Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES October 1,2019 PRESENT: Mamadou Coulibaly, Thomas Fojtik,John Hinz,John Kiefer, Lori Palmeri, Thomas Perry EXCUSED: Lynnsey Erickson, Michael Ford,Derek Groth,Justin Mitchell, Kathleen Propp STAFF: Mark Lyons,Planning Services Manager; Kelly Nieforth, Economic Development Services Manager;Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager/City Engineer; Jeff Nau, Associate Planner;Alexa Naudziunas,Associate Planner;Brian Slusarek, Assistant Planner; Steven Wiley,Assistant Planner; Mina Kuss, Recording Secretary Chairperson Fojtik called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. He also welcomed Mr. Coulibaly to the Plan Commission. The minutes of September 17,2019 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Perry) I. EXTRATERRITORIAL THREE-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT THE NORTH 3500 BLOCK OF PLUMMERS POINT ROAD IN THE TOWN OF OSHKOSH Site Inspections: Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner is seeking approval of a three-lot land division/Certified Survey Map (CSM) from one existing 34.920 acre parcel located on the north side of Plummers Point Road in the Town of Oshkosh, approximately one mile northwest of the Oshkosh city limits. Sizes of the proposed lots are as follows: Lot 1 =488,746 sq. ft. (11.220 Acres) Lot 2=544,654 sq. ft. (12.503 Acres) Lot 3=487.759 sq. ft. (11.197 Acres) Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. All three proposed lots exceed the Town of Oshkosh's minimum lot size requirements in regard to width, depth and area. Proposed Lot 1 is shown to have direct access to County Road S. Lots 2 and 3 will have ample direct access to Plummmers Point Road. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Conservation Residential. Staff is of the opinion the proposed land division is consistent with the Plan's recommendation. The applicant does not indicate what future use or uses are intended for the site. Winnebago County's Farmland Preservation Plan identifies this area as an Urbanizing District. The Department of Public Works Plan Commission Minutes 1 October 1,2019 has reviewed the proposed three-lot Certified Survey Map and did not have any concerns with the land division. He said staff recommends approval of the three-lot land division/Certified Survey Map at the north 3500 Block of Plummers Point Road as proposed. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Ms. Palmeri asked to see the Winnebago County land use map. She asked if there was urbanizing areas within the circled area on the map. Mr. Lyons replied there is. Mr. Lyons and Mr. Nau clarified that the yellow is the municipal boundaries and the pink is the urbanizing areas. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Palmeri. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 6-0. II. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW A WINDOW CLOSURE ON THE FRONT FACADE AT 1629 MINNESOTA STREET Site Inspections: Report: Mr. Hinz and Ms. Palmeri reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Plan Commission Minutes 2 October 1,2019 The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow a window closure on the front fagade at 1629 Minnesota Street. Ms. Naudziunas presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The applicant is requesting a design standards variance for work that has already been completed. They completed a closure of the sidelight located on the front fagade of the home which had a glass opening totaling in one square foot. The applicant stated that the sidelight was damaged and needed to be repaired. Ultimately, the applicant was unaware of the required permits for this project and proceeded to repair the sidelight opening with vinyl bead board that is complimentary to the door frame. After evaluating the petitioner's application, staff is supportive of the variance request and believes that this work has not compromised the architectural integrity of the house. She said staff recommends approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow for a window closure on the front fagade at 1629 Minnesota Street with the condition and finding as stated in the staff report. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Ms. Palmeri asked if this item would have been a consent item if there was a consent agenda area. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. He said he has been working with the Attorney's office to make sure the format is correct for a consent agenda. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mike Rhyner (applicant), 1629 Minnesota Street, said he lives at the home with his mother-in-law, Nancy Koss. He explained how the door was broken and that it happened Sunday of Labor Day weekend. He said the door was meld together with the sidelight which would make it one unit. He said the door broke on a holiday weekend and there was no place open to obtain a permit. He stated none of the big box stores sold a door with a sidelight on it. He commented the replacement door is nicer than the door that was on there. He said his sons and him installed the door to ensure the security of the home. He apologized to the city for breaking the ordinance but said he did not have much of a choice. He explained they had a confrontation with a neighbor for not having a permit and the police were called to the location. He said the police told him he was not doing anything wrong but should come in Tuesday morning after Labor Day to obtain a permit,which he did. He explained he went to Inspections and told them about the work he had done, they asked him questions and concluded that he did not need a permit. He said two days later he received a violation notice from Planning stating he did not file for a variance. Nancy Koss (owner), 1629 Minnesota Street, said she has lived in the house for 84 years. She stated it is a shame that a neighbor, that is not a homeowner, can dictate what people can do. She said everyone that has seen the door thought it looked great. She said the door has been in there for a very long time. She said Mr. Rhyner did what he had to do to fix the door. She explained she has lots of hospital bills and is limited to what she can spend. She stated it looks nice and having someone else install it would have been more costly. Plan Commission Minutes 3 October 1,2019 There were no other public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Palmeri to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Condition: 1. Variance is only for the closure of the sidelight and the owner/applicant shall file separate design standards variance requests for the any future window/door closures on the front fagade. Seconded by Hinz. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Palmeri said given the circumstances and timing,it seems like what was done is what could be done. She commented it looks rather nice. Mr. Fojtik agreed. Motion carried 6-0. III. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD SETBACK NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVAILING BUILDING SETBACKS FOR A NEW HOME ON AN INFILL SITE AT 0 (3087) LAKE REST LANE Site Inspections: Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow a front yard setback not consistent with the prevailing building setbacks for a new home at 0 (3087) Lake Rest Lane. Mr.Wiley presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The subject parcel is a corner lot and narrows towards its' southern edge. This limits the amount of buildable area the lot provides. The applicants would like to shift the placement of their proposed home towards the north end of their lot. The applicants stated that it would be impossible to build their home if the line-up provision in the Plan Commission Minutes 4 October 1,2019 ordinance was applied. At this time the applicants are only asking for a design standards variance for the placement of the house on the lot. Staff did receive a number of phone calls from concerned neighboring property owners regarding the variance request. Staff is of the opinion that applying the line-up ordinance provision would cause a hardship given the lot's narrow dimensions on its southern edge. Mr. Wiley said there were many revelations after the staff report was written. He said he was contacted by multiple neighbors with concerns about the request. The concerns were related to aesthetics, massing and placement. He said staff recommends approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow a front yard setback not consistent with the prevailing building setbacks for a new home on an infill site at 0 (3087) Lake Rest Lane with conditions and a finding as stated in the staff report. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Fojtik asked what the typical width is for homes in that area. Mr. Lyons replied looking at the aerial and using the GIS measurements, it shows house widths of 36-40 feet. He explained staff evaluated not only the technical buildable width but the functional buildable width. He said there is 33' at the southerly end but it is a little unreasonable to ask someone to build 4'-5' away from the roadway/driveway. He explained even though it is 33', functionally for a reasonable home, it is going to be even less than that. He stated it is a very difficult lot. Ms. Palmeri said if the code was followed exactly with aligning with the adjacent home fronts, it would not work. She pointed out surrounding properties and stated the homes were not flush with one another. She said no matter where the house is located on the lot,it would not be flush with the other homes. She stated it is not a flush street wall. Mr.Wiley explained staff typically measures from the closest point of the house and that is what they use for the setback. He said Ms. Palmeri is correct and mentioned the house on east is set back further because it is on a corner. Ms. Palmeri said it is not just the setback but it is also the angle and positioning of the home on the lot that does not allow for a strict interpretation. Mr. Lyons said as you move down from west to east, the lots go from rectangular in shape to narrow on one side and wide on the other, similar to a cul-de-sac. He explained the homes in retrospect begin to turn as well. He said the lot in question is on the corner and is an inverse lot compared to the others. He reiterated this is a difficult lot. Ms. Palmeri inquired about when the owner bought the lot and if the owner knew about the building restrictions at that time. Mr. Lyons and Mr. Wiley mentioned the applicant is available to answer that question. Mr. Coulibaly asked if the neighbors' main concerns were due to aesthetics. Plan Commission Minutes 5 October 1,2019 Mr.Wiley replied the concerns were blocking views, aesthetics and the massing. Mr. Coulibaly asked for confirmation that the discussion was only for the placement of the home. Mr.Wiley replied affirmatively. Mr. Lyons explained the home would have to comply with the Residential Design Standards before it could be approved. Mr. Coulibaly said it seems to him in this particular case that the compromise would come between the positioning of the building and the design. He said it would be difficult to make a judgment now without seeing both. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mike Sammons (applicant), 1845 Walnut Street,brought copies of the house plan that he wants to build and distributed the plan to the board members. He said he bought the lot in the 80's. He said they are deciding to build maybe their last house. He explained he went to City Hall to submit his plans. He said he started at Inspections who told him he needed to go to Zoning. He said Zoning approved his plans and he went back to Inspections. He said a week and a half later, he was told by Inspection to go talk to Zoning. He said at that time he was told he had to line up with the other houses. He said he must have had a misunderstanding on his part because he always thought the front side was the lake side. He said it impossible to build with the setback requirement and was told he had to file a variance. He showed the original plans to build 1072 Lake Rest Lane and said the house is 20 feet off the right-of-way. He explained there is a deeded right-of-way that comes from the bridge down to the corner. He said the plan for 1072 Lake Rest Lane was submitted to the City of Oshkosh and the owner is 4' 5" away from the dedicated right- of-way. He said if the city builds a road, the owner would have a 4'5" driveway. He said from what he has been hearing, it is impossible to build the house they want on that lot. He said he realizes there are concerns but he cannot do much because he cannot move the house back since the lot narrows. He stated he is in line with 3080 Lake Rest Lane. He said he knows some of the neighbors are upset because it is a two-story house. He said because it is in a floodplain,he cannot have a basement and needs the second floor mostly for storage. He explained how he ended that far up. He said originally he was told he had to come in from the side road. He said his son and him tore down the cottage that was on the lot and mentioned they were all cottages. He said at that time, the driveway came off of Lake Rest Lane towards the channel. He said the city changed his address to make it face the other way. He said he then had to go off to the side. He said in order for him to get into the garage,he had to make it wide enough to turn in to line up with the garage. He stated anything less than 30' will prohibit him from getting in. He said Zoning allowed him to go off from the east or the south which helps the situation somewhat. Paul Swanson, 107 Church Avenue, said he is an attorney and representing Gary Otto, an adjacent neighbor at 3068 Lake Rest Lane. He said all the neighbors are basically present. He said all the Plan Commission Minutes 6 October 1,2019 houses to the west face the lake. He said the houses to the east face the lake the other way. He said to build this house within 30' of the lake when the next house over to the north is 85' from the lake basically destroys the view. He said even if the average rule was used for the setback of the neighboring properties, it would still not equal up to 30'. He said it would average out to 55' or 60'. He stated the neighbors are certainly willing to compromise. He said 30' is just way too close to the lake and destroys the front yard and views. He said staff mentioned it was impossible to build that close to the road but all the other homes are built right next to the road. He pointed out that this particular property has quite a bit of land in the back which faces out on the channel. He said 30' would not be allowed in the County but the City is not subject to Shoreland zoning. Gary Otto, 3068 Lake Rest Lane, said they have had the home since 1965. He stated he is not in objection to Mr. Sammons building a home on the lot. He said from the start, the objection was when they saw the proposed layout where it goes from an 85' front setback to a 30' front setback. He said there was some confusion. He said after he read the staff report, the variance addresses the setback from the roadside which is 69' versus 89' and not how far back it is from the lake. He said all the neighbors are concerned with the setback from the lake and the variance does not directly address that. He stated the concern of the neighbors is to go from an 85' setback from the lake to a 30' setback. He said it just changes the whole character of the front yards and puts a huge stare step in the flow of the lots and views of the lake. He said if there was a building 30' from the lake, it would destroy his view but not as much as it would destroy the view for 3072 Lake Rest Lane, a neighbor that could not make it to the meeting. He said in talking with staff,he suggested a 50' setback from the lake. He said this would make it a 69' setback from the road instead of 89 . He said it puts the back lot at a buildable width of 37'. He said Mr. Sammons home is drawn up to be 40' 2". He suggested Mr. Sammons reconsider a slight variation in the design to customize it for the lot. He said he would like to find a reasonable compromise. He said it would be a livable dimension. He stated his other concern is that there were no conditions stating how close Mr. Sammons could build to the lake and that he may be able to build to the 25' waterfront limitation. He suggested in part of the compromise is to make a minimum 50' lake side waterfront setback to allow for a reasonable alignment with existing building. He reiterated there are other variations that Mr. Sammons could look at for the house to make it fit the lot. He commented there are no standard house in that area. Mr. Swanson pointed out on the map what direction each house faced the lake and where Mr. Sammons proposed house would be located on the lot. Kathy Wenzel, 3076 Lake Rest Lane, said like Mr. Otto,her family has owned the place since 1965. She said she knows a lot of the history and knows most of the neighbors well including the Mr. Sammons and his wife. She stated she is not opposed to Mr. Sammons building a home on that property. She mentioned one of the board members asked if Mr. Sammons knew about the site restrictions when he purchased the lot and explained when Mr. Sammons bought the lot, there was only a tiny cottage on the lot. She said just by the nature and size of the cottage, Mr. Sammons should've known at that point about the restrictions. She said if it were her, she would've looked into it. She said she understands hardship but in her mind hardship is when a person does not have a place to live. She stated Mr. Sammons already has a home in town and a cottage in the area. She said she just came from the east coast and there are a lot of unique properties. She said Plan Commission Minutes 7 October 1,2019 she is hesitant to just rubber stamp the request. She said in talking with Mr. Sammons about a month and a half ago, she thinks it would be appropriate to have the access drive off the creek side. She said she is also in favor of Mr. Otto's recommendation. She said the neighbors would like to see what is going to be built because it will be there for a long time. She explained the area used to be a resort and that is why the lots are so quirky. She said as years have gone on, people have turned their cottages into year-round homes. She reiterated she does not have an issues with the applicant building a home or being her neighbor. She said she just wants to find a solution that would satisfy everyone but stated the lot is the way it is and can't be changed. There were no other public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Palmeri to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. Design standards variance is only far the placement of the home on the site and not far the design of the home. 2. Applicant shall submit the design of the proposed home to the Department of Community Development for staff review and approval. 3. Any variances regarding the design of the home shall be filed as separate requests for Plan Commission review and approval. Seconded by Kiefer. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Perry asked if the applicant chose to work with the neighbors and agreed on a 50' setback, if the item would still need to be approved by Plan Commission. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. Mr. Perry stated that means taking action is a finality one way or another. He said what we have here is a situation where we have a round peg trying to fit into a square hole. He said at the end of the day,it is still a square hole. He said he understands there are limitations and stated the board members are not rubber stampers. He said this item is something he feels very strongly about and there is a large vocal group of people who are concerned about the request. He stated he would be voting against this because of the whole round peg in a square hole. Ms. Palmeri asked if staff could measure the lake side setbacks of the homes to the east. Plan Commission Minutes 8 October 1,2019 Mr. Lyons measured the lake side setbacks of a few homes which varied from a 56' setback to a 70' setback. Ms. Palmeri said due to the areas unusual shape, she is having a hard time understanding how the homes are lining up. She said the neighbors are concerned about the lake side setback as opposed to the street side setback. Mr. Lyons stated there are two conflicting sections of the ordinance. He explained if just looking at the underling zoning districts for the area,the zoning district setbacks are based off of waterfront setbacks. He said this would give them a 25' setback, if it were a new subdivision. He said in the design standards it states infill housing to have a line-up provision. He stated the line-up provision is inconsistent with the underlining zoning district. He stated because of this, staff felt the item should go to Plan Commission. He explained there are two waterfront setbacks and two side yards because there is no public right-of-way or street frontage. Mr. Hinz said this is a unique area because it looks similar to a cul-de-sac but the inside of the cul- de-sac is the water. He said it looks like an inverse cul-de-sac. He said everyone is trying to keep the waterfront the same. He said one of these things is not like the other. He can understand the neighbors' concerns because there is a consistency that has been going on in the area for a long time. He said he hopes staff, the applicant and the neighbors can come to an agreement before any ground is broken. He stated as it stands today,he cannot support the variance because it is causing a hardship for the whole community. He said the hardship can be seen with all the e- mails Plan Commission was handed before the meeting. He said at some point Plan Commission has to listen to the members in the community too. Mr. Coulibaly agreed with Mr. Hinz. He said the neighbors are open to compromise. He suggested voting against the variance or not making a final decision in order to give both sides more time to find a solution. He stated after all,it is a community and he hopes they would be able to find a more peaceful or better compromise. Mr. Hinz asked staff if this would be a situation where Plan Commission could lay-over the request so that the applicant would not have to re-file and also to have more time to work with the neighbors. Mr. Lyons replied it could be. He said the applicant and neighbors would have to be willing to work together and come up with a revised plan. He stated he does not see any issues with laying- over the request for a few weeks. Mr. Lyons asked Mr. Sammons if he would be willing to work with the neighbors on an alternative solution. Mr. Sammons stated one problem is that he has already invested a lot of money in the blueprints. He said he understands what his neighbors are saying but pointed out on the map that there is already a house blocking the view. He said in his opinion, there is no view looking to the east. He said he would love to build a house and eventually make it handicap accessible. He said building a smaller house may limit him from making the house handicap accessible because he would have to go higher. He stated it is a hardship for them. Plan Commission Minutes 9 October 1,2019 Mr. Lyons asked Mr. Sammons if he would be amendable to looking at an alternative solution or if he would like the Plan Commission to vote today as the request is written. Mr. Sammons asked if he would have to build a smaller house. Mr. Lyons explained Mr. Sammons would have to look at a narrower solution on the southern end. He said Mr. Sammons could also look at the option of moving it from a 30' setback to a 50' setback. Mr. Sammons said he would not have a problem moving it back. Mr. Lyons explained to move it back, Mr. Sammons would have to narrow up the southern portion of the home. Mr. Sammons explained he was told he would need more variances to he moved back due to the narrowness of the lot. He stated he would not have a problem with moving back to 50'. Mr. Lyons asked Mr. Sammons if he understood that at 50' Mr. Sammons would have to narrow up the home and it could not be at the 40'. Mr. Sammons stated he cannot narrow down the house and it would cost him another couple thousand to have new blueprints. He said he does not know what he can do. Ms. Palmeri asked Mr. Lyons to point out where the home would be located on the lot. Mr. Lyons pointed out on the map where the home would be located on the lot. Motion denied 0-6. IV. COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW FACADE ALTERATIONS USING CLASS IV MATERIALS ON THE EXISTING BUILDING AT 347 N. SAWYER STREET Site Inspections: Report: Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City's Commercial Design Standards to allow facade alterations using Class IV materials on the existing building. Mr.Wiley presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the use of a "Pac-Clad" ribbed metal panel to clad a portion of the original building and part of the new addition. He believes that the design standards variance will not have an adverse impact on the Plan Commission Minutes 10 October 1,2019 surrounding properties. The applicant has asked staff to consider the proposed Pac-Clad product a Class III material. Staff has examined the proposed material and is of the opinion that the Pac- Clad panels are a Class IV material. They are ribbed and utilitarian in nature rather than the architectural panels designers might use on automotive dealerships, schools or apartment buildings. The applicant has explained that the Pac-Clad panel is a cost-effective solution that would allow the project to stay within budget. Staff is of the opinion that the applicant's use of Pac-Clad metal paneling as proposed will not have a detrimental impact architecturally. Mr. Lyons added the 6 inch relief staff is recommending is to better match the existing building. Mr. Wiley said staff recommends approval of a variance from the City's Commercial Design Standards to allow facade alterations using Class IV materials on the existing building at 347 N. Sawyer Street with the conditions and a finding as stated in the staff report. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Coulibaly asked if the relief was solely for looks. Mr. Lyons replied it is purely aesthetics. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Steve Schmidt (applicant), 5711 Green Valley Road, said he is from RJ Albright Construction. He said he is the general contractor for the project and that the architect could not make it to the meeting. He asked about the 6" of relief and if staff was recommending to bring the middle panel away from the vinyl. Mr. Lyons replied correct. Mr. Schmidt explained one of the reasons why the architect did not want to do that was because it would not match the existing where he was going to blend it together. He said it would be hard to bring that out and get the same look. He said they are planning to fill in-between the steel columns with the panel. He said the 6" of relief would be sticking out farther than that. He stated it can be done. He said if it is a matter of it not being approved due to the 6" of relief, the architect would rather it be approved. He said they held it back so that everything would fit in the same plane and the two buildings would blend together and look as one instead of an addition. He said Mr.White (applicant/owner) wants to modernize the look of the building. Mr. Lyons pointed out on the pictures that there is already a separation between the buildings and the planes do not line up. Mr. Schmidt stated they don't. He explained the new would have 6" sticking out whereas the old would not. He said it may not look as attractive. Mr. Lyons said from a staff perspective, they believe it would. He said Mr. Wiley has an architectural background but ultimately it is up to the Plan Commission to make the call. Plan Commission Minutes 11 October 1,2019 Mr. Schmidt said they like the plans as they are but are willing to agree to the 6" relief if they have to in order to approve the variance. He said they would prefer not to go through this process again. There were no other public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. Design standards variance is only for the use of the proposed Pac-Clad material as shown in the submitted application materials. 2. Material shall use concealed fasteners. 3. Current and f iture property owners shall maintain the metal paneling free of rust over the course of its lifespan. 4. Any future work not in compliance with the Commercial Design Standards be filed as separate requests for Plan Commission review and approval. 5. Applicant shall ensure 6 inches of relief between the plane of the metal panels and plane of the vinyl brick on the new addition. Seconded by Kiefer. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Fojtik commented it sounds like the applicant is willing to accept the conditions,reluctantly but are still willing. Motion carried 6-0. V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO 1033 N.WASHBURN STREET Site Inspections: Report: Mr. Hinz, Mr. Kiefer and Ms. Palmeri reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Plan Commission Minutes 12 October 1,2019 The applicant requests approval of a General Development Plan amendment and Specific Implementation Plan for a restaurant at the property located adjacent to 1033 N. Washburn Street. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The applicant is proposing to amend the existing General Development Plan (GDP) for the site to include a restaurant with drive-thru. They are also requesting Specific Implementation Plan approval for the third and final phase of the development which will be a single tenant building occupied by Chick-Fil-A. The proposed building will be 5,019 sq. ft. in area. The proposed plans include a double-lane drive-thru wrapping around the north side of the building into the front yard area. The new restaurant will utilize existing shared parking and drive aisles on the site as well as ten new stalls in front of the building. The proposed building will be constructed of a combination of multiple types of brick veneer and storefront glass. Staff does not have concerns with the proposed building elevations as they are constructed almost entirely of Class I material and meet fagade articulation requirements. He said staff received a couple e-mails about the request but they were not related to land use. He said staff recommends approval of the General Development Plan amendment and Specific Implementation Plan with conditions and findings as stated in the staff report. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry asked if Verve,the bank next door, had a street facing drive-thru as well. Mr. Lyons replied correct, it wraps around the north side of the building. Mr. Perry asked if there would then be two buildings in a row with drive-thrus facing the street. Mr. Lyons replied correct. Mr. Perry said it was discussed in a workshop a couple weeks ago that it was not preferred to have drive-thrus fronting the street. He stated this is a huge sticking point for him. Ms. Palmeri said she would echo what Mr. Perry said to a certain extent. She said she does not think there is a lot of interest in seeing a whole line of dumpsters and drive-thrus,whether or not there is landscaping. She reiterated what Mr. Perry said. She mentioned it was declined for Oshkosh Avenue and thinks the area in question is equally as critical as a gateway area. She said she does not believe F, H and 1, under the findings and recommendation in the staff report, should be in the Plan Commission's purview. She said she appreciates all the work that was put into the staff report. She stated she will not be supporting the request. Mr. Hinz asked if the area in question is the same zoning as the Oshkosh Avenue area. Mr. Lyons replied the area in question is not zoned the same as the Oshkosh Avenue area which is zoned with a Corporate Business Park zoning. Mr. Hinz asked for confirmation that the higher zoning does not exist in the area in question. Plan Commission Minutes 13 October 1,2019 Mr. Lyons replied correct. Mr. Hinz said he wanted to make sure Plan Commission was not comparing apples to oranges. He said the two areas are in different zoning districts and have different standards. Mr. Lyons explained an access drive like what Verve has is permitted in the front yard. He said it is the order/pick-up point that is not permitted in the front yard. He said Verve is code compliant because the order/pick-up point is located on the side. He said Chick-fil-A's order/pick-up point is located in the front yard and that is why they need the Base Standard Modification. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Ed Bowen (applicant), 601 Oregon Street, stated he is happy to address some of the concerns. He said they have been working on this site for roughly five years in terms of the Dick's Sporting Goods, PetSmart, ATI, Steinhafels and Verve. He said the request is the final piece to that area. He said the overall area probably goes back to 2003-2004. He explained it goes back to Lowes, DOT widening of Highway 41, realignment of Washburn Street and the widening of Highway 21. He said they have been involved with almost every step such as the Panera and the Kwik Trip. He explained the original Planned Development from 2004-2005 dictates the development plan. He said that is why everything is clustered around Washburn Street the way it is. He said that is also why the buildings are placed adjacent to the road as opposed to the interior of the site. He said there are deed restrictions that limit them from placing anything differently than it is shown. He said the Planned Development that exists requires this type of development pattern which does not give them a lot of options in terms of site or circulation. He commented what they are trying to accomplish is compatible with the area as well as the use of nearby developments. He said there are some Base Standard Modifications that are necessary due to the odd characteristics of the site including 180' of front yard. He said Chick-fil-A's engineer,Joe Vavrina, from HR Green is also present to answer any engineering related questions. There were no other public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. Base Standard Modification to allow a drive-thru in the front yard. 2. Base Standard Modification to allow a dumpster enclosure between the building and public street. Plan Commission Minutes 14 October 1,2019 3. Minimum 320 street frontage landscaping points be provided along the N. Washburn St. frontage. Seconded by Kiefer. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Perry said from his understanding, the Verve had to drastically modify its' plan due to a utility easement. Mr. Lyons explained there is a utility easement on the west side which narrowed the building. Mr. Perry said Verve had to modify their plans to be able to fit on the lot due to the easement. He said this once again is taking full advantage of the entire lot and creating a situation where Plan Commission has to set precedence in order to get it done. He said he is concerned about that. He said if the business fails, they would be left with an eyesore. He commented it would take a lot to redevelop on a very important corridor into the city. He stated he is not sure this particular plan is useful in this area knowing that a building next door had to severely adapt in order to make it work. He said he really does believe more work could be done to the site. He stated he is opposed to the multiple drive-thrus facing a major street. Mr. Lyons commented this is consistent with these curved streets to what they have done for a number of other developments in the city for both restaurants and banks. He said they have issued Base Standard Modifications to allow driveways in the front when developments have had the curvature type roads or multiple frontage roads. He said this is how staff came up with their recommendation. He said the request is not substantially different from previous developments that have come through Plan Commission. Mr. Fojtik commented this is perfectly fine for the site. He said it is a site that is unusual. He said Chick-fil-A does a very good job in terms of aesthetics and landscaping. He said he is fine with the request. Mr. Hinz stated he agrees with Mr. Fojtik. He said the request is consistent with other developments in the area in terms of having some portion of their drive-thru in the front yard. He said in particular the developments along Highway 21. He said it is not like we are doing this in downtown Oshkosh. He said it is in the same area as other fast food places. He commented Chick-fil-A runs top notch. Mr. Perry said we once again are seeing a building design which we have no indication of whether or not it can be altered. He said the building is probably designed based off what corporate preference is similar to what they saw with the Casey's store. He said they have no reason to believe that a building, which is quiet large for another fast food restaurant, can't be altered. He said there may be possibilities to change the location of the drive-thru so it is not so much of an eyesore. Plan Commission Minutes 15 October 1,2019 Ms. Palmeri stated she had additional concerns related to signage. She said there are three sides of signage, a multi-tenant monument sign, a wall sign on each facade of the building and the additional drive-thru signs. She mentioned there have been previous discussions about over signage. She said this is an extremely visible corner. She said though this area does not have the higher design standards,just because they always have done it this way does not mean they should keep doing it this way. Mr. Lyons explained the signage does meet SMU zoning in terms of wall signage. He said the Plan Commission could limit signage on the other facades if they felt it was necessary. He said it has not been something they have done in the past. He explained the 1:1 ratio has been something the board has been comfortable with in the past but limiting signage is an option. He explained the original goal of the multi-tenant sign was to have the single point sign. He reiterated the signage does meet base code but Plan Commission could consider limiting signage if they felt it was necessary. Mr. Kiefer said due to the unique placement of the building, the curvature of the road, the parking lot and the surrounding developments nearby, he does not see another way of redesigning the drive-thru. He said a place like this needs a drive-thru and he cannot see another design that would be more appeasing to the Plan Commission. Motion carried 3-2-1 (Ayes:Fojtik, Hinz, Kiefer. Nays: Palmeri, Perry. Abstain: Coulibaly). There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:30 pm. (Hinz/Kiefer) Respectfully submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager Plan Commission Minutes 16 October 1,2019