Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 November 2, 2021 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 2, 2021 PRESENT: Mamadou Coulibaly, Margy Davey, Michael Ford, John Hinz, John Kiefer, Phil Marshall, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp, Meredith Scheuermann EXCUSED: Justin Mitchell STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Kelly Nieforth, Community Development Director; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager / City Engineer; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Jeff Nau, Associate Planner; Steven Wiley, Associate Planner Chairperson Hinz called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of October 19, 2021 were approved as presented. (Kiefer/Ford) I. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (I) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL – 5 (SR-5) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 330 N. EAGLE STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz and Ms. Scheuermann reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting a zone change from Institutional (I) to Single Family Residential – 5 (SR-5) for a portion of the Immanuel Lutheran Church property, 330 – 338 N. Eagle Street. 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 zone change to SR-5 will allow the church to market the former parsonage as a single family home which is a by-right use in the SR-5 District. When used as a parsonage, the structure was an accessory use to the principal church use where the pastor could take residence. The proposed SR-5 zoning is consistent with the zonings of the area’s single family uses. The size of the new lot is also consistent with the single uses in the area. The City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan does recommend institutional uses for the subject site making the proposed zone change inconsistent with the plan. However, the Comprehensive Plan is a guide for more broad-based planning, not parcel-specific. Staff is of the opinion that this change is not significant enough to warrant an amendment to the land use plan. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 November 2, 2021 There were no technical questions on this item. Mr. Hinz asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant. There were no other public comments on this item. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Hinz closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Coulibaly. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. II. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A PATIO ADDITION AT 1844 OSHKOSH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Coulibaly and Ms. Davey reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) amendment for a patio addition at 1844 Oshkosh 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 petitioner requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) amendment for a patio addition at 1844 Oshkosh Avenue. Staff rec Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Davey asked what the composition of the patio will be. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 November 2, 2021 Mr. Nau confirmed it will be. Council Member Ford asked for the details on when the next steps would be to address the impervious surface. Mr. Lyons said that whenever they go to construct the second building they will have to address the overage. Regional storm water management was provided for the sites, but it's only provided based on the maximum allowed, which is 70%. If this site would exceed 70%, then it would trigger the need for them to do their own storm water on site which is going to significantly impact their approved plan. More likely in this scenario is with his patio being added, they'll need to account for that when they build the next building and reduce it by 1000 square feet or so from that area. Triggering onsite storm water management could potentially be an issue. Now it's not something they couldn't overcome, but it would potentially need more civil engineering, civil design to figure out how they're going to account for that above and beyond 70 that the, the regional pond was, um, designed to take from them. Mr. Hinz asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Will Steiner, Prime Space, stated that what had been previously approved was a sidewalk that's four feet wide so they had some impervious surface already planned for this. The patio sidewalk or some parking spaces, planned around the northern building by a 1000 square feet would be the accommodation for the impervious surface on that building. Ms. Propp asked what restaurant would be going into the location, since there is a drive-thru. Mr. Steiner replied that the drive-thru is a Starbucks. The east side of the building is 2400 square feet approximately and there is tenant space next to it, which we have not signed the lease for, which is approximately 1600 square feet. The west side of the building, which is approximately half of the building about 4,000 square feet is a restaurant called Taqueria. Ms. Davey asked if there was any consideration on making the patio a pervious area. Mr. Steiner replied that this was a request by the tenant, and they have a stamped concrete patio in some of their other locations. Clean-up might be difficult with a pervious area. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Hinz closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Coulibaly to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 November 2, 2021 Seconded by Kiefer. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT Mr. Lyons asked the Commission if they would like to continue with virtual meetings or resume in-person. Hybrid is still not an option. If in-person were to resume, it would start in December. Council Member Ford reminded the Commission that the mask mandate is still in effect at City Hall. Mr. Lyons said the mandate will go until at least the end of November and will be reevaluated. Ms. Scheuermann asked about the timeline of when the Commission went virtual and if it was based on the City’s COVI-19 infection rates or Winnebago County infection rates. Mr. Lyons said that boards went virtual in 2020. This late spring/early summer as things turned around a bit, the Commission went back to in-person meetings. Around September, as the county moved back into a high infection rate, the decision was to go back to virtual. Ms. Scheuermann said that if we get better participation for the petitioners via virtual because they can call in and have more people on the line. If they come to in-person meetings and no questions are asked, it can be a wasted trip. There are advantages to staying virtual. Ms. Propp agreed with Ms. Scheuermann and said this could be revisited January 1st. Mr. Coulibaly agreed that it can be revaluated in January. Mr. Lyons said that if something changes at City Hall, this topic can go on an agenda at any point. If numbers would significantly change in two weeks when the Commission meets, there can be more discussion. Mr. Hinz said if the Commission isn’t comfortable coming to the meetings in person, he has no objection to virtual meetings. When everyone is ready and comfortable, then that’s when in-person should resume. Since it’s unanimous, if one person isn’t comfortable with in-person, we don’t go back. Ms. Davey said that in-person meetings with microphones and masks might be difficult for people to hear when listening to the recording. Sticking with virtual is preferred. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 November 2, 2021 Ms. Scheuermann said she was interested in what Mr. Hinz said about it having to be a unanimous decision. Mr. Lyons said that it does not have to be unanimous, but to error on the side of caution when it comes to quorums. Mr. Coulibaly asked about the attendance for Plan Commission for virtual versus in-person. Mr. Lyons stated that the participation rate on virtual has been higher for both Commission members and applicants. The preference of the group seems to be to stay virtual. Mr. Hinz asked to have this topic discussed the first meeting of each month. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:34 pm. (Kiefer/Scheuermann) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager