Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-06-20 pc minutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 October 6, 2020 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 2020 PRESENT: Margy Davey, Michael Ford, John Hinz, John Kiefer, Justin Mitchell, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp, Jay Stengel, Philip Marshall EXCUSED: Mamadou Coulibaly, Derek Growth STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Steven Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Steven Wiley, Associate Planner Chairperson Propp called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of September 15, 2020 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Davey) I. RELEASE SANITARY SEWER INTERCEPTOR EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE 2400 THROUGH 2700 BLOCKS OF CLOVER STREET, NORTH TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF W. FERNAU AVENUE Site Inspections Reports: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh is requesting the release of a sanitary interceptor sewer easement located on properties on the west side of the 2400 Through 2700 Blocks of Clover Street, north to the south side of W. Fernau Avenue. 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 city was approached by a property owner on Clover Street wishing to construct a deck within the easement area. Typically the City will not grant an encroachment for decks or similar structures in these kind of easements. However, the Department of Public Works indicated the sanitary sewer interceptor is no longer active and the easement can be released. The existing north-south easement is 20 feet wide by approximately 4,290 feet long running from the Winnebago County Landfill site south to 2405/2407 Clover Street. 2405/2407 Clover Street also contains a 100-foot segment along the south side of the property leading from the rear yard east to Clover Street. With the proposed release of the easement, property owners will be allowed to construct structures within the easement area. He said that staff recommends approval of the release of the sanitary sewer interceptor easement located on the west side of the 2400 through 2700 Blocks of Clover Street, north to the south side of W. Fernau Avenue as proposed. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 October 6, 2020 There were no technical questions on this item. Ms. Propp asked if there were any public comments. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed public comments. 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 7-0. Mr. Kiefer arrived at 4:05pm. II. GRANT ELECTRIC EASEMENT AT 201 CEAPE AVENUE (OSHKOSH CONVENTION CENTER PARKING LOT) TO WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh is requesting the granting of a public utility easement to Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPS) for underground electrical facilities at the Oshkosh Convention Center parking lot, 201 Ceape Avenue. 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 proposed easement is located on the east side of the property leading from one of the previously approved easements (Easement Number 2) and heads east to the east property line. The easement is proposed to be 12 feet wide by approximately 73.50 feet long. The easement will allow WPS to maintain or replace its facilities and is subject to conditions and restrictions listed in the easement agreement. The Transportation Department has reviewed this request and does not have concerns with the easement affecting the function of the parking lot. He said that staff recommends approval of the granting of the proposed electric easement at 201 Ceape Avenue to Wisconsin Public Service Corporation as proposed. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 October 6, 2020 Ms. Propp asked if there were any public comments. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Ford arrived at 4:10pm. Ms. Propp closed public comments. Motion by Hinz 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 8-0. III. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW WINDOW CLOSURES ON THE FRONT FAÇADE AND EXTERIOR MATERIALS NOT THE SAME AS THE MATERIALS ON THE ORIGINAL BUILDING AT 603 CEAPE AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz and Ms. Propp 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 closures on the front façade and exterior materials not the same as the materials on the original building at 603 Ceape Avenue. 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 removed the previous transom and sidelights that were around the front door on the front façade. The applicant also removed and replaced the front door. Additional work was done when the applicant replaced the initial replacement door with a new replacement door. The work was done without zoning or inspections approval or Plan Commission review. The applicant had conversations with Planning Services staff regarding the modifications to the front façade. Planning staff informed him that staff could not issue a permit by-right due to the front façade window closures and that Plan Commission review and a design standards variance were necessary. He said that staff recommends approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to allow for window closures on the front façade and exterior materials not the same as the materials found on the original building with the conditions and a findings as listed in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 October 6, 2020 Mr. Marshall asked why painting the area around the door is sufficient because although it may match the color, there are still three different materials. Mr. Lyons replied that the asphalt siding on the lower side of the house is extremely hard to find, so they are trying to find the best available option and painting the area around the door will allow it to remain close to a two-tone color house. Mr. Wiley stated that the applicant cited the cost as the reason for not going for panels that looked like asphalt siding. Ms. Propp asked if the grey siding is everywhere except the front facade. Mr. Wiley replied affirmatively. Ms. Propp 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. Ms. Propp closed public comments. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. Variance is for the work already completed (window closures and siding as installed) only. All future work proposed not in conformance with the Residential Design Standards shall be filed as separate requests for Department of Community Development and Plan Commission review prior to the start of work. 2. Applicant/owner shall paint the brick molding to match the color of the vinyl siding. Applicant/owner shall obtain all required approvals and building permits for the work already completed and any future work 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. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 October 6, 2020 Mr. Hinz complimented staff for their work with the applicant and working to find a solution to make the house look better. Ms. Propp asked what they are painting. Mr. Wiley replied that they painted the small tan area around the door. Ms. Propp asked if it was possible to paint the asphalt. Mr. Lyons replied that he was not familiar with anyone painting asphalt. Ms. Propp asked if the applicant will be required to obtain all past building permits and be cited for not doing so. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. Ms. Davey asked if the owner was the applicant. Mr. Lyons replied that the original applicant was the tenant who completed the work, but the owner must apply for the design standards variance. He said that the tenant will have to pay for it if the owner signs off, but the owner is ultimately responsible. Mr. Mitchell asked if this was a scenario where GO-HNI could become involved or if Plan Commission could refer this to GO-HNI. Mr. Lyons replied that in addition to GO-HNI, there were several City programs that the applicant could utilize. He said that the programs require the applicant to share financial information and not all applicants are willing to do that. Mr. Mitchell asked if the information was provided. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. Motion carried 9-0. IV. SUBDIVISION VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 615 MOUNT VERNON STREET Site Inspections Reports: Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is applying for two variances from the subdivision regulations. The first, to allow the creation of a lot with a width of 57.01 feet at the right-of-way line whereas Section 30-443(H)(6) __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 October 6, 2020 requires a minimum width of 60 feet at the building setback line for newly-created parcels. The second request is to allow creation of a lot with an area of 6,851 square feet whereas Section 30-41 (G) requires a minimum lot area of 7,200 square feet in the Two Flat Residential – 10 (TR-10) Zoning District. 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 these variance requests is to widen the width of an existing nonconforming-sized lot from 45 feet to 48 feet. The consequence of this is a conforming-sized lot will become nonconforming in width and area (60.00 feet to 57.01 feet wide, 7,200 square feet to 6,851 square feet in area). The applicant states in her narrative, her existing driveway is extremely narrow, 7.8 feet wide tight between the house and an existing fence. The width of the driveway does not meet the minimum eight-foot width the Zoning Ordinance requires. The addition of three feet will allow the owner of 609 Mount Vernon Street to widen the driveway to 10.3 feet wide and reconstruct the fence on the new lot line. Staff is of the opinion that the reduction of 615 Mount Vernon Street’s width and area will not adversely affect the neighborhood and in fact eliminate two nonconforming situations at 609 Mount Vernon Street. He said staff recommends approval of subdivision variance requests 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. There were no statements from the applicant. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed public comments. 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 Kiefer. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Mitchell offered accommodations to the parties involved for working together to come up with a compromise. Motion carried 9-0. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 October 6, 2020 V A. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 1844 OSHKOSH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner requests approval of a General Development Plan (GDP) and Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) for a commercial development at 1844 Oshkosh Avenue. 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 requesting BSMs related to landscaping for specific locations, increased number of ground signs, and reduced sign and pavement setbacks. To offset the landscaping code deficiencies, increased number of signs and reduced monument sign and pavement setbacks, the applicant has exceeded the overall landscaping point requirement for the site and also exceeded the minimum Class I material allotment for both buildings. Landscaping has also been added around the monument signs to soften its appearance from the public right-of-way. Staff is comfortable that the applicant has adequately offset the requested BSMs and the overall site is complimentary to the surrounding area. He said staff recommends approval of the General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan and the findings listed above with the conditions and findings as listed in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. Ms. Propp asked how the right-in and right-out will be signed. Mr. Gohde replied that there would be a triangular piece in the middle to prevent them from trying to turn left. He said that if someone was trying to turn left, they would need to go into the opposite lane of traffic, around the median, and stop all traffic from turning in. He said that the raised island generally prevents people from turning left. Mr. Lyons stated that the right-in and right-out design would be consistent with the one for Dunkin Donuts and Baskin Robbins. Mr. Marshall asked if the developments in the area are intended to be uniform in appearance and color. Mr. Lyons replied that they are not specifying color, only the percentage of material types. He said the color palettes might be a more modern architectural design choice. Mr. Marshall stated that this is a huge development along a major corridor of our city, so he wants to make sure that things are visually appealing. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 October 6, 2020 Mr. Lyons stated that when Council and Plan Commission originally approved the Corporate Business Park, there was a very high standard in terms of types of materials. He said it was a purposeful decision made at that time. Mr. Mitchell asked if the ten-foot sign was five feet off the road or five feet off the sidewalk. Mr. Lyons replied that one sign is roughly five feet off the inside edge of the sidewalk and one sign is roughly ten feet off the inside edge of the sidewalk. Mr. Mitchell stated that the large ten-foot sign seemed like it would be a little out of place given the location and proximity to the road. Mr. Lyons replied that it would be consistent with what was done with the development to the east. Ms. Propp asked if there were any visual problems with the monument signs. Mr. Lyons replied that they would have to be outside of the vision triangles. Ms. Propp asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mr. Adam James of Vision Architecture LLC. stated that the right-in and right-out came up somewhat late in the process and it will create a hardship for the owners. The tenants for the south building will not sign a lease if the access is denied. This is a concern because there is already a deed restriction that pushing the driveway to where it is. During the workshop, he had some elevations that showed alternative materials for the façade of the building, but these were not allowed based on the 75% Class I material requirements. He does not agree they are not long- lasting or of similar high-quality, and they had to revise the elevations to Class I materials to obtain approval. Mr. James encouraged Plan Commission to review the Class I materials list so that designers can use more creativity and materials that provide better visual interest. Mr. Marshall asked for clarification on Class I materials. Mr. Lyons replied that they are classified as glass, brick, brick veneer, stone, and stone veneer. Mr. Marshall asked for an example of what materials could be used to provide better visual interest. Mr. James replied that they originally had put in aluminum composite panels, which are very common, durable, and long-lasting. Another material there were planning to use is long-board extruded aluminum siding, which is a thick, heavy-duty material than can be used to achieve accurate and beautiful wood grain looks. He said that it changes the texture and scale in the building without sacrificing the longevity of the materials or visual quality of the building. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 October 6, 2020 Mr. Marshall asked if they could use a different brick color. Mr. James replied that they could investigate that. Mr. Hinz asked about the time constraints of the project to see if this item could be laid over so City staff could have more time to come up with a better consensus in terms of the design. Mr. James replied that he provided City staff with the alternative design. Mr. Lyons replied that the materials used for the alternative design were significantly below the materials standard. Mr. Hinz replied that Plan Commission had discussed expanding their definition of Class I materials. Mr. Lyons replied that they have not been provided material samples like they have with other applicants to help with that discussion. He said the applicant and owner were made aware by Public Works for over a year that it would need to be right-in and right-out only. He said that they have had some of these discussions and it has been a struggle to get to this point. Mr. Hinz replied if they maybe they could get the samples if they had a couple of weeks, noting that what was presented at the workshop was very beautiful. Mr. James stated that he did not provide physical samples, but he provided product brochures. Mr. Lyons replied that they need physical samples. Mr. James replied that if they had asked for it, he would have certainly provided them. He said that at this point he would really like to get approval and get moving. He said that he can work through the elevation issues with staff, but at this point they are running out of time. Mr. Gohde stated that there are intersection and driveway separation requirements for roads that serve commercial or manufacturing properties. He said that turning conflicts were created by shifting the driveway and they are not meeting code for the driveway spacing from the intersection. Mr. Lyons stated that if full access is approved, it could create a conflict with the new applicant to the west who may also request full access. Mr. Adams replied that if they moved the driveway to line up with Rath lane, there would be traffic coming from over the back corner off the curve. He said that they were concerned with sight lines, which is why they pushed the driveway south. Mr. Marshall asked for confirmation that this was a safety issue for City staff. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 October 6, 2020 Mr. Gohde replied affirmatively. Ms. Propp asked Mr. James for confirmation that one or two tenants will not sign a lease. Mr. James replied affirmatively. Ms. Propp stated that it seemed dangerous to her without the right-in and right-out and that they should have taken care of the materials at the workshop. Mr. Lyons replied that they only had pictures at the workshop, not the materials. Mr. Hinz stated that it was clear that the materials were not brick from the pictures. Mr. Mitchell stated that the right-in and right-out is a safer option for pedestrian traffic. Mr. Ford asked if there was a possibility the applicant could wait two weeks and submit the materials to planning. Mr. James replied that except for the physical materials, everything has already been submitted. Two weeks is not a viable solution because they do not have time. 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 Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. Cross access drive aisle required for access to adjoining property to the east. 2. Southern access from N. Koeller Street shall be right-in, right-out only with final design approved by the Department of Public Works. 3. BSM to allow reduced front yard setback (north) to 11’ for bike rack pad. 4. BSM to allow reduced side yard setback (east) to 5’ for parking lot/drive-thru. 5. BSM to allow reduced main entrance side building foundation landscaping points to 0 points for the north building and 0 points on south building where 88.4 points and 74 points, respectively, are required. Minimum 88.4 landscaping points shall be applied to the street side of the north building and 74 points shall be applied to the street side of the south building. 6. BSM to allow increased number of ground signs to 2, where code allows 1 per street frontage. 7. BSM to allow reduced front yard setback for monument sign to 5’ (south) and 10.7’ (north). 8. BSM to allow increased lighting level along east property line to 0.6 footcandle. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 October 6, 2020 9. Final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Hinz. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Davey stated that safety needs to trump design. Mr. Ford stated that maybe this is an impetus for Plan Commission to revisit the Class I material idea. Mr. Hinz agreed with Mr. Ford. Motion carried 9-0. V B. ACCESS CONTROL VARIANCES FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 1844 OSHKOSH AVENUE Site Inspections Reports: Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner is requesting access control variances to permit the following: 1. Reduced lateral clearance from N. Koeller St. to 30’ where code requires a minimum of 75 feet. 2. Reduced corner clearance from Rath Ln./N. Koeller St. intersection to 84’, where code requires a minimum clearance of 120’. 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 proposed development will have two driveway accesses along N. Koeller Street. The intended use of the property is for a two-building commercial development. In this particular case, staff does not have concerns with the requested lateral clearance reduction as the proposed 30’ lateral clearance provides for stacking of two vehicles and the proposed parking lot will have two accesses to alleviate stacking concerns. The proposed Jackson St. entrance has an 84’ clearance from the Rath Ln. intersection, where code requires a 120’ corner clearance. The applicant has difficulties meeting the corner clearance requirement due to the proposed site layout. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the proposal and has not noted that two-way traffic coming in and out of the site from this access may cause traffic concerns. Therefore, they are recommending that this access be right-in, right-out only. He said staff recommends approval of access control variances with the conditions and a findings as listed in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 October 6, 2020 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. There were no statements from the applicant. 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. Southern access from N. Koeller Street shall be right-in, right-out only with final design approved by the Department of Public Works. Seconded by Perry. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Mitchell thanked Mr. James for his time and willingness to work through the materials issue. Motion carried 9-0. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT Senior Center Re-Siding Mr. Lyons stated that they are working on re-siding the senior center which did not need a design standards variance but because it is a public building they wanted to bring it to Plan Commissions attention. He said that they had a very deteriorating wood siding on the building and they are re- siding with a vinyl material. He said it will have a similar appearance, but hopefully the material will last longer. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:18 pm. (Hinz/Ford) Respectfully submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager