Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES January 5, 2010 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thorns, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Dennis McHugh, Kent Monte EXCUSED: David Borsuk, Kathleen Propp, Donna Lohry, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Lynn Lorenson, City Attorney; 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 December 15, 2009 were approved as presented. (Thoms/Hinz) L PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 4 FOUR -UNIT MULTIPLE FAMILY CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PARKWAY AVENUE, 500 BLOCKS OF GROVE AND OAK STREETS The petitioner is requesting approval of a development plan that includes construction of 4 four -unit multiple family condominium structures located on the south side of East Parkway Avenue at the 500 block of Grove Street and Oak Street. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area. He also reviewed the master site plan from the 2007 Development Agreement between the City and Parkside Place, LLC. He reviewed the site plan for the proposed development and stated that each unit would have its own entrance and garage and the structures meet the necessary setback requirements. The developer has submitted a revised plan that shifts the structures 10 feet to the south which provides additional vision clearance, snow storage and to allow vehicles to be parked in the driveway farther from the right -of- way. Mr. Buck also reviewed the base standard modifications requested, the elevations of the structures and photos of structures in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Thorns questioned how the design of the development was considered similar in nature to the surrounding area. Mr. Buck responded that the petitioner stated this in his application and although it is not the same style as the homes in the neighborhood, it is also not in conflict. The single - family homes in the surrounding area are mostly two - story, but there has been newer development that was similar in structure to the north of the old hospital site. Mr. Thorns then questioned if snow build up near driveways was going to block visibility when exiting the development. Mr. Buck replied that staff had some concern regarding blocking the vision triangle, however this situation would not be any different from conditions that exist with one or two family homes in most neighborhoods. He further stated that the developer has tried to address the matter by moving the structures on the development 10 feet south. Plan Commission Minutes January 5, 2010 Mr. Fojtik inquired if the design with the current garage layout fit in the neighborhood as there were some issues regarding this matter with the last proposal. Mr. Burich responded that this version of the design was similar to the revised version submitted to the Common Council for the last proposal. Mr. McHugh stated that he was concerned with the 25 foot setback of the driveways from the corners and questioned if the height and location of the landscaping could be limited to prevent a hazardous situation for citizens traveling the street. Mr. Thorns suggested that a condition could be added to pull back the terrace plantings to address this issue. Mr. Buck stated that a landscaping plan would have to be submitted for approval prior to building permit issuance and the matter could be addressed at that time. He also reviewed the city ordinance relating to the vision clearance triangle requirements and stated that often times the issue is not that the plantings are too high initially, but they grow beyond the required limitations if not maintained. Mr. Thorns then questioned how this issue is enforced. Mr. Burich responded that the enforcement issue is usually driven by citizen complaints. Mr. McHugh asked about the 42% of impervious surface that would be created on the site and how the stormwater management plans would be addressed. Mr. Buck replied that he believes the site currently sheets drains into the street and is approximately 80 percent impervious and plans would have to be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works during the building permit process. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, added that the development would be exempt from the City's ordinance for stormwater management plans if the lot is not over one acre or if there is not an increase of more than 50% of impervious surface on the site. Mr. Monte inquired about the access control standard regarding the minimum distance of 40 feet from intersections for placement of driveways in multi - family uses and questioned what the minimum distance was for a single - family home as this use was more similar to that situation. Mr. Buck responded that the minimum distance for single or two family uses was 25 feet. Kurt Koeppler, 1726 Rivermill Road, developer for the project, stated that he had attempted to address the neighbor's concerns regarding the garages facing the street in his last proposal and had eliminated 50% of garages facing the street by placing side - loaded garages on the end units. This would allow the development to still have eight units on each side with only four garages facing the street. He also discussed the concept of "flipping" the design of the units to place the garages in the rear and explained that this would not work as it lowered the amount of greenspace on the site, increased the construction costs of the units, and negatively affected the water run off for the development. He further stated that he felt this development would be an excellent transition between the older east side neighborhood and the newly constructed homes north of the hospital. He stated that he will save as many of the existing trees on site as possible and will be planting large new trees in addition to the Plan Commission Minutes January 5, 2010 existing landscaping. He also commented that this development would be professionally managed and will not have any rental units, and will not allow any outside parking of vehicles, boat or RV storage, trash stored outside, and would even limit the size of pets at the development. He has built over 100 of these types of units and they are mainly marketed to empty nesters and the development would add 2.5 million dollars to the City's tax base. Mr. Thorns questioned if the design included porches on the front of the units. Mr. Koeppler responded that there was a covered porch area on each unit and pointed out its location on the perspective drawings displayed. Mr. Thorns inquired if, although it was not required, rain gardens could be incorporated into the design. Mr. Koeppler replied that he would be complying with the requirements of the Department of Public Works on stormwater management. Mr. Thorns stated that rain gardens were not a requirement of the City ordinance but a new concept that he felt should be included in developments to alleviate flooding issues. Mr. Koeppler responded that there was adequate greenspace on the site and he did not anticipate utilizing this new concept in his plans although he may incorporate some type of detention area in the rear of the development. Mr. Buck read comments from Peter Westort and Mary Ann Offer, 1103 E. Parkway Avenue, who were concerned with the landscaping on the site and would like to see large deciduous trees in the development that would create a full canopy and would also like to see terrace trees included when the street reconstruction is completed. They also wished to see the stone marker for Longfellow School preserved and incorporated into the site and would like to see the Longfellow name included as part of the naming of the development. They were in favor of the project. He also read an email from Richard Norenberg, 524 Oak Street, who was mainly concerned with the departure from the original plans for the site which was located adjacent to the City's historic district. He stated that single - family housing was originally planned for this site and the proposed development was not similar to the existing housing in the neighborhood. He did not feel this development would be an improvement to the area and the redevelopment of the old hospital site was not impressive either. He was disappointed with the lack of neighborhood participation in the plans and was concerned with the increase in pedestrian activity as well as the devaluation of his property and the potential for increased flooding. Leif Larson, 547 Oak Street, stated that he lives adjacent to the site and was concerned if the mature trees along the property line would remain intact or if new plantings would be placed in this area as the trees provided a certain amount of privacy for him and his family. Mr. Koeppler stated that there was about 50 -75 feet between the driveway and Mr. Larson's home and he did not intend to remove the hedgerow as it was a great privacy buffer. Mr. Larson also stated that he had concerns with the income level of individuals living in the development, but his main issue was that he did not want rental units in the area. He was not as concerned with the fact that the development would look a little more modern and not the same as the existing homes in the area. Plan Commission Minutes January 5, 2010 Loretta Kirk, 566 Oak Street, questioned what the estimated value of the units would be. Mr. Koeppler responded that the estimated value would be approximately $140,000. Ms. Kirk also questioned if the street was damaged during construction of the project, who would be responsible for repairing it. Mr. Koeppler stated that he would be responsible to repair any damages caused from the development construction. Ms. Kirk inquired where she could locate a similar development by Mr. Koeppler in the city to view. Mr. Koeppler responded that he had several developments similar to this proposal on Lake Pointe Drive, Mitchell Street, Oakwood Road, and east of Knapp Street and 20 Avenue. Mr. Thorns asked if there were modern style homes constructed north of the hospital. Mr. Buck replied that there were some assisted living homes on Cleveland Avenue that were similar in construction style but the garages were not located in the front of the units. Ms. Kirk also voiced her concerns about the preservation of the sugar maples on Oak Street and questioned if the units would be owner occupied. Mr. Koeppler responded that he did not intend to cut down any trees that were not necessary and that the development would be owner occupied only. Mr. Fojtik commented that he was pleased with what the developer has proposed to address both concerns of the neighbors and city regarding the redevelopment of this area. Mr. Monte stated that he felt the petitioner did a lot to blend this new development into the neighborhood and he did not want to turn away an opportunity to create development on a site where just a parking lot exists now. Mr. Thorns agreed with Mr. Monte and added that Mr. Koeppler was a long time responsible builder in the city and he liked the inclusion of the front porches in the design and the use of brick in the construction. He felt the development was not such a bad fit in a neighborhood with mixed buildings and any stormwater management issues would be controlled by Public Works. Mr. Hinz agreed and commented that the developer worked well with the neighbors to design a project that would address their concerns and that new development is a part of a community growing and changing. The older homes in the neighborhood are in good shape and the new development would help the neighborhood to move forward into the future. Motion by Bowen to approve a planned development for construction of 4 four -unit multiple family condominium units on the south side of Parkway Avenue, in the 500 blocks of Grove and Oak Streets as requested with the following conditions: 1) Base standard modification to allow 14 driveways onto a single lot. 2) Base standard modification to allow vehicle egress from the site in a backward motion. 3) Base standard modification to permit driveways closer to intersections as proposed. Plan Commission Minutes January 5, 2010 4) Base standard modification to eliminate the required pedestrian access from the building entrances to the public walk. Seconded by Monte. Motion carried 6 -0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:50 pm. (Bowen/Thoms) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services Plan Commission Minutes January 5, 2010