Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES March 16, 2010 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thorns, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Dennis McHugh, Kathleen Propp, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: Kent Monte, Donna Lohry STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey 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 March 2, 2010 were approved as presented. (Borsuk/Thoms) L PRIVILEGE IN THE STREET FOR INSTALLATION OF FIBER OPTIC CABLE ALONG WASHINGTON AVENUE, COURT STREET, AND OTTER AVENUE Multimedia Communications and Engineering, Inc./Winnebago County Information Systems Department are requesting to install fiber optic cable in city right -of -way connecting Winnebago County's Health & Human Services Building located at 220 Washington Avenue to the former Oshkosh B'Gosh Building, 112 Otter Avenue. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site for the fiber optic cable route. He stated that the petitioner coordinated their design with the Department of Public Works to ensure that there would be no conflicts with city utilities. The installation is proposed to be routed by a combination of both underground ducts and aerially by use of existing Wisconsin Public Service owned poles. Mr. McHugh questioned if undergrounding of other utilities could be incorporated when the ductwork is installed for the fiber optic cable system. Mr. Nau responded that there would be no trench work done with this installation so the inclusion of undergrounding other utilities would not be possible at this time. Mr. Thorns inquired what the purpose was to have both underground and aerial installation. Dan Becker, Multimedia Communications & Engineering, Inc., 1115 Mt. Mary Drive, Green Bay, stated that the route was including both methods of installation for budgetary reasons. Aerial routes were not possible at some points and underground installation is more costly. Mr. McHugh asked what the City would have to do to require all such installations to be undergrounded rather than installed aerially. Mr. Burich responded that it would necessitate a change to the City's municipal code. Plan Commission Minutes March 16, 2010 Mr. Bowen agreed with Mr. McHugh that the utilities should be required to be installed underground as that is clearly a directive of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he would not be supportive of this request if installed aerially. Mr. Thorns concurred but noted that to deny the request based on the Comprehensive Plan would be contrary to the current City ordinance requirements and he was not sure if that would be legal. Mr. Burich commented that he was not certain about the legality issue regarding the installation of utilities in City right -of -way and suggested that Plan Commission recommend an additional condition to require underground installation rather than denying the request entirely. Mr. Bowen questioned if there would be any issues with installing the specified route underground. Mr. Burich responded that it would require further review of the request as it was more of a design issue. Mr. Borsuk commented that the larger issue was if the installation was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that he would be supportive of an amendment to add a condition to the request that the entire route be installed underground. Mr. McHugh stated that a revision to the ordinance should be considered to prevent future aerial installations of any type of utilities. Mr. Thorns commented that the Plan Commission should recommend what is in the Comprehensive Plan and let the Common Council make the final decision. Motion by Borsuk to add a condition that the entire fiber optic cable route be installed underground. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 9 -0. Mr. Nollenberger questioned if the new installation was to be undergrounded, could the existing wires in the area be placed underground at the same time. Mr. Burich responded that it would not be possible to require company's with existing wires to place them underground as well as they are not requesting any approval from the city at this time. Motion by Thoms to approve the privilege in the street for installation of fiber optic cable along Washington Avenue, Court Street, and Otter Avenue as requested with the following conditions: 1) The fiber optic system be installed in a manner that is approved by the Department of Public Works with no modifications or changes in construction procedure without prior approval by the Department of Public Works. 2) If no longer needed, the fiber optic system be properly abandoned and removed in accordance with City standards and under the direction of the Department of Public Works. 3) Any problem that may arise as a result of the placement of the fiber optic system be the responsibility of the petitioner /owner to correct in coordination with the Department of Public Works. 4) All appropriate permits be obtained prior to the start of placement of the fiber optic system. S) The fiber optic system be modified or removed immediately upon the request of the City. Plan Commission Minutes 2 March 16, 2010 6) The petitioner /owner secures and submits 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. 7) It is the responsibility of the petitioner /owner 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 within ten (10) days of notice. 8) The petitioner /owner execute a hold harmless agreement with the City. 9) The facility be part of and documented with Digger's Hotline system. 10) The entire optic cable route be installed underground. Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion carried 9 -0. II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST TO PERMIT A TEMPORARY PARKING LOT AT 679 -683 JEFFERSON STREET The City, on behalf of area land and business owners, is requesting a conditional use permit (CUP) and Development Plan Review to construct and operate a temporary parking area at 679 -683 Jefferson Street to help alleviate access and parking concerns associated with the North Main Street reconstruction project. Mr. Buck presented the item, reviewed the site and surrounding area, and gave background information on the request. He explained that the City of Oshkosh Redevelopment Authority has been acquiring property in this area for redevelopment purposes and he reviewed the current uses in the area. He further explained that the request was initiated to assist the Main Street property owners during the reconstruction of the street which will facilitate the closing of Main Street for a time this summer, creating access and parking issues. Mr. Buck emphasized that this is an uncommon and unique situation. He reviewed the site plan which would create approximately 20 parking stalls in the proposed temporary lot and discussed the use of gravel surface, landscaping, lighting and trash issues and how they would be addressed. The owner of O'Brian's Tavern has agreed to provide temporary access and parking easements to his parking lot for other businesses to assist in this venture. A neighborhood meeting was held with adjacent property owners on March 8 with a positive response. The main concerns were the potential negative impacts from the use of the parking area on surrounding residential properties. Mr. Buck reviewed the conditions placed on this request. Mr. Borsuk inquired who would be responsible for the maintenance of the parking lot and if some type of dust free treatment would be applied to the gravel surface. Mr. Buck responded that the City would be responsible for the maintenance of the lot and that no dust free treatment was included with the gravel surface as the city is looking at the least costly and most timely way to install and remove this lot as it was only proposed as a temporary situation. Ms. Propp questioned who would be emptying the trash receptacles proposed to be on site. Mr. Buck replied that City staff or others designated by staff would be responsible for that duty. Mr. Hinz inquired if there was adequate room to access O'Brian's parking lot from the proposed temporary lot as the dumpster enclosure and vehicles appeared to be very close to the access point. Plan Commission Minutes March 16, 2010 Mr. Buck responded that the drive aisle was proposed to be 24 feet which is adequate and easement agreements would be drafted if this request was approved. He stated that the tavern may have to relocate the dumpster. Mr. McHugh asked how we would be designing the security lighting proposed for the site. Mr. Buck replied that the Transit Department would be handling the actual design and installation of lighting and the Department of Community Development would verify that the lighting is not excessive as there are residential properties in the area. Mr. Thorns questioned if this request had been reviewed by the Transit and Police Departments. Mr. Buck responded that it had been reviewed and that all requests that come before the Plan Commission are reviewed at a City inter - departmental meeting prior to the creation of the staff reports. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the conditional use permit /development plan to permit a temporary parking lot at 679 -683 Jefferson Street as requested with the following conditions: 1. Base standard modifications for the use of gravel as a surface and to setbacks as depicted on the submitted plan. 2. The use is limited in timeframe to the reconstruction of the 600 block of North Main Street, at which time access will be blocked, curb -cut closed and site returned to vegetative groundcover. 3. Trim or clear vegetation at the western lot line between the subject site and the parking area to the west. 4. Add barriers on the north and south of the parking stalls prohibiting movement onto the setback greenspace, as approved by the Department of Community Development. 5. Directional signage, security lighting and trash receptacle(s) are installed, as approved by the Transportation Department. Seconded by Thoms. Motion carried 9 -0. III. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR TACO BELL PARKING LOT EXPANSION AT 1800 JACKSON STREET The applicant is requesting an amendment to a previously issued planned development to allow an expansion to a parking lot for the purpose of improving traffic flow. Mr. Buck presented the item and stated that the development plan was initially approved in 1992 and reviewed the site and surrounding area. He explained that the only entrance to the Taco Bell site was from the parking lot of the commercial strip center to the north and that there was no direct access from public right -of -way. He reviewed the proposal which included the expansion to the east of the existing lot, inclusion of landscape islands at parking row ends and relocation and expansion of the three -lane entrance to a four -lane entrance. These physical improvements would assist in the traffic flow and safety on -site as it would help to alleviate stacking issues with vehicles entering the parking lot and drive -thru area. The proposed amendment would move the entrance to the east and shift a parking lot drive to the south creating a designated drive -thru access lane and a parking lot entrance lane. The revision to the parking lot would require the owner to meet the current code requirements for the inclusion of landscape islands. The proposed entrance would be 58 feet (2 ingress /2 egress) with a 6 foot rumble strip. The standard three -lane entrance for the City is 36 feet (1 ingress /2 egress) Plan Commission Minutes March 16, 2010 with a 4 foot rumble strip and staff felt the large entrance would be confusing and could create a conflict point for drivers attempting to enter the site but the proposed amendment would improve the stacking issues currently experienced at peak times. Landscaping, lighting, and stormwater plans have not been included but will be reviewed at the time of zoning review and building permit issuance. Mr. Buck also reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Bowen questioned if truck traffic would be able to make the turn to access the dumpster enclosure with the proposed reduction in the entrance recommended by staff. Mr. Buck responded that trucks could drive over the rumble strip if necessary to make the required turn. Mr. Hinz inquired if the entrance could be moved farther to the east. Mr. Buck replied that moving the entrance any further to the east would be encroaching on the north/south entrance lane which could create a bad impact on the site. Randy Abitz, W7443 Westbrook Lane, Fond du Lac, owner of the Taco Bell Restaurant, stated that he had a major remodeling project in process and that peak periods are very hectic often times serving 100 -120 cars during lunchtime. Customers are currently using the exit lane to enter the site and passed around a video displaying the situation at a peak period. He explained that widening the entrance to provide two ingress lanes would give vehicles more than one way into the lot and having only one lane entering the site would not alleviate the stacking issues he is experiencing. He also distributed photos of the site and reiterated that he felt the three lane entrance suggested by staff would not be adequate. Mr. Fojtik inquired if the owner found the conditions suggested for the request agreeable. Mr. Abitz responded that he did not agree with the condition for the three lane entrance as he had explained he needed to have the four lane entrance that was submitted. Mr. Thoms questioned if any other Taco Bell restaurants have the four lane entrance he is requesting. Mr. Abitz replied that he owns four Taco Bell restaurants and this is the only one with three lanes. He further stated that the lane would be marked as such to be designated for the drive thru only. Mr. Borsuk asked if his other facilities had the same four lane ingress /egress setup he is requesting. Mr. Abitz responded that some of the other locations had a second entrance altogether such as the one in Fond du Lac, and it would result in fewer customers entering the site through the exit lane. Mr. McHugh inquired if the round -a -bout being installed at the intersection would be affecting his business. Mr. Abitz replied that it would be acquiring some space from his property. Mr. Thoms asked for further explanation of the City's concern with the four lane access as the changes the City is proposing to the site plan would offer the owner some relief from the stacking issues he is currently experiencing, however it did not appear to be adequate for his needs. Plan Commission Minutes March 16, 2010 Mr. Buck responded that a dedicated lane for the drive thru and one for the parking lot is a nontypical scenario with the entrance appearing to be too wide and potentially confusing, particularly when there is snow cover on the ground covering the striping designated the drive aisles. He further explained that it has the potential to create a conflict point that is not safe with vehicles attempting to make multiple movements going through two ingress lanes. Mr. Borsuk commented that he had no issues with a wider entrance to the site with the four lanes proposed and felt that people would get used to it that frequented the restaurant. He further stated that if conflicts occurred due to the entrance, the owner could deal with it at a later date. Mr. Bowen stated that it appeared that too many vehicles were attempting to enter the only access point for the site and a wider ingress lane seemed necessary and should not be unsafe if properly identified. He was in favor of removing the condition that the entrance be limited to 36 feet wide with only three lanes. Mr. Hinz commented that he has experience with fast food restaurant management and feels that the owner understands his business and he would be in favor of approving the request as proposed with the four lane entrance. The traffic is heavy at peak times at this location and the entrance to the site is not accessing directly onto the City's right -of -way. Mr. McHugh inquired how the ingress lanes would be identified. Mr. Abitz responded that entry and exit signs would be posted in addition to the painted lanes on the surface. Mr. McHugh stated that the entrance is on private property and the owner should be able to construct the entrance as he has proposed. Motion by Bowen to approve the development plan amendment for Taco Bell parking lot expansion at 1800 Jackson Street as requested with the following condition: 1) Base standard modifications for setbacks and parking stall numbers, as depicted. Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion carried 9 -0. IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE FACILITY LOCATED AT 1023 N. MAIN STREET The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit approval for an automobile service facility at an existing establishment located at 1023 N. Main Street. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the history of the site. He reviewed the operating hours, type of service to be performed, and stated that the applicant would be the only employee at this time. He reviewed the site plan and further stated that the parking stalls would meet code other than the two stalls located at the intersection which is within the required 20 -foot vision triangle. This can be alleviated by eliminating the two northerly stalls and shifting the remaining stalls two feet to the south. The petitioner is proposing to do cosmetic work to the structure and striping for the parking stalls as the only proposed improvements to the site. He also reviewed the existing curb cuts and explained that the large open expanse on Prospect Avenue would be made code - compliant in conjunction with the 2010 street reconstruction. Lastly, Mr. Nau reviewed the conditions Plan Commission Minutes March 16, 2010 recommended for this request and noted that he failed to list one condition that should have been included relating to the two parking stalls located within the 20 -foot vision triangle and the movement of the remaining stalls two feet to the south. Mr. Borsuk questioned if condition #4 relating to storage of parts, equipment, or "junked" vehicles should be changed to "licensed /operable vehicles ". Mr. Burich responded that the condition is the standard language used in the past and altering it to operable vehicles may cause issues as this is a repair shop where the vehicle may be towed for service in inoperable condition to be repaired. Mr. Borsuk stated that he needed further definition of the repair facility defining that this would not be a dealership. Mr. Burich replied that there would be no sales on site. It was a repair facility only. Mr. McHugh questioned if this meant that repairs to vehicles would be required to be done within the building. Mr. Burich responded that the ordinance has required provisions in the code that address this issue. Ms. Propp inquired if there were no setbacks in the C -3 District. Mr. Nau replied that buildings can maintain a zero foot setback in the C -3 District; however parking areas are to maintain a three and one half foot setback from the right -of -way for new construction. The current lot is legal nonconforming and therefore the existing setbacks can be maintained for uses that are permitted in the C -3 District. Mr. Vajgrt questioned if the old pump island from the former use had been removed. Mark Mayer, 1216 School Avenue, Apt. A, petitioner for the request, stated that the pump island had been removed. Mr. Hinz asked if parts could be salvaged from vehicles on the site. Mr. Burich responded that those types of operations could not be performed on the site as it is not approved as a salvage yard but as a repair facility. Mr. Mayer stated that he was attempting to make a living operating the auto repair facility at this site and has been working on this for about three months. Mr. Hinz inquired if the petitioner was agreeable with the conditions recommended for the request. Mr. Mayer responded affirmatively. Motion by Thoms to approve the conditional use permit for an automobile service facility located at 1023 N. Main Street as requested with the following conditions: 1) Vehicle services are limited to passenger cars and light trucks. Plan Commission Minutes March 16, 2010 2) Protection of the sidewalk from vehicles parked along the sidewalks of N. Main Street and Prospect Avenue is provided by means of wheel stops. 3) Parking stalls be striped in accordance to the Off - Street Parking Code (Section 30-36(E)(5)). 4) No storage of parts, equipment or junked vehicles outside of the building. S) Driveway opening on Prospect Avenue be made code - compliant in conjunction with street reconstruction. 6) Removal of two northernmost parking stalls along N. Main Street and shifting remaining stalls two feet south to attain required 20 foot vision triangle. Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion carried 9 -0. V. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AMENDMENT APPROVAL FOR A GROUND SIGN AT THE INTERSECTION OF JACKSON STREET AND MARION ROAD (RIVERFRONT LANDING) Green Bay Sign and Design previously received planned development approval (Council Resolution 09 -243) for a ground sign containing an electronic message center (EMC) sign for the new Morton Pharmacy under construction in the Marion Road/Pearl Avenue Redevelopment District on a redevelopment site identified as "Riverfront Landing ", currently under development by Alliance Development with Morton Pharmacy and Accu -Com. The request is to modify the ground sign by flipping the location of the EMC from its location near the base of the sign and putting it at the top of the sign above both the Morton and development ID signage. Mr. Burich presented the item and stated that he was opposed to the original request for the electronic message center signage however it was subsequently approved by both the Plan Commission and Common Council. He reviewed the site and the originally approved signage with the development identification on the top, Morton Pharmacy in the middle, and the LED placed on the base of the signage. He also reviewed the proposed new signage which is proposing the LED on the top, Morton Pharmacy in the middle, and the development identification on the bottom. He stated that this new proposal creates safety issues as the LED signage will be placed at a higher level and could possibly cause driver distractions on Jackson Street. He further stated that this is a planned development area, and although from a design standpoint, it may be satisfactory in other areas, it is not appropriate for a redevelopment /planned development site that the City has invested substantial funding into creating a high quality environment. Flipping the order of the signage to place the LED on the top puts the priority on the LED sign where most signs of this nature are located on the bottom. He felt it detracts from the development and the City, in this case, is responsible to oversee the redevelopment site. He would like to see the signage remain as previously approved and reviewed the site plan and also other LED signs in the community. Mr. Bowen commented that he noticed that there appeared to be another major change in the signage as the Riverfront Landing portion of the sign was previously back lit illuminated channel letters and now appears to be black/white letters on perforated vinyl panel, or essentially a box sign. He considered this to be a major shift in design and quality. Mr. Borsuk stated that he had concerns about the distractions to drivers with the LED sign on top. Mr. Thorns asked for further explanation of why this would create distractions for drivers. Plan Commission Minutes March 16, 2010 Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, stated that the close proximity of the LED to the traffic signals distracts drivers' attention from the traffic signals to the signage particularly when they are colored red, green or amber. Locating the LED on the bottom of the signage is less hazardous as it has more separation between the signage and the traffic signals. Mr. Hinz questioned if there was any way to prohibit the use of red, green or yellow coloring in the LED sign. Mr. Gohde replied that is possible but would be extremely difficult to enforce. Mr. McHugh asked if the sign would block the view of drivers attempting to turn onto Jackson Street from Pearl Avenue. Mr. Burich responded that it would not. Mr. Vajgrt commented that the moving marquee is also distracting for drivers. Mr. Hinz suggested maybe there could be a compromise by putting the LED sign in the middle of the signage. Steve Morton, Morton Pharmacy, 200 City Center, stated that a landscape plan had been developed for the site when the sign was proposed with the LED three to six feet from the ground to mainly advertise daily specials. The new sign component for the Riverfront Landing portion would still be back lit but would now be constructed in a cut out aluminum sheet for cost savings. He distributed photos of competitor's signage which is mainly Walgreens and stated that he did not believe that the LED sign on top would be a distraction from the traffic signals as the sign would be 8 to 11 feet off the ground and the traffic signals are about 20 feet. He also commented that he would be satisfied with signage similar to the Walgreen's sign on Jackson Street and Murdock Avenue. He suggested eliminating the landscaping proposed around the base of the sign or raising the sign by three feet. Mr. Thorns questioned how tall the proposed signage would be. Mr. Morton responded that it would be 13 feet 7 inches tall. Mr. Thorns then asked if the sign was allowed to be raised up three feet, could the sign remain as originally proposed. Mr. Burich replied that the Department of Community Development had not reviewed the landscape plan as yet and would have to review landscaping as well as the height of the fence before an effective review and recommendation could be made by city staff Mr. Borsuk suggested that the item be laid over for two weeks to a month for a more accurate recommendation. Mr. Thorns agreed that staff should work with the developer on the issue and see if a compromise could be reached and lay the request over until the next meeting. Mr. McHugh commented that the landscaping plans should be submitted at the time a request is brought forward for approval. Plan Commission Minutes March 16, 2010 Ms. Propp stated that she felt the LED sign placed on the top was not appropriate and that the style of lettering for the Riverfront Landing portion was not as attractive as the original proposal. She still wanted to see the development identification on the top of the signage and supported the suggestion to lay the item over until the next meeting. Mr. Nollenberger also agreed. Motion by Thoms to lay over the planned development amendment for a ground sign at the intersection of Jackson Street and Marion Road. Seconded by Hinz. Motion carried 9 -0. Mr. McHugh commented that he did not recall a three foot fence being proposed on the site. Mr. Burich responded that the fencing was part of the landscape features to offset the parking lot area. Mr. Borsuk stated that staff needed to review the City's sign ordinance and develop a design standard for signage for downtown and redevelopment areas. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:40 pm. (VajgrtBorsuk) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services Plan Commission Minutes 10 March 16, 2010