Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 October 15, 2024 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES October 15, 2024 PRESENT: Karl Loewenstein, Ed Bowen, Kathleen Propp, Council Member Nichols, Joshua Belville, Margy Davey, John Kiefer, Thomas Perry EXCUSED: Meredith Scheuermann STAFF: Kelly Nieforth, Community Development Director; James Rabe, Director of Public Works; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager; Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works/Utilities General Manager; Jason Ellis, Utility Operations Manager; Anna Cannizzo, Museum Director; Brian Slusarek, Principal Planner; Emma Dziengeleski, Assistant Planner; Brandon Nielsen, Associate Planner; Katrina Malson, Office Assistant Chairperson Perry called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of September 17, 2024 were approved as presented. (Davey/Propp) Mr. Perry stated Item I, PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DEVELOPMENT AT PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE 1000 BLOCK OF SOUTH OAKWOOD ROAD (PARCEL 1311971300), has been withdrawn by the applicant. II. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE FRONT FACADE AT 1922 MITCHELL STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp and Mr. Nichols 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 for modification to the front façade at 1922 Mitchell Street. Ms. Dziengeleski presented the items and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The subject property is a residential lot located at 1922 Mitchell Street, and is approximately 13,700 square feet in area. According to the City Assessor’s website, the subject property contains a 966 square foot one-story single-family structure that was built in 1920. The surrounding area consists of single-family uses with varying character and similar scale. The subject property is zoned Single Family Residential-9 (SR-9). In April of 2024, the applicant submitted design plans for a kitchen, bathroom, and laundry remodel at the subject site. Within the application, the applicant requested the ability to remove the __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 October 15, 2024 sliding patio door on the front façade and replace it with two smaller windows. At that time, the applicant was made aware that the submitted design plans did not meet the City’s Residential Design Standards and therefore could not be approved. Staff worked with the applicant to find alternatives that met City’s requirements, and even met the applicant on site to talk through the request. The applicant proceeded to move forward with the permit for the other remodel work, and informed staff that the sliding patio door replacement would be addressed at a future time, once they could figure out how they could meet the City’s Residential Design Standards. On August 12, 2024 staff conducted a follow-up inspection and was made aware that work had already been completed. In addition to the remodel work, another door on the front façade was removed, as well as removal and replacement of inconsistent colored siding on a portion of the home. The applicant stated that they removed an old, inoperable sliding patio door and replaced it with two new energy efficiency windows. The applicant feels these modifications improve the look of the home and could potentially increase the integrity and value of their home. In addition, another door was removed from the front façade as well as a portion of the house being resided. The new windows, the door closure, and residing were done without any zoning, inspections, or Plan Commission (PC) review or approval. On August 12, 2024, the owner was sent a violation notice and was made aware that a Design Standards Variance (DSV) was needed in order for the work to not be in violation. Staff informed the owner that they could not issue a permit by-right due to the sliding patio door and front door closures and color(s) of the siding being inconsistent, and that PC needed to review that. The applicant proceeded to try to obtain a permit for the work prior to PC review and a DSV. Staff informed the applicant that that permit would be on hold until PC reviews and either approves or denies the DSV. Staff has had in person, email, and phone discussions with the applicant. The applicant provided the prior door and window areas as well as the current door and window areas for the front facade in question and this helped staff during the review process. According to the applicant, the modifications were needed as the integrity and wellbeing of the house is in structural jeopardy. The applicant feels that this design is the best and most suitable option in regards to the homes stability, efficiency, and improvement of “curb appeal”. The applicant also stated that the Design Standard codes restrict doing a project that would allow a reasonable way to better the efficiency and curb appeal of the home. While staff understand the applicant feels that the 10 percent variation wouldn’t be achievable considering the wall the sliding patio door is on, and the other door on the front façade is not needed due to a door being located on the side façade, a self- imposed hardship is not a sufficient reason for granting a variance. Staff evaluated the completed work previously described and the impact on the design of the home in regard to the purpose and intent of Residential Design Standards. The standards relate to preserving the homes architectural integrity and the potential impact on adjacent properties, the neighborhood character and “curb appeal” of the block. In working with the applicant, staff considered whether the proposed work met the intent of the Residential Design Standards; the work was done without the proper building permits; information provided by the applicant during the process. In conversations with the applicant staff explained that, per the City’s Residential Design Standards, the proposed plans could not be approved because there is sufficient space available to meet the 10% variation change, and other modifications had been completed __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 October 15, 2024 prior to the applicant obtaining the proper approvals and permits. In staff’s opinion, the application does not provide enough justification for the Plan Commission to grant the variance. Approval of the DSV request would make it clear that it is acceptable to complete work without proper approvals and/or permits. As proposed, the front façade modifications do not meet the criteria for granting a variance and would set an unnecessary precedent for future requests. Staff recommends denial of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to allow the removal of the patio sliding door and replacing it with two smaller windows, removal of another front door, and removing and replacing the siding on a portion of the home on the front façade that is different than the rest of the siding with the following findings listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Nichols wondered what happens if Plan Commission (PC)denies the variance. Mr. Slusarek stated the applicant would have to reestablish the openings on the house, as they were previously. The siding would also need to match the rest of the siding on the home. Mr. Nichols wondered if the applicant has the option of requesting a different variance. Mr. Slusarek stated they could amend their plan and come back with a different variance. Mr. Nichols wondered what happens if PC grants the variance. Mr. Slusarek stated if the variance is granted, they'd be allowed to keep everything as-is. The variance does not go on to Common Council. Mr. Nichols wondered what was the alternative that staff recommended that would fall within our requirements as a city. Ms. Dziengeleski stated we were looking at other potentials like putting in larger windows to meet the 10% variation reduction requirement. If they would have obtained a 25% window and door opening on the front but still with the reduction of that front door and also the sliding door, it still did not meet 25%. Mr. Nichols wondered if they could have requested that variance and then met our standards otherwise. Mr. Slusarek stated they would still need a variance to close the doors off. We would support it if they're meeting that 25% area. Mr. Loewenstein wondered what the code is for residential front facades when it comes to the entrance of a home. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 October 15, 2024 Mr. Slusarek stated code requires an entrance feature like a stoop or a porch on the street-facing side, and if you do remove a door, you're allowed to replace it on that same facade. Mr. Loewenstein wondered if the door on the side is not code compliant. Mr. Slusarek stated it's not needed to meet code, but closing it off would not be permitted. Ms. Davey wondered if the revisions to the home now affect fire code safety. Mr. Slusarek stated that'd be a Building Inspections question. Mr. Perry opened public comment and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Christopher Amos, owner of 1922 Mitchell Street, stated this particular side of the house had four doors on it previously. You've got the main entrance around the side. There's a kitchen entrance, just on the other side between the house and the door. The prior sliding glass door was inoperable and very inefficient. The floor would freeze and ice would build up around the whole frame. I had issues with pipes freezing, so we thought it'd be best to close off the biggest window in front, the sliding glass door, and put in small windows to help protect the integrity of the kitchen and the pipes. We tried multiple times with the city and we just couldn't come to an agreement. We had to get the project done before this winter, so we just kept on going with the project we had. The house is 100 years old, so with that being given, I don't know if these rules were there 100 years ago, but that's all we got. Ms. Davey wondered if the home currently has two exits. Mr. Amos stated yes. Ms. Davey wondered if Mr. Amos lives in the home. Mr. Amos stated yes. I have two houses. I just got married, so my other address is in Elkhart Lake with my wife. I work here in Oshkosh, so I stay in this house all summer. Eventually we'd like to have this property as a rental when I stop working here in Oshkosh. Mr. Nichols wondered why the siding color difference exists. Mr. Amos stated we tried to find a light blue, but this was the closest blue we could find at the hardware store. Eventually we'll get the whole house done. This is just a start. Mr. Perry asked if any members of the public wished to speak. Mr. Perry closed public comment. There was no closing statement from the applicant. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 October 15, 2024 Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Davey. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp stated my issue is that the applicant was told over and over again, by City staff, what the regulations were and went ahead. I think that's unacceptable. I'm sorry if the variance is denied because it will create problems for him, but he brought that on himself. Mr. Nichols stated I think the most compelling reason for denial is that we heard from City staff that there would be support for a variance for some of the options here. It wasn't this variance that would happen without approval of staff or consult with staff. I know the rules can be hard to follow. I know it can be frustrating to renovate a house. I've done it, and it's frustrating to work with the city sometimes and some of the requirements there. However, if there are options and you can get there, I believe staff, when they say they would have worked with it, they would have brought the variance before us and we would have granted it. I think that's the compelling reason for denial. Ms. Davey stated I appreciate they're trying to improve the energy efficiency. But I agree that this wasn't the way to do it. It should be done legally, especially when you've been informed that it's not going to be. If we allow one, then what else are we going to allow. I will be voting yes to the denial. Mr. Perry wanted to advise PC regarding the motion. If you vote in the affirmative, it's a denial because the recommendation is to deny the variance. Motion carried 8-0. The variance is denied. III. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (HI) TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (HI-PD) AND APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE AT 2875 ATLAS AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Heavy Industrial District (HI) to Heavy Industrial District with a Planned Development Overlay (HI-PD). The applicant also requests approval of a General Development Plan (GDP) and Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) for directional signage. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 October 15, 2024 Mr. Slusarek presented the items and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The subject site is located on the north side of State Highway 91, with frontage along Atlas Avenue. The site is a manufacturing facility owned by 4imprint. The applicant is requesting a zone change from the existing Heavy Industrial District (HI) to Heavy Industrial District with a Planned Development Overlay (HI-PD). This is intended to allow for flexibility of the zoning ordinance to accommodate new directional signs. Staff is supportive of the proposed zone change as it will allow for additional signage options for the site. The applicant is proposing four (4) directional signs. One will be placed at each of the three entrances to the site off of Atlas Avenue along with one along the middle driveway closer to the parking area. The proposed directional signs are 21 sq. ft. and 5 ½ ft. tall, which require Base Standard Modifications (BSM) for increased directional sign area and height. According to the applicant, the increased area and height are needed to increase visibility of the signs for wayfinding on the site for truck drivers and visitors. The maximum size is 3’ tall and 8 sq. ft. They are proposing 21 sq. ft. and 5 ½ ft. tall. The applicant feels that the larger sign size will assist in directing truck drivers to the appropriate entrances/docks safely. They also feel that it will assist in safe and efficient circulation on the site for 4imprint associates, users of the on-site employee ThedaCare clinic, as well as suppliers and visitors. Staff is supportive of the BSM requests for increased sign area and height due to the relatively large scale of the site with several loading docks and parking areas for visitors, clinic users, and associates. To offset the BSM requests, staff is recommending the applicant provide 25 landscaping points around each of the signs. Also recommending a condition that ground signage on the site be limited to one sign per frontage, and not to exceed 72 sq. ft. in area. This would be consistent with the maximum sign area for the industrial park covenants and would allow substantially less ground sign area than allowed by the zoning ordinance for the HI district. That will also offset the BSM by less signage there than allowed by the zoning ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the zone change, GDP, and SIP with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. John Lord, on behalf of 4imprint at 2875 Atlas Avenue, made himself available for questions. Mr. Perry asked if any members of the public wished to speak. Mr. Perry closed the public hearing. There was no closing statement from the applicant. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 October 15, 2024 Motion by Kiefer to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Davey Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 8-0. Items IV and V were presented together with discussion after. IV. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR AN INDUSTRIAL/STORAGE USE AT 1911 WEST SNELL ROAD Site Inspections Report: Mr. Kiefer reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a General Development Plan (GDP) Amendment for an industrial/storage use. Mr. Slusarek presented the items and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The subject site is located at the southwest corner of Interstate 41 and West Snell Road. It contains an auto service garage (formerly Loren’s Truck Plaza). In 2019 Council approved a Planned Development (PD) Amendment for vehicle sales for the previous owner. However, the approved use was never established. The site was previously used as an auto service garage. The site also had an open violation for storage of unregistered, unlicensed/inoperable vehicles since 2017. The previously approved PD Amendment for vehicle sales at the site was intended to bring the site into compliance. The approved use was never established and conditions of the PD were never met. The property has since been sold by Loren’s 41 Truck Plaza LLC to the current owner (Maverick Family Enterprises, LLC). The current owner has removed the illegally stored items from the site. The applicant is proposing to use the site for a steel construction company facility (Beson & Houle, LLC). The site will be used as office space for their staff, shop storage of tools and equipment, and an outdoor storage yard. The applicant is also proposing future contractor storage buildings and a future storage/business rental building located on the southern portion of the parcel. The proposed industrial and indoor storage uses are permitted in the UI district, while outdoor storage is a conditional use. The plan also shows 8 “product stalls”, which is considered outdoor display and is also a conditional use in the UI district. The proposed site will utilize existing access off of West Snell Road. The applicant is requesting a Base Standard Modification (BSM) to allow the existing gravel/asphalt to remain as is with __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 October 15, 2024 potholes and uneven areas to be repaired. Staff is supportive of a BSM to allow existing gravel areas to remain as the site will be utilized for industrial purposes and the site has been greatly improved from its previous state. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing footprint of the site and parking areas. This requires a BSM for increased impervious surface ratio to 85.32% of the lot, where code allows a maximum of 80% impervious surface. BSMs are also required for reduced front and street side setbacks to 0’ and side setback to 5’. Staff is supportive of the requested BSMs for increased impervious surface ratio and decreased setbacks as the existing impervious surface areas are not being expanded. The applicant will also provide 30 Techny arborvitae hedges along the west property line to offset the reduced setbacks. The applicant is not providing new paved area landscaping. Staff is supportive of a BSM to waive the paved area landscaping requirement as all paved areas already exist and no internal landscape areas are available for plantings. For street frontage landscaping, the plan shows new and existing tall trees being provided along Interstate-41. That meets the street frontage landscaping requirement. They are not providing any new landscaping along Snell Road, but the points along Interstate 41 meet the overall point requirement for both street frontages. They need a BSM for allowing the Snell Road frontage without landscaping. For yard landscaping, the provided landscaping points exceed the overall point requirement based on the proposed outdoor storage area and anticipated future building areas. Yard landscaping requirements will be reviewed upon SIP submittal of plans for future phase(s). The applicant is requesting BSMs for parking surfacing, increased impervious surface ratio, reduced setbacks, and reduction of landscaping requirements. Staff is supportive of these BSMs as the current footprint of the site is being maintained and the applicant has significantly improved the appearance of the site by removing all stored items/debris accumulated by the previous owner. The applicant is also providing new landscaping to further improve the site. Staff recommends approval of the GDP Amendment with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. V. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR AN INDUSTRIAL/STORAGE USE AT 1911 WEST SNELL ROAD Site Inspections Report: Mr. Kiefer reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 October 15, 2024 The applicant requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) Amendment for an industrial/storage use. Mr. Slusarek presented the items and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The applicant is proposing to use the site for a steel construction company facility (Beson & Houle, LLC). They will use it for office space, shop storage, and outdoor storage yard for small trucks and trailers. The applicant notes that part of the existing building may also be rented out to other businesses in the future. The applicant plans to install 8’ tall solid fencing to fully enclose the storage area. That will connect to existing 8’ tall metal panel fencing to fully enclose that area. It will be a graveled storage area. The applicant plans to stripe 30 parking stalls and 7 product stalls to be used by a future tenant. The proposed 8’ tall solid fencing and existing metal fencing extends into the front yard area. Code allows only 4’ tall fencing and 50% opaque in the front yard areas so they need a Base Standard Modification (BSM) to allow the 8’ tall solid fencing within the front yard. Staff is supportive of this BSM as it is needed to fully enclose that storage area. The paved areas and street frontage landscaping were addressed as part of the General Development Plan (GDP). The proposed yard landscaping exceeds the point requirement for this phase as well as all future phases. They are exceeding the point requirement for yard landscaping for all phases and that serves to offset the requested Base Standard Modifications (BSM). The applicant is adding additional lighting along the east portion of the site for the new parking areas. They are requesting a BSM to allow increased lighting along the property line to 1.7 fc, where code allows a maximum of 1.0 fc at the right-of-way. That is needed as their parking is close to the property line and it should not cause any impacts on the surrounding area as it is abutting the Interstate-41 right-of-way. They are also requesting a BSM to allow access to this area to have 0 fc lighting. Staff is supportive of that as the site has historically functioned without that lighting and based on the use of the site it should not generate much traffic. Staff recommends approval of the SIP Amendment with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Items IV and V: Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Bowen wanted to discuss what the GDP and SIP encompass. Mr. Slusarek spoke to that. Mr. Perry opened public comment and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 October 15, 2024 Jesse Houle, of W10716 Konow Road in Rosendale, owner of Maverick Family Enterprises LLC and Beson and Houle LLC, made himself available for questions. As Brian mentioned, we have a small construction company that we do structural steel erection. That's a large part of what's going to be in the building along with some future tenant space that we can utilize the corridor of 41 for visibility. Mr. Kiefer wondered if there were/are any environmental issues on the site. Mr. Houle stated no, nothing we are aware of. Mr. Perry asked if any members of the public wished to speak. Ed Crum, a group owner of Omni Glass and Paint (3530 Omni Drive in Oshkosh), had several questions. Some of his questions had to be answered by the applicant during their closing statement. He wondered if we are dealing with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with this property as well. Mr. Slusarek stated the Planned Development (PD) addresses the CUP as well, so it would be one approval for the PD that also addresses the CUP in one approval. Mr. Crum stated regarding the outdoor storage, so if I look at those blocks that are there to the south and to the west. Those are not exposed; I would assume it is like a post frame metal building. Is it going to be cold storage, or will there be water, sewer, and electric. Mr. Houle stated electric. Mr. Crum stated regarding the 8-foot corrugated steel fence that basically runs to the north, is 4’ the max, and they are looking at a variance on that for the 8-foot. Mr. Slusarek stated correct, they're proposing to match the existing 8 foot out there to fully enclose it. Mr. Crum stated the existing fence is pretty run down. Mr. Slusarek stated we have codes that state they need to maintain fencing. If it gets in disrepair, they'd have to fix it. Mr. Crum stated regarding the existing structure of the buildings themselves, It appears they are clad with vinyl siding. It looks like an addition on an addition was done over time. It appears there are no plans to improve the actual physical structure facade itself. No masonry requirements, newer metal siding, windows, or glass. Mr. Slusarek stated with it being an existing building, if it is not meeting the current material requirement, it'd be a legal nonconforming building. We would not require them to retrofit it to meet current codes. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 October 15, 2024 Mr. Crum wanted to know what type of metal erection would take place. Are girders and I-beams going to be fabricated, or is the applicant taking metal and converting the metal. Will they be buying materials, cutting, gouging, plasma cutting, and welding. And will there be used materials, like demo materials coming from other sites. What are the provisions to manage all of that dunnage that comes in there and order of the property. Mr. Perry asked if any other members of the public wished to speak. Lorenz Rangeloff (former owner of the subject site), of 3000 Oregon Street, stated he is here to speak on the outside. The fence is not 8-foot, it's 6-foot panels. And the current code is 8-foot. I hope he just has to abide by the current code of 8-foot fence. And all impervious surfaces are supposed to be paved with a curb and landscaping islands in the middle. Now, I was told if I changed the use of any kind, I would have had to do that. So I hope you extend the same to him, that everything's paved and curbed and landscaped. And the fence should be upgraded to the current code. I know somebody in that area, at the time it was 6-foot fence, took out a permit, put up a 6-foot fence. Meanwhile, the code was changed to 8-foot and he had to take down a 6-foot fence and replace it with an 8-foot. I hope outside the parking area and the fenced-in area meets the current code. Mr. Perry closed public comment. Mr. Perry asked the applicant to make a closing statement. Mr. Houle stated, in response to Mr. Crum's questions, the future plans are for contractor storage units, something along those lines. The utilities that are planned at this point would be electrical only. Not to say we wouldn't entertain water and sewer there in the future, but this is not near- term for future for us. This is probably a 5-year to 10-year plan. So that may be feasible at that time. You asked about the existing building. I'm not aware of any need to upgrade the building. We are implementing additional landscaping around the area to screen the building from view from the adjacent properties and trying to enhance the property as much as we can. As far as steel erection versus fabrication, to be very clear, we're not a fabricator. We're not a fabrication company. We are steel erectors. The majority of our work is on-site. This will really be a mobilization location for our crews to come, our home base. There will be pickup trucks coming in and out with trailers. Everything will be behind that 8-foot fence, which is what's required and completely fenced in. All the dunnage and unloading and things that you speak of will definitely be activities that we incur every day on a daily basis, which will all be held inside that fenced area as planned. It's part of doing business there. I believe I addressed all of the questions. Thank you. Item IV: Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Loewenstein. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 October 15, 2024 Mr. Nichols stated this site will come before Plan Commission again under additional SIPs, so there will be more opportunities to look at plans and ask questions. Ms. Propp stated I'm absolutely delighted to see this site cleaned up. Mr. Perry stated I am generally not for storage units of any kind on a major public road, and being that this is on the highway, this would generally fit within my definition. However, living close by this place and driving down Snell Road the other day I almost broke my neck looking in there because of the significant change. I couldn't think of a better thing to go in there at this particular point, so I will be in full support of this. Motion carried 8-0. Item V: Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Loewenstein. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Nichols stated I know there was a concern that the existing fence is 6’, not 8’. If we learn that's true, is the requirement to make it 8’, or is it to match what's existing. Mr. Slusarek stated the requirement is 8’. Mr. Nichols so the way that the findings are written is to allow 8-foot solid fencing. I just want to confirm that in no circumstance would 6 feet be appropriate. Mr. Slusarek stated that is correct. It would need a BSM to allow a lower fence height to screen it. They're proposing 8’ and that meets code. Motion carried 8-0. VI. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT 0 BOWEN STREET, COMMONLY KNOWN AS VACANT PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST MURDOCK AVENUE AND BOWEN STREET (PARCEL 1504830300) Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen, Ms. Propp, Mr. Nichols, Ms. Davey, Mr. Kiefer, and Mr. Perry reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 October 15, 2024 The applicant requests approval of a General Development Plan (GDP) for a multi-family development. Ms. Dziengeleski presented the items and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The subject site consists of a 2.26-acre vacant lot on the southwest corner of East Murdock Avenue and Bowen Street. The site is zoned Urban Mixed Use with a Planned Development Overlay (UMU-PD). A Plan Commission (PC) workshop was held on April 16th of this year, and the PC was supportive of this proposal. This item came to PC on September 17th, 2024, and PC voted to lay over this item because the applicant and owner were not present to answer their questions and concerns. Staff contacted the applicant and owner regarding those questions and concerns, and an updated landscaping plan was submitted. As a reminder, the applicant is proposing a multifamily development, which will include two 8-unit apartment buildings and one 16-unit apartment building with detached garages. The proposed site will utilize an existing driveway access on East Murdock Avenue and Bowen Street that is currently utilized by the Piggly Wiggly Grocery Store. The cross-access agreement will need to be recorded with the Winnebago County Register of Deeds to allow that shared access. The applicant is also requesting a Base Standard Modification (BSM) to allow for a reduced rear setback of 18.7’, where code allows a minimum of 25’. Staff is supportive of this BSM request, as the rear property line is adjacent to an existing parking lot and access drive. Code requires the recreation area for multifamily developments at a minimum of 200 sq. ft. plus 25 sq. ft. per bedroom for a total of 1,800 square feet. The new proposed recreation area will be located just south of the parking lot and will be 1,800 sq. ft. in size, which meets the necessary requirement. Staff recommends approval of the GDP with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry opened public comment and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Chet Wesenberg, of 531 North Main Street, made himself available for questions. Mr. Perry asked if any members of the public wished to speak. Mr. Perry closed public comment. There was no closing statement from the applicant. Motion by Kiefer to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Bowen. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 14 October 15, 2024 Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Bowen made reference to the petitioner's narrative and had questions regarding proposed zoning ordinance exceptions. Mr. Slusarek stated the final landscaping plan would be part of the SIP. Ms. Propp stated I need to ask the applicant about the driveways. As you probably heard, I raised questions about the driveways because they are inadequate. I can't support a final plan that doesn't rehab the driveways. It works for the grocery store but it needs to be replaced. You know that there are big potholes that form every spring. A Public Works person, a wise person, once told me that's because the base is inadequate. They patch it, but it never works. That, of course, would require discussion with the grocery store. And whether they would be responsive to this, it's not their problem. It's really kind of your problem. Mr. Wesenberg stated so far I believe they are responsive. After I got that comment, I did drive through there. I did a quick visual inspection, and I personally did not see a problem. But with that said, if there is any damage, we'd certainly be responsible for fixing it. And I guess I don't believe the access is inadequate. I believe it's more than adequate. Ms. Propp stated I know because I live in the area. I go to the grocery store three times a day or something. Right now it looks fine, but in the spring those black patched areas will disintegrate once again. They'll become huge potholes. Ms. Davey is going to agree with me that it's not adequate to support your vehicle traffic. In and out, in and out. Both driveways have big black patches and that is where the problems are. It won't work as is, because it will be inadequate. I feel so strongly about it. Otherwise, I love the plan and what you want to put there. I think the driveways are a big issue. Ms. Davey stated I agree with Ms. Propp and she's absolutely right. All of us who live on that side of town know that you can fall in those potholes and never get your car back come springtime. That's been a problem for a long time. But I love the project and I'm very happy to see that you moved the playground. I think that's a little bit safer place for it than where it had previously been designated between a really busy corner and a vape shop. I have concerns about the traffic in and out. When you're building this, aren't you going to have to be bringing in really heavy trucks to get stuff there. Mr. Wesenberg stated yes regarding the heavy trucks. It's not that big of a project, so it's not all that intensive. But I'll take your guys' word for it. I'll look into it again. Like I said, I did a quick drive-around and inspection, and it didn't look bad to me. But that was me just going there to look at it to see what the concern was. Ms. Davey asked if a traffic study had been considered Mr. Wesenberg stated absolutely not. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 15 October 15, 2024 Ms. Davey wondered why. Mr. Wesenberg stated the 32 apartments is not going to bring a lot of traffic in. This corner is designed to hold something much more intensive than a 32-unit apartment building. Ms. Davey wondered if you were to do a traffic study, it would only affect the public streets. It wouldn't affect the parking lot streets, correct. Mr. Wesenberg stated I guess it would be whatever is required for a traffic study. Ms. Davey stated I think that's unfortunate because I think there's going to be problems with increased traffic. Mr. Nichols had questions for City staff. As we think about code enforcement, I'm assuming that potholes for an area like this would be problematic, and you all would get complaints. Mr. Slusarek stated there is a maintenance section in our zoning ordinance that covers that. Mr. Nichols wondered in the event that there were large potholes, would somebody from Inspections go out there and look at it, and then would Mr. Wesenberg get a letter. Mr. Slusarek stated correct, if there's a violation there. If there is a violation he'd have to correct it. Mr. Nichols stated I'm comfortable moving forward here, understanding that we have mechanisms in place that would require the correction in the event that they exist, after the equipment comes in, after the building is built. My guess is that you're going to have to do some remediation after the building is built, to Ms. Davy’s point, that the equipment is going to damage something. Mr. Loewenstein stated the issue is that it's not his property. I think where we're kind of hung up is that someone else has to promise to fix the access roads, and not him, unless they have some sort of agreement in place. The potholes are not Mr. Wesenberg’s problem if they are on the Piggly Wiggly property. That's sort of a code enforcement problem. They could say, we're not dealing with it, and Mr. Wesenberg doesn't legally have to deal with it. Mr. Perry stated there's a cross-access agreement that has to be filed. Mr. Slusarek stated generally the city is going to send a letter to whichever property the driveway is on. It is between the property owners, who are part of that cross-access agreement, to get it corrected. Mr. Loewenstein wondered if that agreement could have a component about who's responsible for maintenance on that road. Mr. Slusarek stated generally that would be included in that agreement. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 16 October 15, 2024 Mr. Wesenberg stated we’re one-third owner of the Piggly Wiggly property. Ms. Propp stated one-third owner isn't maybe enough to convince Piggly Wiggly to adequately repair their own driveway. Those are the Piggly Wiggly driveways. In this housing development you are requesting cross-access. I like the location of the driveways, and I think the size of the driveways is fine, but I'm sorry it isn't going to work. You don't have to take my word for it until the spring when you see what happens. Mr. Wesenberg stated I guess I was unaware. I drove by and looked at it. Ms. Propp stated driving by now is way different than driving by in spring. I can vote for this now because it's a GDP, but I'm going to need reassurance when you come back here. Mr. Wesenberg stated he understood. Mr. Bowen wondered if there is an existing cross-access agreement or is it to be negotiated. Mr. Wesenberg stated the agreement is to be negotiated. Mr. Bowen wondered if there were any existing driveways on the subject site. Mr. Wesenberg stated right now it's all lawn and no driveways. When our office looked at the traffic, it made the most sense to use these (Piggly Wiggly) driveways rather than create new access points. Motion carried 8-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:02 pm. (Kiefer/Propp) One workshop followed the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Kelly Nieforth Community Development Director KN/km