Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-414OCTOBER 28, 2008 08 -414 RESOLUTION (CARRIED 4 -3 LOST LAID OVER WITHDRAWN ) PURPOSE: APPROVAL OF AMENDING CONDITIONS ON PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT — NEAR EAST NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATED BY: COMMON COUNCIL PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Denied WHEREAS, the Common Council previously approved a conditional use permit for the planned development of the area commonly referred to as the Near East Neighborhood with conditions; and WHEREAS, condition #4, in part, required that "New development, additions, and exterior remodeling projects shall be undertaken in a manner that reflects the general historic architectural character of the area and that building plans be subject to review and approval by the Department of Community Development prior to building permit issuance. "' and WHEREAS, condition #4 further stated that "If the Department denies plans, applicants have the option to seek review and approval of said plans from the Plan Commission. "; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2008 Council approved Res. 08 -336C that provided for final review of denials by the Common Council; and WHEREAS, the proposed change to condition #4 was reviewed by the Plan Commission and the Plan Commission is recommending that condition #4 remain unchanged. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that the conditional use permit for the planned development of the Near East Neighborhood is hereby amended to modify condition #4 to have the Common Council provide final review of denials of exterior remodeling projects by the Department of Community Development. I ,fHKOfH ON THE WATER TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council FROM: Jackson Ki ey '`'"� Director of o ity Development DATE: October 23, 2008 RE: Amend Condition for Previously Approved Conditional Use Permit; Planned Development — Near East Neighborhood Redevelopment Area (Plan Commission Recommends Denial) BACKGROUND In 2006, the City adopted the Near East Neighborhood Plan that included a variety of actions and recommendations for improving the neighborhood. Among the recommended actions was downzoning the area through use of a Planned Development Overlay District. Downzoning was seen as an important step in working toward a lower density character for the neighborhood. As can be seen in the Planned Development Section of the Zoning Ordinance, the application of the PD Overlay to given geographic areas carries with it an anticipation that improvements in the area will reflect a higher level of design consideration. With the application of the PD Overlay to the Near East Area, a Conditional Use Permit/ Planned Development Review was needed to provide a framework for how new development and improvements could be undertaken in the area. The CUP was approved by Council on May 9, 2006, with one of the listed conditions stating: "New development, additions, and exterior remodeling projects shall be undertaken in a manner that reflects the general historic architectural character of the area and that building plans be subject to the review and approval by the Department of Community Development prior to building permit issuance. If the Department denies plans, applicants have the option to seek review and approval of said plans from the Plan Commission." Since May 2006 there have been over 50 permits requested for exterior improvements that came under the review of the noted CUP condition. Of the permit requests, only 2 were denied, and appeals forwarded to the Plan Commission for review. ANALYSIS On September 11, 2008 a resolution was initiated and presented to Council to amend the above noted CUP provision by changing the language to provide final review by Council of denials of building plans by the Department of Community Development. If an appeal is made, the process would still have the appeal brought before the Plan Commission for review and recommendation with Council having the final say on appeals. Confusion Between "Targeted Code Enforcement" and "Design Reviews" At the last Council meeting a homeowner in the Near East Neighborhood spoke to the Council under Citizen Statements. In the comments there appeared to be some confusion between "targeted code enforcement" activities taking place in the neighborhood and the upcoming review by Council on the appeal process on denials to building permits where permanent changes to the exterior of homes were found to be inconsistent with the general architectural character of the area, and structure. The homeowner had received communications relative to "targeted code enforcement" activities in the neighborhood, but none of the items would relate to the CUP provision under consideration, nor would the modification to the CUP provision provide for an appeal to Council on "targeted code enforcement" issues where no changes were made to the exterior appearance of a home (including correction notices relating to chipping paint, and for roof issues, for example). FISCAL IMPACT The proposed change in the CUP provision is process oriented, and as a result it would not appear to have a fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION The Plan Commission recommended at its October 7, 2008 meeting that the change to the CUP provision be denied, and that the current language be retained. Approved, City Manager ITEM: AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NEAR EAST NEIGHBORHOOD Plan Commission meeting of October 7, 2008 GENERAL INFORMATION Petitioner: City Administration Action(s) Requested: Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development for the Near East Neighborhood Redevelopment Area. Applicable Ordinance Provisions: Zoning Ordinance, Sections 30 -11 addresses conditional use permits and 30 -33 addresses planned developments. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS In 2006 the City adopted the Near East Neighborhood Plan that included various recommendations for improving that area of the City. One of the proposed changes identified in the Plan was to downzone portions of the area and include a Planned Development Overlay District over the neighborhood. As part of the down zoning process and the application of the PD overlay to the neighborhood, Council adopted a Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development resolution (06 -167) on May 9, 2006 that included a list of conditions. One of the conditions stated: "New development, additions, and exterior remodeling projects shall be undertaken in a manner that reflects the general historic architectural character of the area and that building plans be subject to the review and approval by the Department of Community Development prior to building permit issuance. If the Department denies plans, applicants have the option to seek review and approval of said plans from the Plan Commission." On September 11, 2008 a resolution was initiated and presented to Council to amend the CUP for which the Council was asked to vote on three alternatives. The Council adopted the following alternative: "Amend the language to Provide Final Review by the Common Council of Denials of Building Plans by the Department of Community Development (Resolution #06 -167 Condition 4)." If an appeal is made of a decision of the Department of Community Development, the process will still have the appeal brought before the Plan Commission for its review and a recommendation to Council. If the Plan Commission recommends denial of the appeal, that recommendation will be forwarded to the Council for final review and approval unless the applicant chooses not to pursue the appeal with the Council The impact of this change would be to eliminate the Plan Commission as the final authority in appeals and make the Council the final authority for all such appeals. RECOMMENDATION As this is a significant change to the adopted CUP/Planned Development, the proposed change is referred back to the Plan Commission for recommendation. The Plan Commission denied the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development for the Near East Neighborhood. The following is the Plan Commission's discussion on this item. Mr. Dell'Antonia stated that a letter was received from James Larsen supporting the final authority on appeals remain with the Plan Commission. A copy of this letter was distributed to the Commission members. Thatcher Peterson, 527 Madison Avenue, stated that he was a resident of the Near East Neighborhood and also a member of the Steering Committee for this plan, and he felt there was no justification for the Council to have final approval on appealed items. He further stated that the granting of variances abandons the original plan and that the function of the Council should not be to review minor issues such as these and that the Council has no competency in architectural issues and those decisions should remain with the Plan Commission. Commission members discussed the subject and determined that the Near East Neighborhood Redevelopment was a good plan, good politics and was raising the standards and providing neighborhood stabilization. It is an appropriate use of staff and citizens working together and the involvement of the Council would be a deviance from the planning process and would be essentially micro - managing. Discussion continued on the design standards and it was determined that a good process was already in place. Further conversation continued on SmartGrowth and the continuing expansion of subdivisions in the community and the need to revitalize the older neighborhoods in Oshkosh. Motion by Borsuk to approve the amendment to the conditional use permit /planned development for the Near East Neighborhood as requested. Seconded by Bowen. Motion denied 0 -6 Item -CUP amdmt -NEN SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 08 -336C RESOLUTION (CARRIED 4 -3 LOST LAID OVER WITHDRAWN ) PURPOSE: DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO BRING FORWARD OPTION IN REGARD TO NEAR EAST NEIGHBORHOOD Option C) Amend the language to Provide Final Review by the Common Council of Denials of Building Plans by the Department of Community Development (Resolution #06- 167 Condition 4) INITIATED BY: COUNCIL MEMBER ESSLINGER NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh that the Common Council hereby directs the City Manager through his staff to take all necessary and appropriate actions to bring forward the following option in regard to the Near East Neighborhood CUP/PD: Option C) Amend the language to Provide Final Review by the Common Council of Denials of Building Plans by the Department of Community Development (Resolution #06 -167 Condition 4). 3 MAY 9, 2006 06 -167 RESOLUTION CARRIED 6 -1 LOST LAID OVER WITHDRAWN ) PURPOSE: GRANT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; APPROVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT — NEAR EAST NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT AREA INITIATED BY: DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved w /conditions BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the. City of Oshkosh that a conditional use permit is hereby granted to set forth parameters for a planned development of the area known as the Near East Neighborhood Redevelopment Area, generally located south of E. Lincoln Ave., north of Northwestern Ave., easy - west of Broad St., and we-st-east of N. Main St., as shown on the attached "Exhibit A ", with the following conditions: 1) Existing legal conforming multiple family and commercial structures be considered legal conforming uses until such time as they are removed or damaged in excess of 50% of their assessed value. 2) Any new multiple family structures or an expansion to existing, multiple family structures not be permitted unless a specific development plan is brought forward and found acceptable by the Plan Commission and Common Council through the review and approval process set forth for planned development districts. 3) For new one or two family structures, proposed additions and exterior remodeling/ rehabilitation projects to one or two family structures, or proposed garages, accessory structures and fences in the district generally, no additional Plan. Commission or Council review and approval be required, as long as base standards of the R -2 District and the CUP /PD are complied with. 4) New development, additions, and exterior remodeling projects shall be undertaken in a manner that reflects the general historic architectural character of the area and that building plans be subject to review and approval by the Department of Community Development prior to building permit issuance. If the Department denies plans, applicants have the option to seek review and approval of said plans from the Plan Commission. 5) General Standards for Development shall include: (a) The primary entrance for the principal structure shall be located on the fagade facing a public street. 4 MAY 9, 2006 06 -167 RESOLUTION CONT'D (b) Structures shall be designed to reflect the general style, construction materials and site placement of the surrounding properties and properties in the area. Elements in this provision include but are not limited to building height and scale, roof pitch, primary materials, fagade detailing, size and placement of window and door openings as well as setbacks for the principal and accessory structures. (c) Detached garages are encouraged. Whether detached or attached, the garage shall be 20 ft. back from the front fagade of the principal structure. Detached garages no larger than 800 square feet may exceed 30% of the rear or side yards on substandard lots of record. Where garages are constructed under this provision, no storage shed will be permitted: 6) Single and Two Family Dwelling Parking Standards for Substandard Lots. Passenger vehicle parking for single or two family lots of record platted on or before July, 1965, with less than 60 ft. of width /frontage or less than 100 ft. of depth are regulated as follows: (a) Driveways shall be considered legal "stacked" parking spaces provided that each space is no less than 9 ft. in width and 18 ft. in depth. (b) Open parking areas, including driveways as discussed above, are permitted within the following setbacks (i) A front yard setback no less than the setback of the front fagade of the principal structure. (ii) Side yard setback between front and rear fagades of principal structure of no less than 6 inches. (iii) Side yard setback past rear fagade of the principal structure and the rear lot line of no less than 2.5 feet. (iv) Rear yard setback no less than 2.5 feet. (c) Open parking situated beyond the rear fagade of the principal structure must be screened with a minimum of 5 ft. tall vegetation, fencing or other material that creates a solid screen, impervious to sight from adjacent properties, excluding views from the side of the lot where access is provided. (d) Open parking spaces located beyond the rear fagade of the principal structure may be reduced in depth to 16 ft. provided permanent wheel stops are supplied. (e) Impervious surface associated with rear yard parking shall be no greater than 50% of the total rear yard area. (7) On an interior residential lot, the front yard setback for a principal single or two family structure may be the average of the existing front yard setbacks of all homes on the same side of the block from intersecting street to intersecting street, but not less than 10 feet. P" 6