Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES December 1, 2009 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thorns, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Dennis McHugh, Kathleen Propp, Donna Lohry, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: Kent Monte STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeff Nau, Associate Planner; Steven Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Fojtik called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of November 17, 2009 were approved as presented. (Thoms/Hinz) L STREET VACATION OF A PORTION OF RIVERWAY DRIVE The city requests the vacation of a portion of Riverway Drive involving a turn radius flare located on the east side of the street's southerly terminus. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and a map showing the proposed street layout and the area to be vacated. Mr. Thorns questioned if there would be any issues with the vacation if Riverway Drive should it be extended southwest in the future. Mr. Nau responded that there were no issues with the vacation as utilities are not in place in that area. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the street vacation of a portion of Riverway Drive as requested. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 9 -0. Mr. Bowen arrived at 4:02 pm. IIA. ZONE CHANGE FROM C -2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO C -2PD GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY TO ALLOW FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AT 1200 SOUTH KOELLER STREET The petitioner is requesting a zone change from C -2 General Commercial District to C -2PD General Commercial District with a Planned Development Overlay. IIB. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DRIVE -IN RESTAURANT AT 1200 SOUTH KOELLER STREET Plan Commission Minutes December 1, 2009 The petitioner requests approval of a conditional use permit /development plan approval for a new drive -in restaurant with drive -thru located at 1200 South Koeller Street. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site plan. He stated that the zone change was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding sites. He further stated that the petitioner would be utilizing a portion of a large parking lot and base standard modifications were being requested for setbacks and a few additional modifications such as LED lights on the front of the building. He also reviewed the traffic circulation, pedestrian walkways, lighting, signage, and elevations, landscaping, stormwater and grading, and building features. The petitioner would be required to meet code on all aspects which would be reviewed at permit issuance. He also reviewed the conditions placed on the CUP/PD request. Motion by Fojtik to vote on the rezoning and CUP /PD requests separately. There was some discussion among Commission members whether the rezoning and CUP/PD items should be separated or voted on as one item. There were concerns by several members that the approval of the rezoning to a Planned Development area would relax standards for the development by allowing base standard modifications. Mr. Buck commented that the Planned Development can provide higher quality standards for the development as well as relaxing standards by allowing base standard modifications from some zoning requirements. Mr. Burich suggested that the items be separated and voted on individually with the CUP/PD being handled first since if approval was denied for this request, the rezoning request would not be necessary. Seconded by Thoms. Motion carried 9 -0. Mr. Borsuk questioned if the landscaping on the site was adequate. Mr. Buck responded that no formal landscaping plan had been submitted at this time; however the developer would be required to meet code requirements for number of plantings, species, etc., at the time of permit issuance. Mr. Borsuk inquired if stormwater plans were submitted with the application. Mr. Buck replied that stormwater plans, if required, would also be reviewed at the time of permit issuance. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, stated that this site would not be required to submit stormwater plans as the developer was not increasing the impervious area by 50 and the site is less than one acre in size. The plans also meet the DNR's standards for stormwater quality improvements. Mr. Thorns suggested that the Plan Commission add a condition to this request to require stormwater plans be submitted even if code does not require it as this area has experienced significant flooding issues in the past. Mr. Gohde stated that City ordinance allows the development to occur without stormwater management plans unless the imperious surface is being increased and that redevelopment areas are a different entity than new development sites. Plan Commission Minutes December 1, 2009 Mr. Thorns then suggested that the developer include rain gardens in their landscaping plans to address the issue. Mr. Buck commented that the portion of the parcel being redeveloped is 10% of the entire existing lot. Mr. Borsuk stated that if the area being redeveloped was one acre or more, the developer should also be presenting a stormwater plan to decrease solids. Mr. Gohde responded that this would not apply if the impervious surface was not being increased. Mr. Borsuk commented that we need to start now with landscaping or breaking up big box parking lots to avoid issues of redeveloping small portions of these sites which will create more flooding problems in the future. Mr. Thorns questioned the setback requirements in the 41 corridor, and when they apply, if we continue to allow exceptions to the requirements for redevelopment. Mr. Buck responded that the building does meet the setback standards as well as the signage for the site. There is a base standard modification for a reduced front yard setback for pavement and a reduced north side yard setback; however that is necessary to accommodate the drive aisles previously established in front of the buildings. To require the developer to pull this structure back would essentially block off the existing drive aisles leading to other parcels in the surrounding area. Mr. Thorns commented that he felt the 41 corridor standards seemed useless if they could not be enforced with new developments. Mr. Burich stated that the original setback for the 41 corridor was 50 feet; however it was established at a time when reconstructing the frontage road was being considered and the City did not want structures developed too close to the road requiring them to be relocated. The reduced setbacks being requested for this development were for parking area only and the location of the structure was within the required setback area. Mr. Thorns then commented that developments should not be placed too close to the road as it creates a hazardous situation in the event of an accident that could occur in the roadway. Tim Sparks, 5232 West Princeton Pines Court, Franklin, Wisconsin, the petitioner for the request, stated that they do not have an issue with removing the parking stall in the drive -in canopy area to meet the required setback as suggested in the staff report. He further stated that he does not work for Sonic and that he is a community involved individual who is willing to do the right thing as far as developing the site. The landscaping on the site would be more than just adequate and the quality of the building materials would be the same. He utilizes Wisconsin materials and laborers in the development and suggested that other Sonic sites he has recently established in Grand Chute and Milwaukee were representative of the quality of his developments. Mr. Borsuk inquired if he had dealt with stormwater issues on his other developments. Chris Carr, 1541 North Jefferson Street, Milwaukee, design engineer for the development, stated that they dealt with stormwater management plans on one out of 41 sites they designed and the addition of landscape islands on this site should improve water quality issues. The redevelopment area makes Plan Commission Minutes December 1, 2009 development more difficult on the site and he commented that he was not aware of any flooding issues. He further commented that the changing of the grading for the site should also improve the existing conditions. Andy Dumke, 2030 Menominee Drive, owner of the parcel, stated that the area being developed is too small to do stormwater management plans and that he has developed several other parcels on Koeller Street similar to this one. He further stated that the rest of the area behind the proposed Sonic site is undevelopable due to an existing easement area located there. He also commented that the established drive aisle needs to be retained to continue the traffic flow to other parcels in the area. Mr. McHugh stated that the parking lot on this parcel is deteriorated and questioned how the new parking lot ordinance would affect this. Mr. Buck responded that the area being redeveloped will have to meet the code requirements of the new ordinance but the remainder of the lot will not be affected at this time. The rest of the site cannot be addressed until it is redeveloped. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the zone change from C -2 General District to C -2PD General Commercial District with a Planned Development Overlay as requested. Seconded by McHugh. Motion carried 9 -0. Mr. Bowen commented that the Plan Commission was not responsible for dealing with items that should be reviewed by the Stormwater Utility Board. Mr. Borsuk stated that sustainability was an issue that should be addressed by the Plan Commission as it was part of good planning to consider these items. Mr. Nollenberger commented that the Commission should not place additional standards on this particular development but should consider revising the code requirements to address the stormwater issues discussed. Mr. Bowen stated that he agreed with Mr. Borsuk on the sustainability issue; however both the engineers who designed the project and the staff in the Department of Public Works have reviewed the plans for this development and have agreed that this project should not be an issue in regard to stormwater management. Mr. Thorns commented that he felt we should be addressing the bigger picture and he would encourage the developer to consider the addition of rain gardens although they are not required. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the conditional use permit /development plan review for the development of a drive -in restaurant at 1200 South Koeller Street as requested with the following conditions: 1) Base standard modification to reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to ]foot and to reduce the north side yard setback from I5 feet to 0 feet. 2) The striped and labeled `parking to be removed" area on the northern portion of the development area is be reconstructed as an island in coordination with future redevelopment of the adjacent property. 3) Provide the City with proof of cross- access and cross parking agreements between the subject property and the property adjacent to the north. Plan Commission Minutes 4 December 1, 2009 4) Base standard modification to allow two LED signs on the north facade, as proposed. Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion carried 9 -0. III. OFFICIAL MAPPING FOR A STORM DRAINAGE DETENTION AREA EAST OF WESTHAVEN CIRCLE (SOUTH OF WESTHAVEN GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE) The Department of Public Works requests approval to officially map a storm drainage detention area. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area. He also displayed a map of the drainage basin including the location of the proposed pond. He also commented that the Capital Improvement Plan had funding budgeted in 2012 for the construction of the proposed detention area. Mr. Bowen questioned if the construction of the detention area would come before the Plan Commission for approval. Mr. Nau responded affirmatively and stated that the detention area would require approval of a conditional use permit and that action today was only for the official mapping of the area. Mr. Borsuk inquired if the detention area was planned for flood control only or water quality issues as well. Mr. Gohde responded that they will consider water quality issues but do not know the impacts at this point in time. Mr. McHugh inquired why the project was not scheduled to be constructed until 2012. Mr. Gohde replied that the project was still in the planning stage and needs to be coordinated with the WisDOT. Also funding costs had to be considered and the earliest it could be completed was 2012. Mr. Thorns questioned if the detention area would be a wet pond. Mr. Gohde responded that until further design work was completed, he did not know at this time. Mr. Thorns then questioned if the detention area would serve the Westhaven area. Mr. Nau responded affirmatively. Mr. Thorns inquired where the overflow from the detention area would be directed. Mr. Gohde replied that the study and design work needed to be completed but the overflow would be directed to the golf course which is the same as the current situation. Mr. Nau commented that Kathy Hable, 1795D Maricopa Drive, contacted the Planning Services office as she could not be present for today's meeting. She wanted to convey her support for the official mapping of the area for detention purposes. Motion by Thoms to approve the official mapping for a storm drainage detention area east of Westhaven Circle as requested. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 9 -0. Plan Commission Minutes December 1, 2009 IV. OFFICIAL MAPPING FOR A STORM DRAINAGE DETENTION AREA NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 91 AT JAMES ROAD The Department of Public Works requests approval to officially map a storm drainage detention area. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area. He also displayed a map of the drainage basin including the location of the proposed pond. He also commented that the Capital Improvement Plan had funding budgeted in 2010 for the construction of the proposed detention area. Ms. Propp questioned if this area was within the City limits. Mr. Nau responded that the area was within the Town of Algoma expansion area and the Town of Omro. He further stated that this detention area would also require the approval of a conditional use permit prior to construction. Ms. Propp then questioned if stormwater detention areas have to be located within City limits. Mr. Gohde replied that the City cannot take credit for taken sediments for ponds outside the City limits. Mr. Thorns inquired if the detention area would not treat water quality. Mr. Gohde responded that it was a dry basin and not designed for that purpose so it would have very small water quality benefit. He displayed a map showing the basin location and the area of the 100 year flood plain that will be removed from designation due to the construction of the detention area. Mr. Nollenberger questioned what the impact was of doing the official mapping in advance of the land acquisition. Mr. Gohde replied that the only impact was to prevent development on the site if the land would change hands prior to the acquisition. The official mapping would have no affect on the highest or best use of the land. Mr. Borsuk inquired if it would affect the proposed west side arterial road. Mr. Gohde responded that it was located west of the proposed arterial road. Donald Kumbier, 4936 State Road 91, stated that he owns approximately 10 acres of the land that is proposed to be officially mapped for the detention area and questioned what reasoning the City has to take his property when he uses that land for farming purposes to earn a living. Mr. Gohde replied that according to the study completed, placing the detention area at this location where the creeks come together would be of primary benefit. Beverly Kumbier, 4936 State Road 91, distributed photographs of the area across the road depicting the flooding issues in that area. She commented that the City should consider locating the detention area south of their property as she did not feel it would be effective to place it on their land when the parcels to the south are under water as well. She further stated that the detention area may resolve some flooding issues for City properties but would have no benefit for their area. Plan Commission Minutes December 1, 2009 Mr. Gohde stated that the detention area was designed to serve the City and not this area. Mr. Bowen inquired if the property owners were contacted prior to this regarding the mapping of their land. Ms. Kumbier replied they were not. The first contact from the City was the meeting notice received for the Plan Commission meeting today, and that was received about ten days ago. Mr. Burich questioned when construction was scheduled to take place for the detention area. Mr. Gohde responded that it was scheduled for 2010. Mr. Bowen inquired what the impact would be of laying the item over to a future meeting. Mr. Gohde replied that it would delay the entire process to acquire the land and that the WisDOT's need for fill for the highway reconstruction project was for 2010 only and that was reducing construction costs for these detention areas driving the need to proceed as soon as possible. After some discussion of the official mapping process, and procedures to acquire land after the mapping, Mr. Hinz questioned what the process of condemnation was. Mr. Gohde responded that the City has specific procedures to follow to acquire land and condemnation is a term relating to the manner used to acquire said land. Mr. Hinz commented that he does not want to support some type of government land grab. Ms. Lohry asked if the ethanol plant was located to the south of the Kumbier's property. Ms. Kumbier responded affirmatively. Mr. Bowen explained that condemnation is part of a process of eminent domain which is a well established legal process under which property owners have rights. The official mapping is the mechanism to establish a place holder. Mr. Thorns stated that he understands the official mapping process and that it is part of a process to make people sell property if they don't desire to, but he feels that the City should go talk with the owners first. Mr. Nollenberger commented that he is not that familiar with the official mapping process and had concerns with how the process affects the value of the property. Mr. Borsuk stated that he understands the concerns in this matter but the Commission has to consider what is good planning and their responsibilities to the City. The City is trying to address both flooding and water quality issues and the property owner will be treated fairly in negotiations. He further commented that we have to be concerned with what is best for the City and he did not see any advantage in delaying voting on this item. Mr. Thorns commented that property rights should mean something and he felt that even if it is in the best interest of the public, it harms the value of the property and it's wrong. Plan Commission Minutes December 1, 2009 Mr. McHugh stated that official mapping is an action usually done for plans to be completed in future years. He commented that construction is planned for 2010 and funding already in the budget so the project is going to be moving forward immediately. He stated that he would not be supporting this request. The site is not even located in the City and the property owners should have been contacted prior to this meeting to discuss the matter. Mr. Bowen commented that he was disturbed by how this has unfolded and although the matter was not handled well by the City, the Commission had to focus on the issue. We need to decide if we are going to do something about stormwater issues, however a much more user friendly process needs to be established. Ms. Propp agreed and stated that we need to move forward on this issue. She further commented that the official mapping was just the first step in the process and the issue would be addressed by the Common Council. The City was within its rights to request to map the area however she was not pleased with the way it was handled as well. Ms. Lohry commented that she would not support the issue since the property owner had displayed in her photos that the flooding issues were present to the south of their property. She felt a different location should be considered for the detention area. Mr. Burich clarified that the official mapping process is not taking the property from the owner. He further explained condemnation action and the land acquisition process and assured the Commission that no land was being acquired by the official mapping action being discussed today. Official mapping can be withdrawn at any time and the land can still be farmed while the process is proceeding. The official mapping will move forward to the Common Council for approval and, if approved, negotiations will begin in regard to the acquisition of the land. Mr. Nollenberger commented that the mapping would not prevent the owners from farming the land but questioned if the official mapping would prevent them from selling it for development of a residential subdivision. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively. Mr. Borsuk stated that the Comprehensive Plan does not designate this area as residential use. Mr. Burich commented that the official mapping essentially treats the area as a right -of -way from a setback perspective and no building permit may be issued for new construction or expansion that does not conform to the location of the official map unless otherwise authorized by the local legislative body. Mr. Borsuk asked if the legal description of the site would be published with the item proceeding to the Common Council afterwards. Mr. Gohde replied that the legal description was in the process of being prepared at this time. Mr. Burich requested that the public hearing notice for the mapping action be sent to the property owners when published. Plan Commission Minutes December 1, 2009 Motion by Bowen to approve the official mapping for a storm drainage detention area north of State Highway 91 at James Road as requested. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 5 -4. Ayes- BorsukBowen /Fojtik/Propp/Nollenberger. Nays- Thoms /Hinz/McHugh /Vajgrt.) OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Nollenberger requested that the official mapping process be discussed at the next meeting to further clarify the process. Mr. Burich responded that both official mapping and stormwater management processes need to be discussed at a workshop to be held after a future Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Borsuk commented that it needs to be determined if stormwater planning is within the Plan Commission's realm of responsibility or the Stormwater Utility Board. If it is the Stormwater Utility Board, we need to convene the board to take a more active role in development. Mr. Thorns stated that he feels we need to address ordinance requirements for smaller developments. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:35 pm. (Vajgrt/Propp) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services Plan Commission Minutes December 1, 2009