Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES December 15, 2020 PRESENT: Margy Davey, Derek Groth, John Kiefer, Phil Marshall, Justin Mitchell, Thomas Perry, Jay Stengel, Kathleen Propp EXCUSED: Mamadou Coulibaly, Michael Ford, John Hinz STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Allen Davis, Community Development Director; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Jeff Nau, Associate Planner Mr. Kiefer called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of December 1, 2020 were approved as presented. (Kiefer/Mitchell) Chairperson Propp joined the meeting at 4:03pm. I. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW A STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF WITH A THICKNESS OF 26 GAUGE AND EXPOSED FASTENERS AT 307 W. 9TH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Groth 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 standing seam metal roof with a thickness of 26 gauge and exposed fasteners at 307 W. 9th 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 replaced the previous standing seam roof on the house earlier this year. On November 13th, 2020, Inspections staff found that work on the roof was completed without a permit. The applicant spoke with Planning Services staff after receiving a violation notice. In discussing the completed work, staff found that the roofing installed does not meet current zoning standards. The product installed on the property is of 26 gauge thickness and has exposed fasteners. Applicable ordinance requires 24 gauge thickness and concealed fasteners. He said that staff recommends denial of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to allow a residential standing seam metal roof with a thickness of 26 gauge and exposed fasteners at 307 W. 9th Avenue. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Mitchell asked if Mr. Wiley could talk through what a denial request specifically looks like if the Plan Commission adds no other provisions. Mr. Lyons replied that the variance would be denied and then they would be issued a violation letter to let them know that they do need to replace the roof with a code-compliant roofing material. Mr. Kiefer asked what options the homeowner has at this point and if they are going to have to do a complete tear off or if there a way to hide the fasteners or anything. Mr. Lyons replied that they cannot fix the thickness because it does not meet the standards and the only way to rectify that is to remove the roof and replace with a new material. It may be very difficult to do something with the fasteners, but the contractor may have thoughts on that. Ms. Propp asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. On behalf of the applicant, Abram Lezama stated that he can’t really figure out a way to cover the fasteners. They are already galvanized and painted the same color. Ms. Propp asked the contractor why he did not take out a permit. Abram Lezama replied that he tried contracting City Hall and he had never obtained a permit online. With that and the pandemic, he tried calling and he was able to reach someone, but he is not sure who. He asked if it was alright to install the material and they said it would be alright, but they never informed him about the gauge, which he should have looked into. That was his fault and it was a mistake that won’t happen again. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Abram Lezama stated that he doesn’t know if the commission was informed or not, but along with the roof, there is an underlayment and then the purlins were fastened down for the steel. Mr. Wiley replied that it was included in the staff report and asked if it was installed per the manufacturer’s instructions. Abram Lezama replied affirmatively. Motion by Kiefer to approve of the design standard variance request. Seconded by Davey. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Davey stated that she doesn’t know if it is fair to the tenant due to the timeline. Her concern is having the tenant rip off the roof now because it is winter. She is wondering how they could put a timeline on this so that they could have until the middle of July or something to replace the roof. The tenant had nothing to do with this and should not have to suffer during the cold winter. Mr. Lyons replied that they cannot condition a denial, but they can take the request of the commission to Inspection Services who handles permit enforcement along with Planning. They could relay to Inspection Services that after discussion with the applicant and the commission, they would like to give the applicant time to address it in the spring. Inspection Services would be more than happy to work with the timeframe that the commission recommends. Mr. Mitchell stated that there is additional information that could be valuable in making a decision including what the actual thickness he was hoping for is and how close this. If there is a coating that makes it thicker, we might be talking four pieces of paper thickness difference and he would want to know the difference before imposing something to that degree. He knows that the basis in the document provided is related to wind and wanting to make sure that it’s going succeed well in windy conditions. He thinks there may be a potential way to compromise in having the homeowner have a structural engineer complete an assessment at their expense. It very well could be that this is going to survive all weather conditions. Those are just two considerations that lead to the idea of tabling this and having it come back in February or around that time. It would also provide a temporary halt from the fines that they’re being sent on a regular basis. He is not saying it‘s okay to violate the rules, but he wants to make sure the commission has the information they need to make this decision. Mr. Lyons asked what information Mr. Mitchell is looking for specifically. He knows that when this ordinance was put into effect two years ago, there was a lot of research and discussion that took place, which is why they settled on the original thickness requirement based on industry standards. He wants to make sure that if they table it, they give the applicant very clear direction on what Mr. Mitchell is looking for. Mr. Mitchell replied that he looked through the guide and did not find an actual thickness. Gauge is more of a classification and there is a range of thicknesses in that and it can vary if they have a weather resistant coating on it. The basis was that it needs to be a particular thickness to withstand certain conditions and it may already be there, but he doesn’t have that information. Another item was a concern for wind which was the basis for the heavier material, and maybe this is completely able to address that. The current setting is fine, but we don’t know that without having a structural engineer or someone who is qualified to give a neutral opinion look at it. Mr. Lyons asked if Mr. Mitchell wants the applicant to provide some information from a structural engineer on wind-loading for our area. In terms of the gauge versus thickness, when reviewing these types of ordinances almost all of them are based on a gauge requirement of metal. He asked Mr. Mitchell if he is looking for the applicant to provide some sort of information that their roofing material acts similar to what a 24 gauge does. Mr. Mitchell replied affirmatively, stating that or the enhancements on the particular roofing product that makes it to the desired thickness. He doesn’t know what the thickness they have is or what the specs are for the material they utilized. Mr. Lyons stated that the contractor heard what Mr. Mitchell is proposing, but we still need to vote. He just wanted to make sure the applicant knows what Mr. Mitchell would be looking for. Abram Lezama asked if they are talking about if the roof will withstand the wind. Mr. Lyons replied that one of the concerns with not meeting the material concerns of the ordinance is wind loading and if he would be able to consult a structural engineer to determine if the material meets local wind-loading requirements. Abram Lezama replied that there are four rolls of screws every 24 inches, so the steel is very fastened on there and it won’t go anywhere. Mr. Kiefer stated that he is tired of having to deal with these variances because of the lack of getting the permits, which we would hope would solve these issues. He is a little hesitant to vote that this should be denied because he does not know what the significance of the difference between 24 and 26 gauge is from an engineering standpoint and maybe that’s what we need to know. He is also having a hard time with the fastener because really the only part of the roof you can see is the back garage part. He would like more clarification as to how far away this product is from what they want roofs to have. Mr. Perry stated that in deference to his follow board members, he is not looking at this issue as a gauge or fastener issue. The main issue is that no permit was received for this job and it was not received by a contractor who should have known better. He is not concerned about the tenants because the roof would be ripped off and a new one put on at the same time. They would not be waiting for a new roof to be installed. This is simply the issue of a permit not being issued. If a permit was issued, then these things would have been known and the correct material would have been used. This is a builder who should have known better and this is something that we have to take a stand on. He will be voting not to approve this. Motion by Mitchell to amend existing Motion to lay over the residential design standards variance to allow a standing seam metal roof with a thickness of 26 gauge and exposed fasteners at 307 W. 9th Avenue until a February 2021 Plan Commission meeting. No second, motion to amend existing motion denied. Motion denied 1-7. (Ayes: Mitchell Nays: Perry, Stengel, Marshall, Davey, Groth, Kiefer, Propp) II. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ADAPTIVE REUSE AT 1332 MONROE STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit approval for an adaptive reuse at 1332 Monroe 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 requesting approval for an adaptive reuse of the site to convert the existing 12-bed CBRF to eight 1-bedroom affordable rental units for singles persons. According to the applicant, each unit will be on the ground floor and the space on the lower level/basement will not be used as living space. Each of the eight living units will be approximately 356 sq. ft. and include a single bed, night stand, dresser, full bath, living room, and kitchen with two burners, microwave, and refrigerator. One of the units meets accessibility requirements. The applicant has also noted that no substantial modifications are being proposed for the site with the exception of fire sprinkler installation on all floors and in all units. He said that staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit for an adaptive reuse at 1332 Monroe Street as proposed. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry asked if this is eliminating the CBRRF and instead making it a non CBRF use and having it being individual rentals. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively, starting that it would be an ADVOCAP-run rental property. Mr. Perry stated that he is asking because there should be nothing that needs to be done if you go from a 12 to an 8 CBRF. He asked for conformation that it’s in front of the commission because it’s not being a CBRF. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively, adding that it is essentially going from CBRF to a multi-family residential. Ms. Propp asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant. Mr. Lyons stated that this is an item staff had discussions with ADVOCAP on as they try to find more affordable housing options in the City. They met a number of times to help them achieve this. It is a site that became available for them to purchase and further some of their goals in the City. The adaptive reuse is the method to achieve this because the building is setup for individual type uses even though it is not consistent with the zoning district. He said that’s why they have an adaptive reuse in the code. Jim and Barb Kleppin, 606 E. Custer Avenue stated that they live on the north side across the street on Custard Avenue. Their concern was parking on the streets. Mr. Kleppin asked for confirmation that visitors to the apartment would be parking on the street. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively, adding that they have two overflow spots for visitors on site and anything over those two would be street parking as per typical residential use. Mr. Kleppin asked if it would be similar to a Court Tower or a Main View type of apartment for that type of person. Mr. Lyons replied that it is intended for one bedroom single occupant units, so there wouldn’t be families or anything like that. Mr. Kleppin asked if it would go to just a general apartment rental in the neighborhood if ADVOCAP has this for a period of time and decides that this doesn’t work out for them. Mr. Lyons replied that it would have to go through an approval process to change from ADVOCAP to a typical multi-family. It would have to back through this process. Adaptive reuses are for a specific use only. Mr. Kleppin asked if there was a tentative start date on this. Mr. Slusarek replied that it would be in this coming year based on conversations with ADVOCAP. Mr. Lyons stated that there is no remodeling or anything that will take place, so it would look to be a rental in short order. Ms. Kleppin stated that they have no more questions. 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 Mitchell 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. Mr. Mitchell stated that he appreciates the neighbors for joining in and offering some questions. He is curious about the staffing, if this is a facility where they are going to have on-site staff or have overnight staffing. He is excited about ADVOCAP’s use of the facility because it is valuable to provide the type of service that ADVOCAP will provide. Ms. Davey stated that she is thrilled that this building will be reused and, having spent time on the Rental Housing Advisory Board, she is very happy to see that there will be another eight units for singles available because that’s such an important piece that’s missing from the residential structure in Oshkosh. She said kudos to them for doing this. Ms. Propp stated that she agrees. She said that she suspects not many people may have cars with this type of rental, so she doubts there will be as much parking. Motion carried 8-0. Mr. Lyons stated that the next meeting is January 5th and wished everyone a Happy Holidays. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:50 pm. (Kiefer/Mitchell) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager