Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES August 19, 2008 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Thomas Fojtik, Paul Esslinger, Kathleen Propp, Cathy Scherer EXCUSED: David Borsuk, Meredith Scheuermann, Paul Lowry, Shirley Mattox, Jon Dell’Antonia STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Susan Kepplinger, Principal Planner, Jeff Nau, Associate Planner; Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Scherer called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of August 5, 2008 were approved as presented. (Esslinger/Fojtik) I.A. GRANT PRIVILEGE IN THE STREET FOR PLACEMENT OF FIBER OPTIC CABLE AT THE 600 BLOCK OF DOCTORS COURT The petitioner is requesting the privilege in the right-of-way to allow placement of private underground fiber optic cable crossing Doctors Court approximately 240 feet west of Bowen Street. The purpose is to interconnect the existing Aurora Campus on Doctors Court. There was no discussion on this item. I.B. EXTRATERRITORIAL THREE-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 5245 CHESAPEAKE COURT IN THE TOWN OF OSHKOSH The petitioner is requesting approval of a three-lot land division of an approximately 53,753 square foot parcel to create three parcels of land suitable for single-family development on the new lots. There was no discussion on this item. I.C. OFFICIALLY MAP RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF OREGON STREET FROM THE FOX RIVER TO WEST SIXTH AVENUE City administration is requesting approval to officially map right-of-way along the east side of Oregon Street from the Fox River to West Sixth Avenue. Jeff Nau presented the item and stated that the official mapping was to accommodate the eventual widening of Oregon Street and the construction of the riverwalk. Motion by Propp to approve the consent agenda as requested with the following conditions to be applied to item I.A.: 1)The private fiber optic conduits be installed in a manner that is approved by the Dept. of Public Works with no modifications or changes in construction procedure without prior approval by the Dept. of Public Works. Plan Commission Minutes 1 August 19, 2008 2) If no longer needed, the private fiber optic conduits be properly abandoned and removed in accordance with City standards and under the direction of the Dept. of Public Works. 3) Any problem which may arise as a result of the placement of the private fiber optic conduits be the responsibility of the petitioner, contractors and owner to correct in coordination with the Dept. of Public Works. 4) All appropriate permits be obtained prior to the start of placement of the private fiber optic conduits. 5) The fiber optic conduits be modified or removed immediately upon the request of the City. 6) The facility be part of and documented with Digger's Hotline system. 7) The petitioner and contractors secure and submit to the City Clerk a separate insurance policy which names the City as an additional insured with a minimum coverage of $200,000 per person and $500,000 in general aggregate. 8) It is the responsibility of the petitioner to file in a timely manner a new insurance certificate with the City Clerk upon expiration of an existing certificate. Failure to do so will result in the revocation of the privilege in street upon 10 days notice. 9) The petitioner and contractors execute hold harmless agreements with the City. Seconded by Fojtik. Motion carried 5-0. II. MODIFICATION PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT-NEAR EAST NEIGHBORHOOD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 307 DALE STREET The property owner is requesting approval of the removal of the original front porch columns and existing railings and replacement with 6’ x 8’ green treated columns and new green treated railings on the front porch of the single family home at 307 Dale Street, which is in the Near East Neighborhood. Susan Kepplinger presented the item and stated that in 2006 the Common Council approved the Near East Neighborhood Plan and a conditional use permit for a Planned Development District as part of the implementation of the Near East Neighborhood Improvement Plan. The intent of the Planned Development overlay is to prevent further erosion of the appearance of the neighborhood by preventing unsympathetically designed new construction and alterations to existing structures. Ms. Kepplinger did an overview of repairs requested by the City in regard to this plan and stated that two thirds of the properties in the area had already been reviewed. ADVOCAP was asked to paint the house and replace the roof at 307 Dale Street, however, they decided to do a more in depth project than was requested which included rebuilding the wrap around porch on the house which was constructed around 1890. She reviewed examples of architecture from the 1890’s and new construction as well as examples of appropriately renovated porches in the Near East Neighborhood. Mr. Fojtik questioned if the use of vinyl building materials was acceptable in certain instances. Ms. Kepplinger replied it was, but style, color and scale had to be considered when working with home renovation. Mr. Esslinger asked what the staff’s definition of aesthetically pleasing was. Ms. Kepplinger responded that certain design elements work well together and that there are rules, methods, and calculations to determine the flow and design of a structure to ensure aesthetically pleasing renovations. Mr. Esslinger then asked if the City would require that only certain types of wood could be used for the porch renovation. Plan Commission Minutes 2 August 19, 2008 Ms. Kepplinger replied no that the City was not requesting that the porch be restored at all. Mr. Esslinger commented that if the City was requiring specific rules for proper restoration, it should include certain types of wood in the guidelines. Ms. Kepplinger responded that this was not a restoration program but merely an attempt to improve the looks of the neighborhood. Some reconstruction may be code compliant without making the structure necessarily attractive. Mr. Esslinger inquired what the difference was in costs for the two different ways of renovating the porch. Ms. Kepplinger replied that she was not aware of what ADVOCAP’s costs were for this project, but from her standpoint, she felt that the deterioration on the columns was minimal and that minor repairs that were mainly labor was all that was necessary to restore the porch to satisfactory condition. The only request made by the City for this property was to paint the structure and replace the roof only. Ms. Scherer commented that it was mentioned that this was only the second challenge to the Near East Neighborhood standards and questioned if the first challenge was the issue of the window replacements on the Merritt Avenue property. Ms. Kepplinger responded affirmatively. Mike Bonertz, Executive Director of ADVOCAP, 2929 Harrison Street, stated that their mission is to create opportunities to deter poverty and that they currently own approximately 100 units of housing in the area. They manage rentals and facilities for disabled persons and consider themselves a good landlord. When they renovate a property, they attempt to make modifications that will be cost effective for a long period of time. Their plans for renovation of this property included siding, roof replacement, and since he observed some dry rot on the columns, they felt replacing the porch with green treated columns and railings would enable them to be wrapped and maintenance free. They were trying to avoid having to repair and repaint the existing columns every couple of years and make this an affordable unit for a long period of time. Examples of other rehabilitated units owned by ADVOCAP were provided with the staff report and he stated that most other homes on the Dale Street block had square posts like the ones being proposed for this unit. Ms. Scherer questioned if ADVOCAP had consulted with a restoration expert on the project. Mr. Bonertz replied that they had not as this was not a restoration project and the home was not listed on the historic register. Mr. Fojtik asked for clarification on the Common Council’s approval of the Near East Neighborhood Plan. Mr. Burich responded that the ordinance approved with this resolution set standards for new development, additions, and exterior remodeling projects in this designated area. Ms. Propp stated that although she felt that ADVOCAP was an excellent organization, she would be in favor of supporting the City staff’s position on this topic. Ms. Scherer inquired if this item would go to the Common Council for review after the Plan Commission’s recommendation. Plan Commission Minutes 3 August 19, 2008 Ms. Kepplinger replied that this item would not require Council approval as the Plan Commission makes the final determination on planned development amendments within the Near East Neighborhood. Mr. Esslinger commented that he felt that ADVOCAP should be allowed to handle the renovation of the porch as they desired and that the Near East Neighborhood Plan was a concept that may have had good intentions, but he thought it had gotten out of hand. Motion by Esslinger to approve the modification to the planned development amendment in the Near East Neighborhood for property located at 307 Dale Street as requested. Seconded by Propp. Motion denied 1-4. Ayes-Esslinger. Nays-Bowen/Fojtik/Propp/Scherer. III.A.&B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MILITARY VEHICLE STORAGE BUILDING AT 1415 ARMORY PLACE AND OFFICIALLY MAP ARMORY PLACE TO OSBORN AVENUE The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a military vehicle storage building to store organizational vehicles and equipment and material used by the Wisconsin Army National Guard and officially map Armory Place through to Osborn Avenue. Mr. Burich reviewed the site as it currently stands and the planned building addition to the property. He stated that the Wisconsin Army National Guard has been on this site since 1962 and relocated their maintenance facility from Third Avenue to this property with the approval of a conditional use permit in 2002. This CUP included conditions relative to providing a future right-of-way through connection from Armory Place to Osborn Avenue. He further stated that the proposed storage building would be to house equipment that is currently stored outside on site. In regard to mapping Armory Place through to Osborn Avenue, City staff looked at the layout of the neighborhood and this subdivision has no other connection other than to Ninth Avenue. The public road was laid out with the 90 degree angles as it cannot go straight through the property since the Armory buildings are located there and it cannot be situated within a certain distance from armory facilities due to anti-terrorism standoff distance requirements. No road is being constructed at this time, just the official mapping to dedicate lands for future needs. Ms. Scherer questioned if staff considered extending Moreland Street instead of Armory Place. Mr. Burich replied that would not be possible at this time as that area is officially mapped for stormwater detention purposes. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, stated that the road was planned to meet the 45 meter standoff lines for the Armory facilities as well as complying with design standards for city streets. The 90 degree angles would slow traffic which is appropriate for neighborhood safety. Mr. Esslinger asked if security was such an issue for the Armory, wouldn’t the situation be better if no road was constructed at this location at all. Mr. Burich responded that the Armory could work with the road configuration and it would result in their ability to move vehicles in and out of the site from Osborn Avenue instead of through the Armory Place neighborhood. Mr. Esslinger then asked if the road would be constructed of asphalt or concrete. Mr. Gohde replied that the road would be constructed with concrete. Plan Commission Minutes 4 August 19, 2008 Ms. Scherer questioned how the road meshed with the master plan for the property. Mr. Burich responded that in 2002, the Armory did not have a master plan in place and it was conditioned on the approval of that CUP that a master plan and provisions for a connection from Armory Place to Osborn Avenue be developed prior to any future development on this site. The connection of Armory Place to Osborn Avenue is incorporated in the master plan submitted with this application for a conditional use permit to construct the proposed storage building. Mr. Bowen asked if the proposed building would serve vehicles currently stored on the site. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively. Mr. Bowen then asked if this would significantly increase traffic on Armory Place. Mr. Burich stated that it shouldn’t increase traffic as most of the vehicles and equipment are already stored outdoors on site. Ms. Propp inquired if a road could be mapped from Osborn Avenue to the parking lot of the Armory property rather than extending Armory Place. Mr. Burich responded that this concept would create a driveway that would serve the Armory property only where extending Armory Place would also create another outlet from the subdivision which currently has only accesses out Ninth Avenue. Ms. Propp questioned if an emergency outlet could be created for the neighborhood extending through the Armory property instead. Mr. Burich replied that would not be possible as it would create security issues for the Armory. Mr. Fojtik inquired why the City did not plan for an alternate exit from the Armory Place subdivision when it was created. Mr. Burich stated that he did not know why but Armory Place may have been that type of option or it was envisioned that a street would be available to the south as that was previous railroad tracks. Kristi Stingle, 1230 Devonshire Drive, stated that they purchased their home a year ago and spent substantial time looking for the right location and felt that the cul de sac where their house is located was ideal for children for safety reasons. The concept of the road extension would create a multitude of issues for their property as the back yard is very shallow and she was concerned with noise, lights from traffic, and safety issues for their children. She further stated that the 90 degree angles of the road would not work well and the tree line along the Armory property would be removed which currently buffers their home from the Armory site. She felt that it would be better to extend Moreland Street rather than Armory Place. Beatrice Halfen, 1125 Armory Place, stated that she had concerns with both the building addition and the extending of the street and felt that all the proposed plans are from the Department of Military Affairs point of view and not the people who live in the surrounding neighborhood. She stated that the plans to extend Armory Place would reduce property values, increase traffic and activity by both citizens and the military in their neighborhood, decrease stability, create more air pollution, exasperate stormwater issues by creating more impervious surface, and create more wildlife issues by reducing the Plan Commission Minutes 5 August 19, 2008 amount of natural area on the Armory’s property. She suggested that the road extension be planned from Osborn across a vacant parcel to Mason Street or westward out to Menard Drive. She also felt that the Armory property should be required to create a buffer on all sides of their property to shield their neighborhood from noise and activity on their property and she did not feel that Armory Place needed an alternate exit from their subdivision as it has been this way for the past 40 years without a problem. Diane Moore, 1222 Armory Place, stated that she has lived there for 30 years and it was never planned to be a through street. She liked the park-like atmosphere of the neighborhood and felt that the trees provided both a sound and wind barrier for their homes. She also felt that the wooded area provided an area for stormwater runoff and stated that the Armory has had problems in the past with vandalism, etc., and creating a street through to Armory Place would increase this activity. She would rather see the Armory install another private driveway off of Osborn Avenue that would not create more noise, lower property values and destroy their privacy. She further stated that she felt that tax dollars could be better spent by fixing the existing streets in Oshkosh rather than create new ones that are not necessary. Ms. Scherer questioned if staff agreed that the removal of the trees would create more noise issues. Mr. Burich replied that the trees do provide a natural sound barrier, however, the Armory could clear cut all the trees on the site if they so desired as it was their property. Mr. Bowen inquired if the Armory would be submitting a separate stormwater management plan for the site. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively. Mr. Gohde added that there is currently a small detention pond on the site, but the City was working with the Armory to place a large regional pond on the property in conjunction with two other detention ponds for the Sawyer Creek basin to alleviate flooding issues. Mr. Bowen questioned if the existing pond on the site would be sufficient with the addition of the new building until the regional pond mentioned was created. Mr. Gohde replied that they would be expanding the existing pond and that a resolution would be presented to the Council in the near future to move forward with acquiring land for the creation of the regional ponds mentioned. Mr. Bowen asked if the Strey Construction property adjacent to the Armory site was contaminated. Mr. Burich responded that he did not have any definite information on that matter. Garry Decker, 1113 Oregon Street, stated that he had lived at 1225 Devonshire Drive for about 25 years and had moved a few years ago. He has the house on the market for sale at this time and is presently renting out the property. He commented that he is totally opposed to the street extension proposed as it would go right past his backyard. He also did not feel that the 90 degree angles were a good idea and the road extension would degrade property values in the neighborhood. He did not want to see the trees removed as they provide a buffer from both the view of the Armory and Osborn Avenue. He felt it would have an adverse impact on the properties by creating more traffic, safety concerns as well as the burden of having to pay the costs of the street construction. He further stated that this subdivision has been there since 1961 with 216 residential dwellings in the area with six streets that exit only on Ninth Avenue. The possibility of Ninth Avenue being completely shutdown was minimal and there has never been a problem with the lack of an alternate exit from the subdivision. He distributed copies of the Plan Commission Minutes 6 August 19, 2008 Patriarchs subdivision which contains half the number of homes as the Armory Place Plat and also has only one ingress/egress from the neighborhood. He felt that the taxpayers should have a say in these plans as the Armory does not pay taxes as they do and he commented that the Plan Commission could prevent the Armory from cutting down the trees on their property. Mr. Burich commented that the Plan Commission could not prevent the Armory from removing the trees on their site if they so desired as this would not be in the jurisdiction of the Plan Commission. Mr. Decker further commented that the road was coming at the expense of mainly three property owners and there has to be another alternative. He did not see any reason why the proposed street extension required 60 feet of right-of-way as they did not need a 32 foot wide street and sidewalks in that area. He reiterated that he was totally opposed to the street extension. Jack Siedler, 920 Armory Place, stated that he and his wife have lived there for 20 years and was concerned with the stormwater runoff from the property as the street had flooding issues this past summer. He felt that the Armory should pump the water out of there during storms and hold it on site until the flooding issue subsides. Ms. Scherer commented that hopefully the detention pond mentioned previously would address the stormwater issues. Mr. Siedler stated that the city put up no wake signs after the last storm on Ninth Avenue, but they did not put any on Armory Place. Paul Brennan, Department of Military Affairs, stated that he was the architect for the buildings on the Armory property and developed the master plan with cooperation from the City. He further stated that the proposed building would be constructed of brick not concrete block as mentioned in the staff report. Ms. Propp asked if the Armory could utilize a private driveway from Osborn Avenue instead of extending Armory Place through. Mr. Brennan responded that the advantage of extending Armory Place was that it would alleviate driving heavy transport vehicles through the neighborhood to gain access to their site as they could access the area from Osborn Avenue instead. An additional private driveway off of Osborn Avenue may be considered in the future. Judy Lett, 1615 Crystal Springs Avenue, stated that the detention pond on the Armory property never has any water in it as the drainage ditch is usually filled with garbage and trees and she has repeatedly contacted the city to come clean it out. She voiced her concerns that the proposed road would create more flooding issues in their neighborhood. Mr. Bowen stated that he was uncomfortable with allowing the addition of any new buildings on the site without an approved stormwater management plan in place as it would be increasing the amount of impervious surface on the site. He further stated that although the city is working with the Armory to create a new regional detention pond in that area, he wanted to add a condition to the CUP request that a stormwater management plan be implemented to serve in the interim until the city works out the details to create the regional detention pond for the area. Motion by Bowen to approve the conditional use permit for the development of a military vehicle storage building at 1415 Armory Place as requested with the following conditions: Plan Commission Minutes 7 August 19, 2008 1)No outside, unscreened storage of materials, parts, or junked vehicles and equipment. 2)Landscape plan be approved by the Department of Community Development for all new development on the property. 3)Stormwater management plan that meets ordinance be implemented until the creation of the regional detention pond. Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Esslinger stated that he could see seven disadvantages to extending Armory Place to Osborn Avenue and only one advantage. He felt that the road was not user friendly, very costly, and the neighbors were obviously not in favor of it. Ms. Propp commented that she agreed with Mr. Esslinger and felt that three properties would be adversely affected by the street extension and that the Armory should develop a private drive off of Osborn Avenue to access their site. Mr. Bowen stated that he was in favor of developing another ingress/egress point for this subdivision, but not the version that was presented today. Motion by Esslinger to approve the official mapping of Armory Place to Osborn Avenue as requested. Seconded by Bowen. Motion denied 0-5. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:50 pm. (Fojtik/Esslinger) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services Plan Commission Minutes 8 August 19, 2008