for a permit. Typically, building owners would install a sign cabinet of some sort that could have the tenant details switched out as tenants came and went. If an owner wanted to change the size or location of a sign cabinet a new permit would be required.
The board ended up voting unanimously the approve the variance request with the expectation that the design renderings included in the variance request would be utilized as a reference to the intent of the request even if the specific sizes of the individual signs might change slightly.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1191899&GUID=D427C620-E4F2-4434-9C67-2C2B0CC3D3DF
Be the first to reply