Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 February 15, 2022 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 15, 2022 PRESENT: Michael Ford, John Kiefer, Justin Mitchell, Meredith Scheuermann, Margy Davey, Kathleen Propp, Thomas Perry, Phillip Marshall, Mamadou Coulibaly STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Kelly Nieforth, Community Development Director; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager / City Engineer; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner Chairperson Perry called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of February 1, 2022 were approved as presented. (Mitchell/Kiefer) I. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-5 (SR-5) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-9 (SR9) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF THE EASTERN END OF FARMINGTON AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Mitchell reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting a zone change from Single Family Residentiual-5 (SR-5) District to Single Family Residential-9 (SR-9) District. Mr. Nau presented the item. The proposed zone change involves a vacant 5.55 acre lot east of the eastern end of Farmington Avenue, generally located west of Jackson Street and south of W. Snell Road (Figure 1). The petitioner is proposing to subdivide the lot via subdivision plat. The proposed subdivision will be a higher density single family subdivision with smaller lots not typically found in new residential subdivisions. On January 18, 2022, Plan Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a Comprehensive Land Use Map amendment from General Commercial to Light Density Residential for the subject site. The Common Council is expected to take final action on the amendment on March 8, 2022. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Mitchell asked if there has been a number comparison provided to show if it were to be developed as is versus reduced price. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 February 15, 2022 Mr. Nau said the developer can answer during the applicant statement. Ms. Scheuermann asked if there is a zoning smaller than SR-9. Mr. Nau said that SR-9 is the densest single family district the city has. Ms. Scheuermann asked if there are other SR-9’s in the city. Mr. Nau said that when the zoning update was done in 2017 they zoned areas of the city that were appropriate based on current lot conditions. This would be the first SR-9 rezoning committed to a new development. Mr. Mitchell asked has there been any additional information about the parkland development in the area. If it’s not available currently, can the plan be brought back or an update be provided. Mr. Nau said that if the petitioner moves forward with the preliminary plat the parks director will be involved in those decisions. Mr. Lyons said that he reached out to the parks director to start the conversation with anticipating at some point this project will move forward. They will be able to weigh in a lot more if a primary plat is filed there will be review and the technical details in the primary play to start that discussion. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mitch Nordahl, Wildflower Development Group, said that the SR-5 zoning would not be enough lots to get them to the house price point they are trying to meet. Affordable housing construction means less than $300,000. As of 2021 when it was started, it was in the $250K-270K range for housing. Other projects in Oshkosh have similar pricing. With a 60 foot wide lot in SR-9 they can provide a larger footprint such as a ranch house on that lot because there was an extra five feet gained. An SR-5 zoning you have 7 1/2 side setbacks, and SR-9 zoning there are 5’ setbacks. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Perry 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 Scheuermann. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 February 15, 2022 Mr. Mitchell asked if there is a cost estimate showing what the reduced pricing would be per lot. Mr. Nordahl said that it’s about $10,000 a lot difference in just the manufacturing process of those lots. Motion carried 8-0. II. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE 200 BLOCK OF OHIO STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Perry, Ms. Propp and Ms. Davey all reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan to allow a drive-thru coffee shop development at the 200 block Ohio Street. Mr. Slusarek presented the item. The applicant is proposing development of a 605 sq. ft. drive-thru coffee shop with 10-stall parking lot. The site will also include a patio and walk-up service window. Drive-thru & in-vehicle sales or service is a conditional use in the RMU district. Staff is supportive of the proposed use as it is compatible surrounding commercial land uses as consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use recommendation of Center City for area. A Plan Commission workshop was held on December 7, 2021. Plan Commission voiced support for the proposed use, but had concerns of the drive-thru lane along Ohio St. and circulation of the drive-thru lane and parking lot. The applicant has revised their plans to address these concerns. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Mitchell asked for clarification on why the project can’t go into the easement. Mr. Gierach said that if there is work that needs to be done on the sanitary sewer interceptor, which is the largest in the city, it would stop access to the drive thru of the business. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mark Johnson, Forward Real Estate Services, said that the easement was a constraint of the property. It is .88 acres but we are only able to develop a portion of it. The primary business of the building is reliant on the drive-thru and there are ten car parks with patio bike racks. Caribou has 25 of these open primarily in Minnesota. It’s a great location in the business park and it fits the lot __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 February 15, 2022 nicely. We are hoping to start construction in late May with opening by end of September or early October. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Dr. David Harry, 226 Ohio St, said he objects to the project. He stated that a coffee shop in the office park goes against the covenant in place. This project would also decimate the flow of traffic on the Witzel and Ohio intersection. Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Mr. Nordahl thanked the commission for considering their application. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Kiefer. Ms. Propp said that the covenant is an issue and asked for suggestions on how the Plan Commission proceed with this information. Mr. Lyons said if there are private covenants they are not party to the city, and would need to be privately enforced. The city could still proceed. It would be for the owner of the building and the tenants to figure out. Mr. Marshall said that it seems like a good use of space. His concern is about the traffic flow since he does use that parking lot frequently. Mr. Lyons said there are two access drives into the parking lot. There is about a 9600 daily trip average on Ohio and the traffic generated by the coffee should would not see a significant increase of traffic. Staff doesn’t see it as a potential issue. Mr. Marshall asked if there would be consideration to show the other entry way for those who don’t know or as an alternative entry way. Mr. Lyons said they would work with the property owner for signage. Council Member Ford asked if the developer has had conversations with the business park in regards to the covenant. Mr. Johnson said they have had conversations with the lawyer for the business park. The declaration has since been terminated and not be enforced for some time. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 February 15, 2022 Ms. Scheuermann asked how much more traffic is this proposed project estimated to bring in and at what point is it a problem. Mr. Lyons said that they can do statistical analysis but the small size of the building isn’t going to generate a volume to get exact numbers. We use our best judgement and gauge the situation. With this large of a traffic volume, the increase is very minimal. We will look at common practices, number of entrances, configuration of roadway, crash history, and try to make those decisions the best we can. Mr. Mitchell said that the site plan shows 8 cars in the driveway. He asked if that was based on standard business practices or other locations. The thought is that if cars are backed into the road it would become a safety concern and if there is data on that. Mr. Slusarek said the service time is 2 ½ minutes so the 8 vehicle stacking in the drive-thru is a sufficient number for the drive-thru. Mr. Mitchell said that comparing to some of the Starbucks in the city with maybe similar service times, have sometimes 15 cars backed into the turn lanes. If it’s not a concern here what is the reason. Mr. Lyons said that from a roadway transportation side of things if this driveway was directly backing out into the roadway, it would create more concerns. With an internal access, it tends to be less problematic. Mr. Mitchell asked if there’s a way for this to be developed that in case traffic is a concern and there are always cars backed up, that there can be some sort of expectation that something like a second lane is created. If we don’t know what traffic is going to look like and we made a mistake, what does the recourse look like. Mr. Lyons said that would have to be a decision for public works to decide if they could encroach on the easement. Mr. Mitchell said that if a second drive-thru can’t be created, what is done is there is a car backup. Mr. Lyons said that give the limited site constraints, there not much we could do. There could be a positional to straighten out that drive-thru to head more south east, but then you get multiple pinch points. Mr. Mitchell asked if there has been any discussion in turning part of the property to the north where the easements are into a micro-park. Mr. Lyons said it would be up to Public Works if they would allow any type of improvements in that area. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 February 15, 2022 Mr. Coulibaly asked if because of a green space turning into paved surface if there has been any studies on the issue of run-off. Mr. Gierach said that this area of this disturbance does not elevate to the requirements of including storm water management on site. They will have to collect and convey water to the right of way but as far as storm water quantity and quality, the area of development does not reach the threshold required by code. Mr. Perry said the presentation indicates that they are not going to allow the roof sign on the north and south but instead moving it down into the siding area. Is that a problem for the developer. Mr. Johnson said the preference is to have it above the eve line of the roof. It’s a lot more prominent with the background. There are some examples in the city that have that, but they might not have the same zoning but their signage is above the eve line which is not much different than what’s being proposed. Mr. Perry asked if these are vertical letters held up by an A frame attached to the ceiling and not flat to the roof line. Mr. Johnson said that is correct. Mr. Perry said he doesn’t have a problem with it and helps break up the brown metal. Mr. Mitchell asked if there is a significant traffic issue, what options or solutions are there. Mr. Johnson said it’s a good question but they are comfortable with the performance of the other 25 locations and have not had stacking issues like being voiced currently. Motion carried 9-0. III. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO 1300 S. KOELLER STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp, Ms. Davey, Mr. Mitchell, and Ms. Scheuermann all reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan to allow a restaurant development located at the outlot adjacent to 1300 S. Koeller Street. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 February 15, 2022 Mr. Slusarek presented the item. The applicant is proposing development of a 4,707 sq. ft. dine-in restaurant (Chili’s) with 103 parking spaces. Restaurants are a permitted use in the SMU district. A Plan Commission workshop was held on October 5, 2021 to discuss the proposed use and site design. Plan Commission voiced support for the use and site design that included additional landscape area and a total of 100 – 106 parking spaces. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Blake Cox, Freeland & Kauffman, hired to do the civil site design for Brinker International, also known as Chili’s. They are proposing a 4700 square foot Chili’s restaurant. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Mr. Cox said they are taking an existing parking lot for the Chili’s restaurant and fits the area well. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Coulibaly. Ms. Propp asked what the building materials are. Mr. Cox said it is a combination of stone and EIS which is stucco. Mr. Mitchell asked about the entrance that is just off of Koeller and it looks to be a concern. Mr. Lyons said it lines up with the existing access drives and since it’s not a drive-thru it doesn’t seem to be a concern. They still have the two lane access road that goes all the way through the site. Mr. Gierach said it’s actually making it better since it is further east off of the right of way. Ms. Davey asked if they are planning to add any EV infrastructure due to the size of the lot and the length of time people will spend in the building. Mr. Cox said that in other municipalities where they have built it is common, they may be willing to do it if required by code. Mr. Perry asked if this is it for this lot. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 February 15, 2022 Mr. Lyons said this is the only development for this lot. Motion carried 9-0. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT Looking for feedback from the Plan Commission on if the body wants to go in person or stay virtual. City Hall still has a mask requirement while in city buildings. It could change in the future. There is about a month lag period between this body meeting and when the notices go out so the second meeting in March would be the first opportunity we have to go back in person. If it is this body’s concern that they would like to go back in person when the mask mandate lifts, you could chose to give direction to the planning manager to make that decision on the body’s behalf before notices go out. Mr. Mitchell said he is in support of when masks go away to go back in person. He would prefer to have more than a two week notice if doable. Mr. Perry said he’s receptive to others. If someone is uncomfortable being in person, he’s fine staying virtual but if they want to go in person he’s fine with that too. Ms. Scheuermann said she recommends they follow the mask mandate at City Hall. Mr. Coulibaly said he’s flexible. Ms. Propp said she agrees with Ms. Scheuermann but is ready to go back in person. Mr. Marshall says he is flexible but would also like to be back in person. Mr. Lyons said they will stay virtual for March 1st since the notices have been sent out and will reevaluate March 15th. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:15 pm. (Kiefer/Marshall) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager