Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Plan Commission Minutes 1 October 17, 2006 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2006 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Kathy Propp, Cathy Scherer, John Weinsheim, Shirley Mattox, Ed Bowen, Thomas Fojtik, Jon Dell’Antonia EXCUSED: Steven Gehling, Ed Corpus, Jeff Thorkildsen STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services, David Buck, Principle Planner/Zoning Administrator; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner, Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairman Dell’Antonia called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. The minutes of October 3, 2006 were approved as presented. I.A. TWO LOT LAND DIVISION /CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP FOR 930 BAVARIAN COURT John/Kathleen Lenz, owner, Frueh Consulting Services, petitioner, are requesting a two-lot land division of a 22,309 square feet parcel to create two lots, one at 10,870 square feet and the other at 11,439 square feet. I.B. EXTRATERRITORIAL TWO LOT LAND DIVISION /CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2997 CLAIRVILLE ROAD, TOWN OF ALGOMA This item was withdrawn from the agenda at the request of the owner/petitioner. I.C. ACCEPT STORM SEWER EASEMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN STATE AND COUNTY OWNED LAND AT 3400 SHERMAN ROAD The Department of Public Works is requesting the acceptance of a new storm sewer easement located on the western side of the subject property owned by Winnebago County, as well as two areas located within public right-of-way lands owned by the State Department of Natural Resources. This easement would replace an existing storm sewer that runs through the property and is in need of replacement. Ms. Mattox inquired about how large of an area this storm sewer easement serviced? Mr. Nau replied that he did not have that information, but that the easement would be replacing an existing storm sewer easement. I.D. EXTRATERRITORIAL LAND DIVISION /CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 5126 SHERMAN ROAD IN THE TOWN OF OSHKOSH Ernest Lehl, owner, Carow Land Surveying, petitioner, request approval of a 4 lot extraterritorial certified survey map at 5126 Sherman Road in the Town of Oshkosh involving a 9-acre base parcel of land. Mr. Weinsheim inquired if there would be a standard access road to service the properties? Plan Commission Minutes 2 October 17, 2006 Mr. Burich replied that there would be a 33-foot easement between all lots to provide an access road to these properties. Ms. Mattox inquired about the zoning of the property to the south of this parcel? Mr. Burich replied that the parcel was zoned agricultural, however, most of the remaining lands surrounding the subject site were residential. Tom Rammer, 3120 Sheldon Drive, Town of Algoma, stated that his family runs a business together and wanted to use this property to build homes on so they could all live in the same area. He also stated that they are not considering developing the agricultural land to the south of the property. Gerald Frey, 4804 Island View Drive, stated he is the Town of Oshkosh Chairman and that both the Town of Oshkosh and Winnebago County have approved of this request and he feels that it is the best use of this land. Motion by Propp to move approval of the consent agenda as requested. Seconded by Weinsheim.. Motion carried 8-0. II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AT 3596 STEARNS DRIVE Dan Dowling, owner/petitioner, is requesting a conditional use permit/development plan approval to allow the construction of a 30,000 square foot warehouse and distribution center at 3596 Stearns Drive. In 2005, the owner was granted CUP/PD approval to permit the rehabilitation of the former Sunset School to a contractor’s operation as part of a multi-phase development. One of the conditions placed on that CUP was to require that all subsequent phases of development obtain CUP/PD approval. Mr. Borsuk inquired if the truck turning radius would be met in the driveway and if the conditions from the previously approved CUP would still apply? Mr. Burich replied that trucks would have to enter from Stearns Drive and exit onto Fountain Avenue to complete a turn around on the site and the conditions from the previously approved CUP would still be in place. Ms. Mattox commented that this appeared to be a complete change from the last CUP approved which implied that it would be an office complex, not industrial use, for this site. She inquired if there was an overlay for this site? Mr. Burich replied that there is an overlay for the site and the land use pattern will be more industrial in this area rather than commercial. The conditions in place would soften the image of the buildings to some degree. Mr. Borsuk inquired if the existing building on the site would remain with a pink roof and blue walls? He also stated that the trucks on site were not currently screened and it was not a very attractive property. Ms. Mattox agreed. Dan Dowling, 5580 Highway 116, Winneconne, stated that he is in the process of working on the site and building permits were first obtained last week for renovations on the second phase and for erecting a Plan Commission Minutes 3 October 17, 2006 fence. He further stated that the pink roof and blue walls would not stay that way, however, he is working as quickly as possible on the project. Ms. Propp inquired about what plans Mr. Dowling had for the old school building and if there would be screening for the outside storage? Mr. Dowling replied that he had obtained a permit today for renovations to the school and he would be following City guidelines for the screening. Mr. Dell’Antonia commented that he did not think that the Commission could dictate the color of the building or any other issue not associated with the current application. Ms. Mattox stated that the landscaping on the site was attractive and inquired as to what type of business would be occupying the warehouse and distribution center? She also asked about where the parking area would be located? Mr. Dowling replied that he had a client who he had been working with to occupy the warehouse and distribution center. Mr. Burich stated that there are designated paved parking areas on the site plan. Ms. Scherer asked for clarification of condition #2 regarding architectural vertical elements and she also inquired as to the total height of the building? Mr. Burich explained that this condition was meant to break up the large expanse of wall to improve the look of the building that would be 25 feet in height. Mr. Borsuk inquired how the north elevation loading dock would be accessed? Mr. Burich replied that there was not a loading dock on the north and that the two loading docks were located on the side of the building towards the center. Mr. Bowen asked when the original CUP was granted in 2005 and inquired about the truck bays facing west? Mr. Burich replied that the CUP was granted on August 16, 2005 and that landscaping would screen the truck bays. Ms. Propp inquired if the existing building was part of the CUP approval requested today and if the City monitors the compliance on the original CUP? Mr. Burich responded that the existing building was part of the original CUP granted and that today the approval was for the second phase of the project. He also stated that the City does monitor compliance on the original CUP and has not had any issues with this property owner. Administrative action is only taken if there is a lack of cooperation in meeting conditions applied to the CUP. Mr. Fojtik commented that the manufacturing use seems like a rather drastic change from the original CUP. Plan Commission Minutes 4 October 17, 2006 Mr. Burich replied that the original CUP approved a general concept for this site, however, it is not unusual to make changes to the concept as long as they are consistent with appropriate long-term use for the property. Ms. Propp inquired if the C-2 zoning was appropriate for the current use intended? Mr. Burich replied that it was as the C-2 District allows light industrial use. Motion by Weinsheim to approve the conditional use permit/development plan with the following conditions: 1) All building elevations be enhanced by adding a 6-foot high brick or masonry knee wall along the lower portion of the elevation to be approved by the Department of Community Development. 2) Incorporate architectural vertical elements into the north and east elevations to be approved by the Department of Community Development. 3) Site landscaping is to be emphasized along the east, west, and north elevations. Seconded by Borsuk. Carried 8-0. III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LIGHT MANUFACTURING FACILITY, OFFICE AND RETAIL SHOWROOM AT FOUNTAIN AVENUE AND GREEN VALLEY ROAD Omni Glass and Paint, owner, Russell Reff, petitioner, are requesting a conditional use permit and the approval of a development plan for the establishment of a light manufacturing facility, office and retail showroom. Omni Glass and Paint has purchased the property with the intent of relocating their commercial glass and paint operation. Ms. Propp inquired if the proposed building would meet the Highway 41 overlay standards? Mr. Buck responded yes. Craig Saks, representing Omni Glass and Paint, 2186 Dickinson Avenue, stated that the elevations on the east and north sides of the building have been enhanced and from the visibility on Highway 41, it should be an attractive structure. He also stated that there is substantial landscaping entailed on the site plan which could be rearranged for screening purposes. He also commented that the detention basin would be surrounded by natural prairie grass to the safety ledge. Ms. Propp asked if this site would be the farthest southern development in this area and if the detention basin could be architecturally enhanced with a flowerbed or fountain? Mr. Saks responded that they were the farthest southern development and that the enhancement for the detention basin would be considered. Ms. Mattox commented on the attractiveness of the company logo and inquired if it would be on the building as well as the sign? She also asked if Omni owned the property where there were two large billboards currently located? Mr. Saks replied that the company logo would be on the south end of the building and that the billboards are on their property, but are in the process of being removed. Plan Commission Minutes 5 October 17, 2006 Ms. Scherer inquired if the billboards would be resurrected in the future? Mr. Saks replied no. Russell Reff, 217 Ceape Avenue, petitioner for the project, stated that Omni had considered a number of sites for their relocation and decided on this property because of the visibility from Highway 41. The structure proposed had a considerable amount of design thought and was going to be a highly attractive addition to the area. Mr. Bowen inquired about Lots #1-5 on one of the site plan maps? Mr. Buck replied that these lots do not technically exist at this time and that currently the Omni structure would be the only occupant on the site. Motion by Bowen to approve the conditional use permit/development plan with the following conditions: 1) Additional vegetation be used to better screen the loading dock areas on the north and east sides of the building. 2) Detention basin to be designed without rip rap above the water line and native plants to be planted on the side slopes of the basin and emergent plants on the safety shelf with final design to be approved by the Department of Community Development and Department of Public Works Seconded by Fojtik. Carried 8-0. Ms. Scherer left the meeting at this point. IV. MODIFY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR PARCEL G IN THE MARION ROAD/PEARL AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT AREA J. Peter Jungbacker, petitioner, is proposing to alter the approved site plan and building elevations for the apartment development on Parcel G in the Marion Road/Pearl Avenue Redevelopment Area involving the construction of two 51-unit apartment buildings. The change involves eliminating the proposed ground floor community room and adding a fourth floor to each building to serve as community room, patio, and fitness center. Mr. Borsuk stated that he thought that the purpose of the ground floor community room, when originally approved, was to work in conjunction with the university to serve as a learning center/campus meeting room. Mr. Dell’Antonia commented that he did not recall this particular project being part of the plan for a university learning center and that no actual arrangements had been made. Jackson Kinney, Director of Community Development, responded that moving the location of the community room does not change the function of the room and that the possibility of interfacing with the university is still present. At the time the original CUP was approved, there was no detailed structure in the plans, however, Mr. Jungbacker did have intentions of interfacing his project with the university. Plan Commission Minutes 6 October 17, 2006 Mr. Weinsheim also commented that he felt this project would be a component with the university and inquired if there would be a pathway constructed from the apartment building to the university? Mr. Kinney responded that a separate pathway would not be necessary as there are ample public sidewalks in this area. Ms. Mattox inquired about the size of the community room? Mr. Kinney responded that he did not have the dimensions, however, he did comment that this new plan would provide for two rooms instead of one with an added fitness area and rooftop and outdoor patios. It would also create more green space on the site. Ms. Propp asked about how this modified proposal relates to the other sites in the redevelopment area? Mr. Kinney replied that the RDA feels they want to have an urban character design in this area and this project should not be inconsistent with the other parcels. Duane Helwig, 4825 County Road A, architect for the project, stated that the additional additional green space should be a pleasant addition to the project with possibly a patio, garden, or fountain to create a nice outdoor area for students. Ms. Mattox inquired if the intended residents were to be students? Mr. Helwig responded yes. Ms. Propp asked what the timetable for the project was? Mr. Helwig replied that the fall of 2007 was their target date for occupancy. Mr. Borsuk inquired if the project was always intended to be student housing? Mr. Kinney responded that with the amenity package included, he feels that it should attract students and young professionals and others as well. Doug Hirte, St. Peter’s Parish, 435 High Avenue, stated that he would like to see the buildings set back 25 feet from the street rather than six feet and he would prefer a three story structure to the four. Mr. Burich replied that the proposed structure is within the redevelopment guidelines, is consistent with other proposals, and mirrors the effect of Dawes Street and the Concord development in this area. Ms. Mattox commented on the landscaping diagram and stated that the addition of Gingko trees would soften the look of the site. Mr. Burich responded that the landscaping plans would be approved by the Department of Community Development prior to completion. Mr. Dell’Antonia asked if the building could be moved back from the street? Mr. Kinney replied that due to transmission easement lines in this area, it would be difficult to move the building further back from the street and that the green space created would be more functional than space by the road. Plan Commission Minutes 7 October 17, 2006 Motion by Weinsheim to approve the modified conditional use permit/development plan with the following conditions: 1) The original conditions of approval required in Resolution 04-429 are still valid. 2) Final approval of all building elevations by the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Borsuk. Carried 6-0-1. Present-Bowen (works for developer) There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services