Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 4, 2020 PRESENT: Mamadou Coulibaly, Lynnsey Erickson, Thomas Fojtik, Michael Ford, Derek Groth, John Hinz, Justin Mitchell, Lori Palmeri, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp EXCUSED: John Kiefer STAFF: Allen Davis, Community Development Director; Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager / City Engineer; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Jeff Nau, Associate Planner; Steven Wiley, Assistant Planner; Brandon Nielsen, 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. The minutes of January 21, 2020 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Ford) Mr. Lyons introduced Brandon Nielsen, the new Assistant Planner. He said Mr. Nielsen recently worked in the Public Work Department and has a degree from UWO in Geography. He said Plan Commission will start to see Mr. Nielsen more as he starts to prepare staff reports and attend more meetings. Mr. Nielsen thanked staff for hiring him and said he looks forward to seeing more of Plan Commission. I. TWO -LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 2625 RYF ROAD Site Inspections: Report: Mr. Perry reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Two -lot land division/Certified Survey Map from one existing 3.063 acre parcel. Sizes of the proposed lots are as follows: Lot 1=101,554 square feet (2.331 acres) Outlot 1=15,948 square feet (0.366 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. The purpose of this land division is to split off a 37-foot strip of land from the eastern portion of the property containing the pedestrian trail. The city also has a pedestrian easement over the trail to allow public access to this trail network. The farmstead is currently on the market and the current owner wanted to remove the potential hindrance. The Plan Commission Minutes February 4, 2020 owner approached the Edgewood Village Condominium Association to the east to see about acquiring land with the pedestrian trail and they agreed. The condo development already contains sections of the looped trail system. Staff will be requiring the outlot be merged with the existing condo development. He said staff recommends approval of the 2-lot land division/Certified Survey Map at 2625 Ryf Road as proposed the condition listed in the staff report. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Mitchell asked if the southeast comer of the lot was included. Mr. Lyons replied it is included. He explained it is not the most accurate map due to the limited technology staff currently has. Mr. Nau showed the CSM and said it does go all the way down to the south lot line. Mr. Mitchell asked if the Condo Association had to come back to Plan Commission for acquiring property. Mr. Nau replied Condo Plats are approved administratively. He explained it would not come back to Plan Commission because it is not a land division. He said it is a step by step process. Mr. Perry stated there is a significant amount of concrete rubble on Outlot 1. He asked what lot the rubble would end up on. He said the rubble is close to the south border of the Outlot. Mr. Lyons replied they would not get involved in that. He explained it would be something that is determined between the current property owner and the Condo Association. 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. Condition: Plan Commission Minutes February 4, 2020 The newly created outlot must be combined with the Edgewood Village Condominium Plat to the east. The combination will require amendments to the existing condominium plat and declaration. Seconded by Palmeri. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. II. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW A STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF WITH SEAM PROFILES GREATER THAN 1" IN HEIGHT AT 1019 JEFFERSON STREET 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 residential standing seam metal roof with seam profiles greater than 1" in height on a new home proposed at 1019 Jefferson Street. 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 and their roofer are proposing the use of a standing seam metal roof on a new home proposed for the vacant residential lot. The roofer has recommended against using a 1" seam height and would recommend a 1.5" seam height. The applicants have consulted with their roofer, builder and multiple other roofers and builders who have recommended a 1.5" seam height for durability and water resistance. The higher seam height will reduce the potential for water during significant rain events to infiltrate the seams and leak through the roof. The applicants' roofer obtains the metal and produces the panels. The roofer stated that for the reasons above, he would not warranty a roof with a seam height of 1". He said staff recommends approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow a residential standing seam metal roof with seam profiles greater than 1" in height for a new home at 1019 Jefferson Street with the conditions and a finding listed in the staff report. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Ms. Palmeri questioned why the variance was being approved instead of just modifying the ordinance to make the request compliant. Mr. Lyons replied the ordinance may still be modified. He explained there is a limited amount of information about seam height based on the panel length. He stated staff has not found a clear Plan Commission Minutes February 4, 2020 conclusion for ideal seam height for different lengths of panel. He said to help the applicant move forward on building their house now, staff is recommending approval until more research/documentation can be found. Mr. Wiley commented that most aspects of the ordinance he is very comfortable with. He said most complaints are related to the 24-gauge thickness. He explained the gauge required is a little more expensive but is better for residential homes. He said there was substantial information regarding Light Reflectance Value (LRV), concealed fasteners, complimentary roof color and such that was found when writing the ordinance. Mr. Fojtik commented there was a lot of discussion about this at Plan Commission. He said there is a learning curve with the whole industry because there is a lot of change. Mr. Wiley said he anticipated some change to the ordinance but said staff did the best they could for research at the time. Mr. Mitchell inquired about condition #6 and asked how it would be enforced. Mr. Lyons replied it is a couple of things. He said first there is permit issuance where they check the material the applicant submits and makes sure it meets the standards that are put in place. He said that is how they verify what is being installed. He explained the Inspections Division will inspect it after installation and verify the material as well. Mr. Mitchell read condition #6 which state "Current and future property owners shall maintain the metal paneling free of rust over the course of its lifespan." Mr. Lyons explained there is a similar building code requirement about deteriorating roofs already which Inspection Services currently enforces. Mr. Mitchell said he knows they have done some exceptions for windows and other materials, but he has never seen this before. Mr. Lyons explained it was placed in the original ordinance and derived from when staff was researching products and found that some were aftermarket finishes were not nearly as durable and rusted very quickly. He said for some factory finishes, they were found to have a much better warranty and lifespans. Mr. Mitchell inquired about modifying condition #8 to give the applicant more leeway without having to come back to Plan Commission. He suggested giving a range of 36'-48' for panels. Ms. Palmeri commented she would be okay with that. Mr. Lyons suggested asking the applicant where they are in the process. He said it is in Plan Commissions purview if they want to modify the condition. Plan Commission Minutes February 4, 2020 Mr. Hinz commented if the panels were longer, it would just be enhancing the reason why the applicant is asking for the request. He said it is the shorter panels that would be worrisome. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mary McPhee (applicant), 1216 Cedar Street, thanked Mr. Wiley and staff for working with them. She listed some of the concerns which were water infiltration, the overall durability of the roof, kinking of the roof with the shorter seam and visual concerns. She stated just because it's possible to do a 1-inch seam does not mean it is right or that it is the best thing for them. She stated the trusses are set and they will not be changing the panel length. She said they will be using the 24- gauge, charcoal roof which is a 31% LRV. She said they will submit the specifications once the request is approved. 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. Mr. Mitchell commented that the Housing Authority on 40 units in Menasha put steel roofs on in 2011. He said the main basis for it was the 99-year life warranty. He outside of some snow fall off, there have been no complains from anyone since the installation. He stated he did not know what the seam height was. He said oftentimes there is a fear of the unknown but in their experience, it has only been positive. Motion by Mitchell to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. The Design Standards Variance shall be narrow in scope and only allow up to a 1.5" seam height for roof slopes 4:12 or greater with no other deviation from the Residential Design Standards permitted. 2. Material shall use concealed fasteners. 3. The material/color shall not have a Light Reflectance Value (LRV) greater than the 35% allowed by ordinance and the applicants/roofer shall provide verification acceptable to Department of Community Development staff. Solar Reflectance Index or Solar Reflectivity information by itself will not suffice. 4. The material shall comply with ordinance standards in all ways except the seam height listed above. 5. Roofing permit(s) shall not be issued without documentation verifying compliance with the Residential Design Standards satisfactory to Department of Community Development staff. 6. Current and future property owners shall maintain the metal paneling free of rust over the course of its lifespan. Plan Commission Minutes February 4, 2020 7. Any future work concerning the roof or other aspects of the home not in compliance with the Residential Design Standards shall be filed as a separate request for Plan Commission review and approval. 8. Variance is approved with the condition that the 42' panel length is used. If the applicants/roofer chooses to use a different panel length, they will have to come back for Plan Commission review and approval. Finding: The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Seconded by Coulibaly. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Fojtik thanked staff. He said there is a lot of new stuff coming and he appreciates the patience of the petitioners because their request is a bit of a test case since there are not a lot of metal roofs out there and it is really advancing quickly. Motion carried 9-0. III. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A NEW BUILDING FOR A DETAIL FACILITY AT 355 N. WASHBURN STREET Site Inspections: Report: Mr. Fojtik and Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan amendment for a new building for a detail facility at 355 N. Washburn Street. Mr. Lyons said due to the technical difficulties, the site plan in the staff report did not print out correctly. He passed around the submitted site plan to the Plan Commission. 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 recently approved SIP amendment (2019) as the plans have been modified to include a 5,270 sq. ft. detail facility rather than the previously approved 2,286 sq. ft. quick lube facility. The proposed detail facility will be located to the rear of the existing auto dealership building. The new building will not affect customer traffic/circulation patterns as it will be in the gated off, rear area of the site. The landscape plan includes 84 building foundation landscaping points, meeting the landscaping requirement of the previous SIP amendment. No changes are being proposed to the existing building facades. The petitioner proposes to clad the new detail building in split -face Concrete Masonry Units (CMU) to match the existing dealership building. The proposed split -face CMU is Plan Commission Minutes February 4, 2020 the same material that was approved as part of the previous SIP amendment for the express lube facility. Staff determined that requiring a certain percentage of Class I materials for the new building was not necessary based on its location to the rear of the building. He said staff recommends approval of the Specific Implementation Plan amendment as proposed with the findings and a condition as listed in the staff report. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Hinz inquired about where the landscaping would be located. He said he has talked to various people and they stated they would not be able to see the building from the street. He said to see the building, a person would have to go alongside the main building and behind the dumpsters to see it. Mr. Lyons pointed out the landscaping and said it would be located on the south and eastern portion of the building. He explained the landscaping is placed where it would have an impact for anyone that may see it. Ms. Palmeri said she just noticed that the back of this lot backs up to the residential at WestBrook Drive and that the pie shaped residential area from what she recalls could be impacted by the flood storage. She said she is curious about the landscaping and the storm water piece of this request as it relates to the flood storage. Mr. Lyons explained if the structure would end up in the floodplain, the location of the building doesn't have to change but the construction method and how the building is built would have to change. He said there are some additional flood measures that may have to take place but they are still legally allowed to put it in the same place. Ms. Palmeri asked if they were aware of that. Mr. Lyons replied letters have been sent out to all property owners in the city that were affected by that. Ms. Palmeri commented they might have not been in that map from what she recalls. Mr. Lyons reiterated any property owner that was affected by that potential change was notified. 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. Plan Commission Minutes February 4, 2020 There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Condition: Final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development and shall include a minimum of 80 landscaping points around the new building. Seconded by Perry. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Lyons gave a brief overview about the upcoming Draft Sawdust District Plan Joint Workshop. He stated the workshop is on Tuesday, February 111h1 2020 at 5:00 pm at City Hall, room 404. The workshop would be with Plan Commission, Redevelopment Authority and Common Council. He said they have been working on this for almost two years now with the Advisory Group. He said there was a public open house last week where there was a really good turnout. He explained the rest of the adoption process. He said the Commission will receive a full-size copy of the Plan at the workshop but the Plan can also be found on the City's website. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:34 pm. (Hinz/Ford) Respectfully submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager Plan Commission Minutes February 4, 2020