Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Moss Ruedinger, Edward Wilusz, and Larry Lang, Vice Chairman EXCUSED: Robert Cornell, Dennis Penney, and Cheryl Hentz, Chairman STAFF: David Buck, Associate Planner, and Patty LaCombe, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Lang. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Motion by Mr. Wilusz to lay over the minutes from August 24, 2005 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ruedinger. Unanimous. Motion by Mr. Wilusz for approval of the September 14, 2005 minutes. Seconded by Mr. Carpenter. Unanimous. I: 108 West New York Avenue The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a second changeable copy ground sign at Merrill Elementary School with greater signage area than is allowed by code. Section 30-37 (F)(1)(a) and Section 30-37 (F)(1)(c) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code limit both identity signage and changeable copy signage (a.k.a. bulletin boards) to one of each type per site and to a maximum signage area. Mr. Mr. Buck introduced the item and explained the history of the site, which is unique as it was formerly one school and now is occupied by three schools. The zoning code for the City of Oshkosh was designed to address school sites as one entity. The Oshkosh Municipal Code does allow two ground signs per school site, one identity ground sign of 50 sq. ft. and one changeable copy/bulletin board sign of 24 sq. ft. with setback and height limitations. Currently there are four ground signs on the site (two identity signs for the elementary school, one changeable copy sign for the middle school and one identity sign for the middle school) exceeding the maximum allowed number of two. There are also two awning signs on the entrances for the elementary and middle school. In 2001 the middle school received a variance for a changeable copy sign to go up at 32 sq. ft., our records don’t show any other permits issued on site for any other signage. Mr. Buck also stated during a field inspection they discovered numerous violations ranging from dumpsters not being screened, unscreened mechanical equipment, parking and playground equipment within the setback area and lack of any transitional yard screening for parking. They did meet with the school district to discuss a lot of the issues on the site and the ability to get a planned development into effect. Mr. Buck also stated that ALPS Charter and Merrill Elementary schools are under a time constraint, they received a grant to put up the sign before realizing that they needed a permit or that it was exceeding the maximum allowable number and maximum allowable area. Mr. Buck also stated the school district feels the site should be looked at as one entity and that even though there are three different schools in the building, it is one school site. Mr. Carpenter stated he wanted to abstain from the voting, as he works with the ALPS Charter school children. Board of Appeals Minutes -2-September 28, 2005 Kelly Schwegel and Shelly Muza, both of 108 W. New York Ave. were introduced as the applicants. Ms. Schwegel stated they have proposed to remove the elementary signs, located on W. New York Ave. and Kentucky St. They cannot be seen from the road and it is a hardship for the parents. The removal of those two signs would put the signage for the elementary to one awning sign and one changeable copy sign that would be shared between Merrill Elementary and ALPS Charter School. Ms. Muza stated they started this process in June of 2005 knowing they needed to have a variance with a company who has worked with other schools in the Oshkosh Area School District. They felt with starting this process in June and going with that company, this process would have been resolved much sooner than now. They are under a budget restriction and ALPS did receive a grant for this sign and all funds do need to be encumbered before September 30, 2005. They do not know if they will have that money in the future, it is a considerable hardship on the school district and the site not to take advantage of that funding through the Department of Public Instruction. Ms. Schwegel stated part of the Charter school audit does state you need to advertise your school and also need to advertise the purpose of your school. Ms. Muza added you need to have signage identifying that you exist as a school and currently right now ALPS has no signage and no one knows they even exist within Merrill. Ms. Schwegel stated the reason they need to have a larger sign than normal is because they need to advertise for two different schools, which means two different PTO meetings to advertise for, two different events that may be going on around the same time. Merrill Elementary School has applied to convert over to a Charter School as well and if that happens they will also need to advertise their existence and have good communication with the parents. A changeable copy sign would provide that service. Ms. Muza stated they worked with the sign company to know that if the name changes, they can change out that piece without having to have an additional sign. Ms. Schwegel stated she wanted to address the Development Plan, and the school would appreciate having something worked out where they didn’t have to address an individual variance for every little thing that happened, they should have an overall plan. They are willing to work with a Plan Development, but in the mean time they still need to have a sign now. Mr. Lang asked what steps they have taken in what has seemed well in advance. Ms. Muza discussed her dealings between the sign company and the Planning and Zoning Office and the grant deadline of September 30, 2005. Ms. Schwegel included that they have tried to do everything according to what was done past and present to the school. They looked at the way the other schools proceeded with their variances, they would discuss plans with the sign company, the sign company would then talk to the Planning and Zoning Office. Office. They followed the same steps as the other schools and they received a phone call from Ms. Kepplinger, explaining that everything they were doing was inappropriate. Ms. Schwegel stated she told Ms. Kepplinger that she would be willing to work with them on this and they had a meeting on the issue and nothing was accomplished. Board of Appeals Minutes -3-September 28, 2005 Mr. Lang questioned if they were going to take down the two identification signs. Ms. Schwegel replied that she wasn’t sure if both of the signs were listed in our staff reports or not but they were planning on removing both of them. Mr. Ruedinger asked staff where would the school be if they removed two signs to erect one. Mr. Buck stated even though the two schools were operating as one as far as this signage request goes, with the middle school operating independently with their signage as well, and you took down the two ground signs, they would still have one extra changeable copy sign than is permitted on the site. Ms. Muza stated they are three schools, the middle school is quite large, 750 kids and with the ALPS Charter School and the Elementary school, they would need to have quite a large changeable copy sign and they are under a financial timeline. Mr. Wilusz asked if they could please explain the financial situation. Ms. Muza stated the ALPS Charter School applied for and was granted a charter and in that they were granted money to operate. Part of the Charter School law states you have to identify yourself as a school, so they were going to use the money for a sign. Right now the fund source, because it is a grant, goes from October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005 on a grant cycle and all funds need to be used by this time or you lose the money. You cannot apply for an extension; it’s all or nothing. Mr. Wilusz asked who the grant was being funded by. Mr. Muza replied the Department of Public Instruction. Mr. Wilusz asked if this is an on-going program that the D.P.I. have for Charter Schools. Ms. Muza stated Charter Schools are supported for three years with dollars then after that the district takes them for one year and then they can apply for two more years for the grant dollars and after that you are sustained by the school district. Ms. Schwegel stated if the school system cannot sustain the charter school after the sixth year period, the sign still would have a purpose, they can easily convert the sign to Merrill Elementary. Mr. Wilusz asked where they were in the six-year window and if this grant runs out can they apply for another grant. Ms. Schwegel stated they are in year two. Ms. Muza stated they have applied for another grant but does not know until the middle of October if they have been awarded the grant or not. Mr. Wilusz asked staff how long does the planned development process take. Mr. Buck stated it all depends on the negotiations back and forth and it needs to go to the Plan Commission and the Common Council. Mr. Wilusz asked staff how the signage might differ under the Planned Development. Mr. Buck stated he was not sure but suspected it would be one of two things; one sign with three different sides or three individual signs fronting separate streets as the schools are situated in that way. Most of the current signs are on the New York Ave frontage. Ron Heilmann Jr. 1200 Washington Ave., Board of Appeals Minutes -4-September 28, 2005 Mr. Heilmann Jr. stated everyone is in agreement that a planned development is in need, the one thing he disagrees on is that in the school district’s eyes this property will never be viewed as one school. Since they have had Merrill Elementary it has been viewed as two schools. Mr. Heilmann Jr. also stated that unless you see a significant change in national politics, you will not see a move away from charter schools. Wisconsin will receive approximately $170 million dollars over the next three years in charter money. If you specify you wanted to do project and you don’t complete it, it’s very hard to convince them again when you come into the next budget cycle that “we didn’t do it before but we would like to do it now”. The district is committed to the overall concept of the site development, the key thing to remember is if you are driving in front of the school along West New York Avenue you will see three signs there. One for Merrill Elementary, that is set back away and is hard to see, the changeable copy sign for Merrill Middle and granite memorial sign. If this is approved you will only see two signs in front of the school. The granite sign memorial is being moved to the Central Street side of the school. Mr. Carpenter stated in the past that this committee has considered other schools that have both an elementary and middle school as two schools. Mr. Carpenter questioned staff that if we were to treat this like the other schools, would the number of signs be an issue. Mr. Buck stated that as far as the code treats it, it treats it as one site. Mr. Lang seconded Mr. Carpenter’s comments on the other schools; he does not remember any issues on the variance for Webster Elementary or Webster Middle School. However he does remember a discussion for a second changeable copy sign, they may have tried sharing one changeable copy and it didn’t work for them. Having a larger sign did go down with defeat, a much smaller sign was compromised on and that same issue came up on Roosevelt School. Mr. Lang raised some issue on the visibility, the petitioner commented that this is what gets approved and we will have to live with the disability issue, which distresses Mr. Lang. Mr. Lang then stated he is really disturbed that the process could begin in June and now it is September 28th, two days before the deadline for the grant. Mr. Carpenter stated that they have had issues in the past about the lighting of the signs and he has gone past during the evening hours and noticed the streetlights wash out the lights from the signs and he can’t believe it is a big problem for the neighbors. He also stated it is really nice for the neighbors to know when something is going on at the schools so they can plan ahead. Mr. Wilusz questioned staff about characterizing this as a change of policy to these types of situations rather than piling on the variances. Now it seems like the city is saying this is not the best way to do it, lets do it the planned development route. Mr. Wilusz questioned petitioners about the reason why this project wasn’t started until June. Ms. Schwegel stated they were originally going to go with an electric sign but that wasn’t going to be approved in a residential area, so they had to start all over and get new quotes. Mr. Wilusz asked if the petitioners and staff thought the planned development is the better way to go. Ms. Muza stated they thought it was a good idea, but they are not sure the plan will come up with anything different. They do not think they should do that instead of the sign, they still need the sign and are willing to work with the planned development. They would have to spend $10,000.00 in equipment in two days. In order for them not to do that, they would have to request a change in her item line from the state and wait for an approval and that would not happen before the deadline. It is not responsible of them to spend the money for the sake of spending the money; they would have to give it back to the state. Board of Appeals Minutes -5-September 28, 2005 Mr. Wilusz stated he is concerned with the petitioner’s statement of maybe there’s a change or maybe there’s not under this planned development process. Mr. Wilusz also stated he thought at the end of this process that it’s going to cost someone some money, something may change. From the taxpayer’s standpoint he doesn’t see much reason in spending $10,000.00 because “we have to spend the money”, when the sign may have to be removed under the planned development. Spending state money for the sake of spending the state’s money, he doesn’t see this as a qualifying hardship. Ms. Muza stated it was her understanding that if you have a variance process, you have the means to be legal. If they go ahead with the plan and look at all the things they are not in-compliance with and how they improve and change them, they still have a legal variance for two signs. Mr. Buck stated the planned development would set sign regulations whether they include what your approved variance is for or differently and make it noncompliant is yet to be seen. Mr. Heilmann Jr. stated they do have other issues at the site, such as on the middle school side there is parking problems. The district doesn’t look at expanding the property by purchasing homes around the school, if they did that they will be changing the whole aspect of the neighborhood, you have less homes from which children will come to that school. Ms. Kepplinger, City of Oshkosh, 215 Church Avenue Ms. Kepplinger stated she was the original staff person who spoke to the petitioners, she has been involved with the master planning process and she is also the individual in the planning office who is in charge with neighborhood planning, especially in a low to moderate income census track areas. Ms. Kepplinger also stated the issue in which they handle schools and signage is evolving. The zoning code does not address combined schools having their own identities, we are getting to the point that schools are viewing these signs as an entitlement. It is creating a lot of tension between the city and schools feeling that they need and what the zoning code provides. We are not in the position to make any administrative changes to the zoning code, just administrative exceptions. The property needs to be addressed without doing a whole code change. Applying a planned development over the site would allow the Planning and Zoning Department to try to accommodate the school’s desire for a sign as well as trying to accommodate central neighborhood historic planning issues that could impact not only the sign but also the other noncompliance issues on the site. The purpose of us asking for the master plan was not to preclude identification signs for the school but to try to come up with a solution that would better address what their needs are and address our planning issues identified in the comprehensive plan for that central city area. Mr. Lang asked staff if there has been a change in the zoning regulations since the Webster Stanley came to the Board. Ms Kepplinger stated there has not been any change. Mr. Lang then asked staff if Webster set a precedent by allowing multiple signs, then why since June 2005 is another school told different. Ms. Kepplinger stated they are not comparable sites; this is a very tight central city site. The setbacks are less and the area is more densely developed. Webster Stanley is a newer school and is built under the newer zoning code, which Merrill is not. Board of Appeals Minutes -6-September 28, 2005 Mr. Lang asked staff if they are requesting a special setback. Ms. Kepplinger stated not to her knowledge, they are asking for a variance for the sign. Mr. Lang requested the minutes reflect that Ms. Kepplinger made the comment that this is a tight situation and has special setbacks. Mr. Lang wanted to correct the record that there isn’t a request for special setbacks and it is compliant to the zoning. Ms. Kepplinger stated her comment regarding the setbacks referred to the substandard setbacks for the playground and the parking in various locations on the property, the sign they are requesting does not have a substandard setback. Mr. Heilmann Jr. stated they are not arguing beyond the issue with the signage the master planning route is absolutely the route to go. There are issues with parking at the site and the amount of green space in general, they do need to address these issues. Mr. Wilusz stated that historically speaking, Appleton Sign Company did an excellent job. Ms. Muza stated they were planning on having the sign match the brick of the building. The sign is going to be something the children, parents and community can be proud of it. Mr. Lang seconded Ms. Muza’s comment. Split/merged families communication from the school is a difficult challenging task and the taxpayers would like to know what is going on at the school, signs are an excellent way to communicate that. Motion for approval by Mr. Lang of the variance to construct a second changeable copy ground sign at Merrill Elementary School with greater signage area than is allowed by code. Seconded by Mr. Wilusz Mr. Wilusz stated he agrees with staff and feels the planned development is the best way to go. He wonders if this is relevant to the narrow question in front of the board. There is an existing code and an existing situation in front of that code and a variance request. He questioned if the planned development option is relevant to this narrow question if this particular variance should be granted. Mr. Ruedinger stated he doesn’t like the idea of the school spending that large amount of money for a sign that may or may not be there after the planned development is complete. Mr. Carpenter stated this is a unique situation, the school district has a grant and it expires in a couple of days the money has to be spent on something either a sign or something else. He doesn’t believe they will be spending the money for a sign and have a planned development that will not allow it later, they are removing a couple other sign and he feels this is done in good faith. Motion for approval with the of the variance to construct a second changeable copy ground sign at Merrill Elementary School with greater signage area than is allowed by code. Motion denied 2-1-1. Motion by Mr. Ruedinger for approval with the following conditions: 1. The removal of the two existing ground signs for Merrill Elementary School, located on Kentucky St and W New York Ave. 2. Cooperation of the Merrill Elementary School and ALPS Charter School with the Planned Development process for the entire school site. Seconded by Mr. Lang. Motion carried 3-0-1. Board of Appeals Minutes -7-September 28, 2005 Finding of facts: Mr. Lang doesn’t believe it will be detrimental to the neighborhood; it will enhance the neighborhood and provide communication of the schools activities to the neighbors. Mr. Carpenter stated the willingness of the applicants to adhere to the planned development and the removal of the two other existing signs. II 1931-1951 South Washburn Street Mr. Art Dumke-GDS Properties, LLC, owner, requests a variance to divide the existing lot into two and create one with a substandard lot area of 1.406 acres. Section 30-34 (D)(5)(a) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code-Highway 41 Corridor Overlay District requires all lots be a minimum of 1.5 acres in area Mr. Buck introduced the item and explained 1.406 acres of the lot is currently being developed for the Animal Hospital of Oshkosh. The remaining area, which is approximately 1.6 acres, would be developed at a later time. Mr. Lang asked if they are constructing the building without a lot line in mind. Mr. Buck stated the lot is very large and they are only building on a portion of the site. The permit came in to build on the whole site. They may have had intentions at one time to use more of the site than what they are currently using. Mr. Carpenter asked if the lot width the animal hospital on it is going to be the substandard one. Mr. Buck stated it is the lot area. The width will still meet code, the lot area would be approximately 4,100 sq. ft. short of the required 1.5 acres. Mr. Ruedinger asked staff if the applicant wanted to parcel the lot greater than 1.5 acres, would they have to come in front of the board. Mr. Buck stated if the lot was 1.5 acres they would not. Staff feels that this is a very minimal shift in the property line and will be difficult to notice from the street. Motion by Mr. Wilusz for approval of the variance to divide the existing lot into two and create one with a substandard lot area of 1.406 acres as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Carpenter. Motion denied0-4. DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD OF OF APPEALS PROCEDURES Discussion of the new BOA policy packet, with changes. Motion by Mr. Ruedinger for approval of the new BOA policy packet as submitted by staff. Seconded by Mr. Wilusz. Motion carried 4-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:03 pm Unanimous. Respectfully Submitted, David Buck Associate Planner DB/pal