Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-20 pc minutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 September 15, 2020 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES September 15, 2020 PRESENT: Mamadou Coulibaly, Margy Davey, Michael Ford, John Hinz, John Kiefer, Justin Mitchell, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp, Jay Stengel EXCUSED: Derek Groth, Phil Marshall STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Allen Davis, Community Development Director; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager / City Engineer; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Steven Wiley, Associate Planner; Brandon Nielsen, Assistant Planner Chairperson Propp called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of August 18, 2020 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Davey) I. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING AND SHUNTING AREAS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE FRONT YARD AT 900 N. KOELLER STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan amendment to allow for additional parking, shunting areas, and accessory structures at 900 N. Koeller 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 petitioner requests expansions to the parking and vehicle display area facing N. Koeller Street in the front of the site. Additional parking/display is proposed in the southwest corner of the site. The petitioner also requests additional vehicle display/shunting areas along the eastern edge of the existing outlot. These areas are designated on the proposed site plan for trailers and towing. An LP fill station with bollards and landscaping are proposed adjacent to the outlot’s southeast corner. The petitioners installed a canopy in front of the existing building on-site. This canopy designates the pickup/drop off location in front of the building. In order to accommodate the canopy and 24’ required for two-way drive access, the petitioner has removed parking stalls from the front of the building. Two detached storage buildings are proposed for the western portion of the site. Additional planter islands and beds are proposed in a number of locations including the ends of these buildings and at the ends of the western and southwestern vehicle display areas. He said staff recommends approval of the __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 September 15, 2020 Specific Implementation Plan amendment as proposed with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry asked if the additional outside storage has to adhere to Class I materials and if it has to be real brick opposed to plastic or spray paint-colored brick. Mr. Lyons replied that it will have to be brick or brick veneer. Mr. Hinz asked if the propane tank as shown in the report is okay given that staff does not want the propane tank to have any signage. Mr. Lyons replied that it was not okay. Mr. Hinz asked if they could put propane signage on it. Mr. Lyons replied that they can put propane signage on it, but not any additional signage for U- Haul. He said that during the original approvals, they received approval for signage in excess of what would typically have been allowed. Staff is of the opinion that they were granted a Base Standard Modification for larger signage on the building and they do not need to go further with additional signage. Mr. Hinz asked if they could have the green propane signage, but not the signage that is above it. Mr. Lyons replied that staff is suggesting that they cannot have the U-Haul signage on it. Ms. Propp asked if what they proposed for the frontage road building material is adequate. Mr. Lyons replied that staff feels comfortable with what the petitioner is proposing with the brick or brick veneer plus the knee wall with landscaping in front of it. He said that staff are also requiring that one medium tree be added to the landscaping island, which will further break up the plane. He said that in terms of the world of storage units, what the petitioner has proposed is pretty good with the landscaping and exterior building materials that are being added. Mr. Wiley added that it is a significant improvement on what was originally submitted, which were more modular units that looked like they were just put in place on the site. Ms. Propp asked to see where they are illegally parking now and where they will be allowed to park. Mr. Lyons pointed out the parking areas on the site map including the approved customer parking areas. He stated that with the original approval, the only places they were supposed to be parking were the shunting area and the display areas. The petitioner is requesting essentially trailer __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 September 15, 2020 parking along the side of the north property and that is the only additional new area that they are requesting for parking. Ms. Propp asked for confirmation that there was no parking or structure on the Sawyer Creek side. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively, stating the only new additions to the south property line are the two landscaping islands. Mr. Kiefer joined the meeting at 4:20 pm. Mr. Mitchell asked if there was any particular reason the landscaping on the southern border goes halfway as opposed to continuing along the southern border. Mr. Lyons replied that when it was originally approved by Plan Commission the concern was the view of the shunting area from traffic headed in a northern direction on Koeller. The landscape island was extended to soften the viewpoint looking at the shunting areas as you travel north. Mr. Mitchell stated that he noticed a lot of the images have vehicles parked along the area where they don’t have a curb. He asked if that would no longer be permissible. Mr. Lyons stated that it was not permissible under the original approval either, which is why some of the violation letters were sent. He stated that no vehicle parking is permitted in that area. Mr. Mitchell asked if the petitioner had been asked to consider continuing the landscaping the entire way or if they were told they only had to do half. Mr. Lyons replied that the concern at that time was what it looked like and that’s why it ended where it did. Mr. Hinz stated that he thought there was a discussion about clearance on the side of the building. Mr. Lyons replied that there are some overhead entrance doors on the south side of the building. He said that he does not recall specifically if there was enough clearance room for getting in. Ms. Propp asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. David Bynum and Theresa Smith (applicants), 11700 W. Capitol Drive of Wauwatosa, stated that they felt their points were well covered. Mr. Bynum said that after reviewing the documentation, he is going to lean toward whatever Plan Commission’s recommendations are. Ms. Propp asked if Mr. Bynum agreed with the staff conditions. Mr. Bynum replied that he agreed and they could make it happen. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 September 15, 2020 Mr. Hinz asked if he had been correct about the clearance on the south side of the building. Mr. Bynum replied that Mr. Hinz is correct. Mr. Mitchell stated that the clearance may become an issue when you get close to the very eastern edge. Mr. Lyons noted that Plan Commission did not want storage in that area during the original approval, which is why the approved site plan does not contain any storage. He said that one of the concerns that came up was limiting those storage areas. Ms. Propp thanked Mr. Bynum and Ms. Smith for their statement. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp 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. BSM to expand the legal nonconforming use (personal storage facility) and allow additional accessory structures (two (2) personal storage buildings, LP filling station and an overhead canopy) in the front yard. 2. Final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development and shall substitute out any proposed plants listed on the “Use Sparingly” or “Prohibited” plant lists for code compliant plantings. Final landscaping plan shall also provide the required yard landscaping points based on the area of the storage buildings and LP filling station. 3. Applicant shall plant at least the proposed number of shrub landscaping points and one medium tree in each proposed landscaping end cap. 4. Applicant shall ensure that the widths of the east-west running landscape islands are at least 10 feet and include at least 50 points of shrub landscaping and three shade trees each along their lengths. 5. LP tank shall be limited to a maximum height of 16’-6” and a maximum width of 4’-0” 6. LP tank shall not have signage/logos/trade dress/etc. installed on or around the tank. LP tank shall have at least 40 landscaping points installed around the tank. 7. No outdoor storage allowed outside of the designated vehicle display and vehicle shunting areas. 8. Applicant shall submit plans for a permanent canopy compatible in appearance to the existing building for Department of Community Development review as part of the Site __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 September 15, 2020 Plan Review process or the existing canopy shall be removed immediately upon completion of the Site Plan Review Process. 9. Applicant shall submit storm water management plans for Department of Public Works review during the Site Plan Review Process. 10. All conditions of the original SIP approval from 02/13/2018 are still in effect. Seconded by Ford. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Davey stated that Plan Commission had discussed putting a botanical barrier all the way along the creek and looking at the picture now, it looks like they have several parking spaces along the southern edge of the building which are also going to be contributing things that we do not want going into Sawyer Creek. She is wondering if it would be prudent to suggest that at least the botanical buffer go down that far for the protection of Sawyer Creek. Mr. Ford asked staff if there is an expressed environmental concern regarding Sawyer Creek and this property. Mr. Lyons replied that staff did not have a specific issue or concern with that area. He said that when the original approval went forward, they were looking at the overall reduction in hard surface and the overall impact on the drainage of the site. He said that working through the process initially, it was felt that it was a general overall improvement with the amount of hard surface that would be removed for the site. He said there was expressed concern related to snow storage and making sure that area was not used for snow storage. He said that Public Works brought up that concern and Planning staff agreed that they did not want salt from the parking lot running off into the creek. Mr. Mitchell stated that the comprehensive plan cites that protection of water quality is critical for Oshkosh’s health, business, and recreational opportunities. The plan cites this area, although not specifically this property, as an environmentally sensitive area given that the property is in close proximity to a flood area. The number one goal in that section of the comprehensive plan is to protect and preserve wetlands, shorelines, and environmentally sensitive areas. He said that anywhere you have a large number of vehicles, you have drip oil and gasoline and miscellaneous pollutants, which pose a risk especially if the surface flows directly into a creek. The American Planning Association cites the impervious surface of the surrounding earth and areas as a serious threat to water quality. He said this is certainly something that should be looked at as a serious thing and that the photograph makes it look like any pollutants in that area would flow into the creek in the event of heavy rain. He thinks that the presentations provided by staff should address what the comprehensive plan says about the environmentally sensitive elements of the proposal. It would be great to see the City have tools to support the improvements that should be put in place because there really should be a buffer as far along as is feasible to not enable continued pollution of our already heavily polluted waterways. He said that it is reasonable for Plan Commission to request that this project include a buffer and that the City supports that in some fashion. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 September 15, 2020 Ms. Propp asked about the drainage of the site and if Public Works will require an additional drainage plan. Mr. Gierach replied that without having the full detailed site plan, he is not sure exactly how the site is draining. There is some internal storm sewer on the site, but he is not sure if it drains directly south to the creek or north to one of the right-of-ways. Ms. Propp asked if an additional drainage plan is needed. Mr. Gierach replied that there is no need for a storm water management plan based on the work they’re showing here. Ms. Propp asked if that was because it was grandfathered in. Mr. Gierach replied that impervious disturbances does not trigger the code requirements for storm water management plan because the amount of work they’re doing. Mr. Hinz asked for confirmation that Plan Commission worked with them on a storm water management plan when this was originally approved. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. Mr. Hinz asked for confirmation that City ordinances are in place for setbacks alongside the waterways so they are not right on top of the water. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. Ms. Propp asked for any additional comments. Ms. Propp stated that she liked the idea of asking them to extend the green space along the waterway to the extent that it works with the turning radius coming into their driveway. Mr. Lyons stated that there is nothing in the code that specifically would require them to do that. Mr. Perry stated that he does not see how it can be completely extended with the parking spaces as they’re designated currently. He said that he sees this as an impediment to the business which is concerning because there really isn’t much else that would fit there other than this type of business. Ms. Propp said that she was not talking about extending it all of the way to the back of the building. Mr. Hinz asked staff what the long buildings are where the greenery stops to the south of Sawyer Creek. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 September 15, 2020 Mr. Lyons replied that the buildings are apartments. Mr. Hinz stated that it is all blocked off with trees already so it’s not adding more buffer visually. Mr. Lyons stated that there are options like curbing and adding green space for the commission to consider. He said that if the concern is specific to water run-off, then more curbing could be added. He said that it is one of the things that the current code requires, but when this site was approved it was not required. Ms. Davey asked if curbing would offer the same protection to the waterway that green space would. Mr. Lyons replied that it would not be as effective, but it would be better than doing nothing. He said that the green space would need to be curbed as well. Motion by Davey to amend the conditions to include green space to the end of the parking and include curbing along the southern lot line. Seconded by Mitchell. Mr. Gierach stated that he does not know the specific areas in question as far as square footage of disturbance. He said that if the commission decides to add the green space to buffer along the entire parking lot, code has a 20,000 square foot impervious disturbance limit and once you hit that threshold the storm water requirements come into play. He said that adding all of this may have greater implications down the line for any development or uses in the future. Mr. Lyons added that the cost of the project could increase significantly. Mr. Gierach stated that with what’s proposed right now, code requires treatment of the water on driving aisles and parking areas. He said that even if it surpasses 20,000 square feet right now going from a parking aisle to a green space, treatment would not be required. He said that what it could do is kick them into requirements sooner depending on what they do in the future. Mr. Mitchell stated that the storm water provisions are designed and intended to improve water quality. He suspects there is a way this could be done so that it’s not used as a tool to oppose efforts that are being considered to improve water quality. He said that they’re saying not to do these because then the provisions to improve water quality will kick in, but that’s what they’re there for. Mr. Lyons replied that they are not saying not to do it, but they are trying to make sure Plan Commission understands the full implications of doing it. Ms. Davey asked Mr. Gierach if not doing the curb to the end of the lot line and just doing the green space would make a significant difference as far as their cost and not disturbing as much. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 September 15, 2020 Mr. Gierach replied that he would need to know the dimensions. He said that what the commission decides today may have implications down the road. Motion withdrawn by Davey. Seconded by Mitchell. Motion by Davey to amend the conditions to include green space to the end of the parking. Seconded by Mitchell. Mr. Hinz stated that he is not against keeping the waterway clean, but he thinks that the commission is moving the goalposts after the game has begun. He said that he will not be supporting the amendment. Mr. Ford stated that he agreed with Mr. Hinz. He said he was satisfied with the project being consistent with the comprehensive plan including the environmental aspects that Mr. Mitchell had mentioned. He said that they have come back with a plan that has less impervious space, so it’s actually an improvement on what they had approved in 2018. He said that because they have the ability to trigger these new things and go above and beyond what they required before, he does not think it is a smart precedent for the commission to set. He said that he will not be supporting it. Mr. Perry stated that he agreed. He said he was concerned about the precedent as well as parking with the green space, so he will not be supporting the amendment. Motion to amend conditions failed 3-6 (Ayes: Davey, Mitchell and Propp. Nays: Coulibaly, Hinz, Ford, Kiefer, Perry and Stengel.) Motion passed 8-1 (Nay: Mitchell). II. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW WINDOW CLOSURES ON THE STREET SIDE FAÇADE AT 1564 PLUMMER 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 Residential Design Standards to allow window area reductions on the street side façade at 1564 Plummer 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 remodeled the interior of the house, restored a first floor window on the Plummer Street façade and reduced three window openings on the Florida Avenue facade. The work was done without zoning or inspections approval or Plan __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 September 15, 2020 Commission review. The window openings along the side of the front porch were not altered. The applicant stated that despite the window reductions the overall percentage of façade area dedicated to window openings continues to exceed the code minimum of 15 percent. Staff does not support the completion of work without the appropriate approvals and permits. However, the applicant has worked with staff to address the no permit and window reduction violations. The percentage of façade area devoted to windows remains above the 15 percent code requirement on the street side façade. Staff is of the opinion that the work has not significantly impacted the architectural integrity of the street side façade and supports the variance request. He said staff recommends approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to allow for window reductions on the street side façade with the conditions and a finding listed in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Hinz inquired about the rear windows and their new placement on the home. Mr. Wiley explained the second floor and porch windows stayed the same but the other ones were reduced. He said the windows toward the rear were actually moved. Mr. Lyons reiterated the porch windows are staying, the second story windows are staying and both the bottom windows on the side façade have been moved and altered. Mr. Hinz asked if staff approves of the bigger open space. Mr. Lyons confirmed and explained staff’s thought process for approving it. Ms. Propp asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Dan Krier (applicant), 206 E. River Drive in Omro, said he is with Krier Construction. He said Mr. Wiley did a good job presenting the information. He explained there was a little bit of miscommunication between the homeowner and Krier Construction related to pulling the permit and that is why the work was done without a permit. There were no other public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 September 15, 2020 1. Variance is for the window reductions already performed only and no additional front or street side façade windows shall be reduced without Plan Commission review and approval. 2. All siding on the house shall match and be consistent in appearance throughout. 3. All current and future work on the house shall meet the Residential Design Standards and any work not in compliance with the standards shall be filed as separate requests for Plan Commission review and approval. 4. Applicant/Owner shall obtain all required approvals and permits for this and any future work conducted at the property. Finding: 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Seconded by Hinz. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Perry stated he was disappointed, especially in the business, because a permit was not pulled. He said not pulling a permit has been an issue in the past and there is no excuse for it. He stated he does not know where he stands on this item because the business should know better. Motion carried 8-1 (Nay: Perry). III. ACCESS CONTROL VARIANCES FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 701 N. MAIN STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey, Mr. Hinz and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner is requesting access control variances to permit the following at the N. Main Street driveway entrance: 1. Reduce corner clearance from N. Main St. and W. Irving Ave. to 55 feet where code requires a minimum 120 feet. 2. Reduce driveway spacing on N. Main St. to 15 feet where code requires a minimum of 105 feet. 3. Reduce lateral clearance from N. Main St. to 17 feet where code requires a minimum of 75 feet. 4. Increase the number of driveways from the maximum of 1 to 2. Mr. Nielsen and Mr. Lyons presented the item. The proposed development will have one access driveway along Irving Avenue and one along N. Main Street. The intended use of the property is a tavern, similar to what was there before with improvements. The proposed 17’ lateral clearance __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 September 15, 2020 provides enough room for one vehicle and the proposed parking lot is small, with only 3 stalls, which should not result in any stacking of vehicles in the parking lot’s one-way drive aisle. The increased number of driveways from one to two, will allow for a one-way driveway and eliminate the need to back into the public ROW. The proposed N. Main St. entrance has a 55’ clearance from the N. Main St. /Irving Ave. intersection. The required corner clearance cannot be met for this property as the lot has only 77’ of frontage along N. Main Street. Staff also supports the decrease in driveway spacing from the required 105’ down to the current 15’ from the neighboring driveway to the north. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the proposal and has not noted any concerns. Currently the proposed plans show a 14’ driveway width and staff feel the minimum requirement of 18’ for one-way driveways should be met. Additionally staff feels the driveway apron needs to be increased from a 3’ flare to a 5’ flare. Mr. Nielsen said staff recommends approval of access control variances as requested. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. Ms. Propp asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Joel Ehrfurth, 2260 Salscheider Court of Green Bay, said he is with Mach IV Engineering who developed the site plan. He stated is available to answer any questions. There were no other public comments on this item. Ms. Propp 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 Perry. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE Site Inspections Report: N/A. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 September 15, 2020 Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh Department of Community Development requests review and approval of amendments to the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Slusarek presented the item. The City of Oshkosh adopted a new zoning ordinance which went into effect on January 1, 2017. Since the adoption of the ordinance, staff has noticed a number of code sections that should be modified following further examination. Staff is proposing amendments to the zoning ordinance to provide consistency and further clarity on regulations for accessory structures. Also, sections within the Performance Standards article of the Zoning Ordinance are being amended to remove “Applicability” provisions to clarify that the performance standards apply to all properties and uses. Staff is also proposing to repeal and replace sections of the ordinance regarding the Board of Appeals to bring the ordinance into compliance with current state statutes and case law. He said staff recommends that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lyons explained further that all the amendments are stemming from discussions with the City Attorney’s office. He said one of the things they did this year was go through all of the City ordinances and do a review against state statutes and case law. He said after the review, the City’s Attorney’s office found items that needed to be updated to match the language in the state statues or case law. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. Ms. Propp inquired about the amendments to the Board of Appeals and asked if it made it more restrictive. Mr. Lyons replied it does not. He explained the amendments are related to aligning the ordinance language with the state statutes and case law language. Ms. Propp opened up the public hearing. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed the public hearing. Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Davey. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 September 15, 2020 PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT Reschedule the Plan Commission meeting of Tuesday, October 20, 2020 to Wednesday, October 21, 2020 Mr. Lyons stated due to some scheduling conflicts, the Plan Commission of Tuesday, October 20th will have to be moved to Wednesday, October 21st. He said the meeting would still be held at 4:00 pm. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:13 pm. (Davey/Hinz) Respectfully submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager