HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 PRESENT: Thomas Fojtik, Shirley Mattox, Kathleen Propp, Cathy Scherer, Jeff Thorkildsen, John Weinsheim, and Chairman Jon Dell’Antonia EXCUSED:
Lee Bettes, David Borsuk, and Steve Gehling STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services, David Buck, Zoning Administrator/Associate Planner; Susan Kepplinger, Principal Planner;
and Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary Chairman Dell’Antonia called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The meeting minutes of March 21,
2006 were approved as mailed. (Scherer/Fojtik) Unanimous. I: TWO LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 656 N. MAIN STREET – Department of Community Development,
petitioner, Berger Sausage Company, owner Motion by Scherer for approval of a two lot land division/certified survey map for 656 N. Main Street. Seconded by Thorkildsen. Motion carried
6-0. Ms. Mattox arrived at this time. II: THREE LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS VARIANCE AT 44 & 50 WEST 11TH AVE. AND 1016 NEBRASKA STREET – Victor
Page, petitioner/owner Ms. Mattox requested Mr. Burich to point out the driveways available for each lot. Mr. Burich pointed out the existing driveways for each lot on the map displayed
in the PowerPoint presentation, and also pointed out the existing driveway on W. 11th Avenue that would be returned to green space. Motion by Thorkildsen for approval of the three lot
land division at 44 & 50 W. 11th Avenue and 1016 Nebraska Street and a subdivision regulation variance, subject to the following conditions: 1) Two-family residence located at 44 W.
11th Avenue is converted to a single-family residence. 2) Building permit for conversion of the duplex at 44 W. 11th Avenue to a single family residence. 3) Driveway located between
44 & 50 W. 11th Avenue is removed. Seconded by Scherer. Motion carried 7-0.
Plan Commission Minutes -2-April 4, 2006 III: ZONE CHANGE TO R-2PD, TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
FOR PROPERTY IN THE NEAR EAST NEIGHBORHOOD – Department of Community Development Mr. Burich introduced the item noting changes to recommended conditions numbers 3,4, and 5. Mr. Buck
passed around a handout with an example of the accepted parking standards that would be allowed in the Near East Neighborhood. Mrs. Scherer requested further explanation of the handout.
Mr. Buck explained the stacked parking in the driveway would be considered legal, as the current code does not allow parking in the driveway unless it is leading to a legal parking space.
He also stated it would be allowed to only have 50% of the parking spaces covered in the rear yard, and they would have to be screened on three sides, assuming they don’t have a garage.
He explained the current code requires parking to be setback 25’ from the rear property line, line, 60’ from the front property line, and 7.5’ from the side property line. Mr. Burich
stated under current code, parking would be impossible on these small lots, and this condition would make it easier for owners to provide parking. Chairman Dell’Antonia questioned condition
6d, stating “open parking spaces located beyond the rear façade of the principal structure may be reduced in depth to 16’ provided that permanent wheel stops are provided”. Mr. Buck
explained the current requirement of 18’ for the depth of a parking space could not be easily met in many of the lots in the Near East Neighborhood and still provide green space in the
yard, therefore by allowing a 16’ parking space in open parking areas, as long as wheel stops were provided, makes it possible for property owners to be in compliance, and still have
some yard available. Mr. Fojtik questioned how much area would be allowed for parking on the example distributed. Mr. Buck stated three parking stalls would be allowed in the back of
the house and two next to the house for a maximum of five parking spaces, and also noted this was a duplex. Mr. Thorkildsen questioned if it would be possible to construct a detached
garage in this example. Mr. Buck stated a garage could be constructed in the rear yard. Mrs. Scherer asked if the homeowner would be able to contact staff to work out a plan for adequate
parking spaces or for placement of a garage. Mr. Buck stated staff would be glad to meet with the property owner to work out a parking plan, as many residents already request staff assistance.
Mrs. Scherer also requested a further explanation of condition number 5 where it states that “detached garages no larger than 800 square feet may exceed 30% of the rear or side yards
on substandard lots of record”. Mr. Burich explained the current code only allows garages not to exceed 30% of the rear yard, however, with these smaller lots an adequate sized garage
wouldn’t be possible, so the exception to exceed 30% is recommended. Mrs. Scherer questioned if a garage could exceed 80% of the rear yard. Mr. Burich stated a review of the lot would
be needed, but it could be possible. Ms. Mattox questioned if there was an inventory of the number of duplexes in the Near East Neighborhood.
Plan Commission Minutes -3-April 4, 2006 Susan Kepplinger, Principal Planner for the City of Oshkosh, stated there were approximately 380 residential properties in the Near East Neighborhood
and 60% of those are owner occupied. She stated it was very common in this area for a single family dwelling to be converted to a duplex with no garage space provided, with the yard
mostly used for parking, with no green space. Ms. Mattox questioned if there would be room to maneuver between the driveway and the neighbor’s property with the screening that is required.
Ms. Kepplinger stated that staff has reviewed a lot of lots in this area and looked at a lot of different scenarios and felt this was the best recommendation to provide room for parking
spaces and a garage. Ms. Kepplinger stated in some cases it might be necessary to apply for a variance to omit screening. She stated this plan would allow parking in the driveway while
still providing a useable green space. Ms. Mattox questioned how many parcels this would affect. Ms. Kepplinger stated this is a new program and they will review how well this works
in this area and see if this is an option for other areas, so it is difficult to estimate how many parcels would be affected. Chairman Dell’Antonia questioned if property owners will
have to make these changes if this rezoning passes with the conditions as recommended. Mr. Burich stated if conditions are legal now, they would be legal under the new zoning also. He
stated when property owners make significant improvements they will have to comply with the new standards recommended for the neighborhood. Mr. Weinsheim questioned how this would be
enforced and how the property owners would be made aware of the new standards. Ms. Kepplinger stated the staff intends to meet with the property owners to discuss the more flexible options.
She stated if parking is not utilized the yard will need to be landscaped. Ms. Mattox requested further explanation of condition number 5b in regard to the roof pitch. She stated as
she drove through the neighborhoods there were varying roof pitches from a tudor style to a bungalow style roof. Ms. Kepplinger stated that they would try to avoid a bungalow style roof
and would be looking for an element that would fit in with the surrounding properties, not to have a new or remodeled dwelling stick out in the neighborhood. Thatcher Peterson, 527 Madison
Street, stated he was a member of the Near East Neighborhood Committee. He stated they questioned the area to be rezoned and a consensus was made for an R-2 zoning district. He stated
parking is a complicated issue in this neighborhood and needs to be reviewed lot by lot and granted a variance where it makes sense, however rezoning was the only issue they discussed.
Larry Hildebrand, owner of property at 409 and 413 Merritt Avenue, questioned if his properties would be in the R-2 Zoning District. Mr. Burich stated they would be rezoned R-2 PD. Mr.
Hildebrand stated he had a 4 unit and a 2 unit dwelling and asked if these dwellings would be non-conforming. Mr. Burich stated his units in question would be conforming until they were
destroyed or removed, at which time he would need Plan Commission and Common Council approval to rebuild anything other than a single family dwelling. Mr. Hildebrand questioned what
type of surface was required for the parking area. Mr. Burich replied a hard surface consisting of asphalt or concrete is required.
Plan Commission Minutes -4-April 4, 2006 Jeff Krohn, 527 Mount Vernon Street, also owner of property at 547 Jefferson Street, questioned why the rezoning wasn’t done by including an
entire side of the street, versus a mix of zoning on Jefferson Street and Main Street. He stated he has a duplex that has been restored and would like to restore the garage and with
this change he is anticipating running into some problems. Mr. Burich stated that the City’s policy is to avoid split zoning of parcels and some of the lots on Jefferson Street extend
to Main Street. Mr. Krohn questioned what would happen to the Service Garage on Parkway Avenue. Mr. Burich stated the commercial use could remain until removed or converted to a noncommercial
use. Chairman Dell’Antonia stated any repairs would be allowed, but to tear down and replace the building would need to follow the Ordinance requirements for the Near East Neighborhood.
Matthew Mutz, 212 Northwestern Avenue, stated he understands this plan to be less restrictive in in regard to parking requirements and questioned why. Mr. Burich stated the parking restrictions
for the Near East Neighborhood are less restrictive to provide some options for people to have adequate parking space available for smaller lots. Mr. Mutz also questioned why Northwestern
Avenue was not part of the Near East Neighborhood. He stated he has a small lot and concerns regarding parking on his property. Mr. Burich stated they needed to have a southern boundary
and decided to end the Near East Neighborhood at Merritt Avenue. Mr. Mutz questioned if he had any options. Mr. Burich stated he had the option to rezone. Mrs. Scherer stated it would
appear that Mr. Mutz’s property was appropriate for inclusion in the Near East Neighborhood along with a pocket of properties located at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Jefferson
Street. Mr. Weinsheim stated the City was looking at other neighborhoods to provide this opportunity to in the future; therefore he could be included at some future time. Mr. Burich
Burich stated they could amend the boundaries if it makes sense to do so. Mr. Weinsheim stated it was a good model and was anxious to see the work on the area move forward. Motion by
Weinsheim for approval to rezone property in the Near East Neighborhood to R-2PD, Two Family Residence District with a Planned Development Overlay, and to grant a conditional use permit
/planned development review that will recommend various conditions as listed below associated with implementing the Near East Neighborhood Plan: 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.
Plan Commission Minutes -5-April 4, 2006 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 façade facing a public street. (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, façade 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’ back from the front façade 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’ of width/frontage or less than 100’ of depth are regulated as follows: (a)
Driveways shall be considered legal “stacked” parking spaces provided that each space is no less than 9’ in width and 18’ 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 façade of the principal structure. (ii) Side yard setback between front
and rear façades of principal structure of no less than 6”. (iii) Side yard setback past rear façade of the principal structure and the rear lot line of no less than 2.5’ (iv) Rear yard
setback no less than 2.5’. (c) Open parking situated beyond the rear façade of the principal structure must be screened with a minimum of 5’ 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 façade of the principal structure may be reduced in depth to 16’ 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. Seconded by Fojtik. Motion carried 7-0.
Plan Commission Minutes -6-April 4, 2006 IV: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON PARCEL “F” IN THE MARION ROAD/PEARL AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT
AREA -Parcel F, LLC, Owner Mrs. Scherer questioned if the proposed stoop in place of a front porch was sufficient. Ms. Kepplinger stated Parcel “F” is a difficult parcel to develop because
it has three frontages and a utility easement on a portion of the property. Ms. Kepplinger stated guidelines call for a front porch but with the proposed building’s design could be eliminated.
She also pointed out the rear balconies each unit has on the west façade and noted the additional amenities that upgrade this complex. Chairman Dell’Antonia questioned if there was a
reason the buildings were split into 3 & 6 units. Ms. Kepplinger stated it could have been due to the physical limitations of the lot, and that the developer could better answer that
question. Ms. Mattox questioned if underground parking hadn’t been recommended in this redevelopment area. Ms. Kepplinger explained, as construction gets closer to Lake Winnebago, there
are more limitations due to the water table, which require the parking to be at grade and underground parking would have been a design mistake in this case. She stated each unit has
an attached two stall garage and there are 6 additional open parking spaces for tenant use. Ms. Mattox questioned if this building would be constructed on a brownfield site and whom
the targeted market would be. Ms. Kepplinger stated it would be built on a brownsfield site and the developer could answer her questions about the tenants. Steve Hoopman, 5105 I-Ah-Maytah
Road, stated the intended tenants would be staff or faculty of the University of Wisconsin -Oshkosh, or anyone who was looking for housing in that location. Ms. Mattox questioned if
the buildings have been designed to be converted into condominiums at some point in the future. Mr. Hoopman stated the apartments could easily be converted into condominiums if the market
calls for it. Ms. Mattox also noted a lot of impervious area and questioned where water from the site was directed. Mr. Hoopman stated the plans are proposing 2 catch basins in the back
parking lot. He stated a downspout has been designed to take water directly into the storm sewer. Chairman Dell’Antonia again questioned how the number of units per building was decided.
Mr. Hoopman stated the number of units in each building was determined by the location of the driveway. Ms. Mattox stated there was very little green space proposed for the site, and
requested an explanation as to why. Chairman Dell’Antonia stated in keeping with the urban character of the area, a “street wall” effect was created similar to the lot on the north side
of Pearl Avenue, across the street. Mr. Burich noted this site has some limitations to deal with. He pointed out the landscaped areas on the map displayed in the PowerPoint presentation
and discussed how the developers have tried to make the landscaping as effective as possible.
Plan Commission Minutes -7-April 4, 2006 Mrs. Scherer questioned if a condition could be made for trees to be planted on the terrace and who would be responsible for the expense. Mr.
Burich stated staff would look into what could be planted in the small 5’ terrace and who would be responsible for the cost. Ms. Mattox stated New York City is a very urban area and
the terraces are planted with Gingko Trees and more research needs to be done for what other species of trees can survive in an urban environment such as this. Motion by Weinsheim for
approval of a Conditional Use Permit /Planned Development to construct two multifamily buildings on Parcel “F” in the Marion Road /Pearl Avenue Redevelopment Area, found to be consistent
with Section 30-11 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance subject to the following conditions: 1) Final landscape/site plan subject to approval by the Department of Community Development. 2) The
required fencing between Public Street “A” and the southern end of the parking and drive area be installed at the time Public Street “A” is constructed. 3) Approval by the Department
of Public Works for a drainage plan to prevent sheet drainage from the site to the street prior to building permit issuance. Seconded by Fojtik. Motion carried 7-0. V: CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER WITH DRIVE-THROUGH COFFEE SHOP AT 1854 JACKSON STREET (FAIR ACRES OUTLOT) -Heritage Realty Management, Inc. petitioners; Bradley
Operating limited Partnership, owner Jeff Slavish handed out a new site plan for the proposal during Mr. Buck’s presentation of the item. Mr. Fojtik questioned if Associated Bank would
also be using 24’ tall decorative lights. Mr. Burich stated Associated Bank was using decorative lights at 24’ high also, and 24’ is the maximum height allowed for decorative lighting.
Chairman Dell’Antonia questioned if there would be any signage in addition to the pylon sign for Fair Acres. Mr. Buck stated Starbucks was proposing a wall sign. Chairman Dell’Antonia
stated he was concerned about the driveway from the access drive on Murdock Avenue, and stated he would like to see that designated as “right turn” only as he is concerned about the
stacking problems that could occur. Mr. Burich stated he has reviewed the area with the Transportation Director and he didn’t have concerns in that area. Chairman Dell’Antonia questioned
how many cars there was room for in the access driveway to Fair Acres. Mr. Buck stated there was 95’ available in the access drive, which they figured would represent about four cars.
Jeff Slavish, Project Manager and Andrew White, Leasing Manager, Heritage Realty Management Inc., 40 Skokie Blvd., Northbrook, IL, introduced themselves and stated they were available
to answer any questions the Plan Commission may have.
Plan Commission Minutes -8-April 4, 2006 Ms. Mattox stated the new site plan handed out had taken off parking spaces as recommended and added landscaping. Mr. Slavish noted the sidewalk
would extend on the west side of the lot and not the east side of the lot as listed in condition number 2 of the Staff Report. He also stated trees have been added to the right side
of the lot, and the new site plan shows the location of the decorative lighting. He also stated they have started the process of obtaining a quitclaim deed to move the property line
9’6” to the north to encompass the proposed improvements and the required 5’ rear yard setback. Mr. Slavish also stated they were working on a revision to the east façade to add some
vertical elements to break up the wall. Ms. Mattox questioned if the sidewalk on the south side of the development would be extended by the City, as it is needed to be accessible for
pedestrians. Chairman Dell’Antonia again stated his concerns with the driveway cut from the access drive on Murdock Avenue. Mr. Slavish stated the driveway cut was back 95 feet, which
they felt was sufficient. Mr. Burich stated it was not a safety issue but a convenience issue. Discussion continued regarding the various scenarios of exiting the site. Mr. Weinsheim
stated the access drive consists of 2 lanes going south and one going north for a total of 3 lanes, which should minimize the traffic problems of accessing or exiting the subject site.
Mrs. Propp stated she felt this was a good addition to the shopping center but felt there was limited access and stated Chairman Dell’Antonia’s concerns were important as she felt there
was a traffic circulation issue. Mr. Burich stated they are not sure of the impact the traffic from this site will have, as all tenants for the retail shopping center have not been secured.
Mr. Fojtik stated he was pleased with the landscape plan and felt it would be a good improvement for the area. Mrs. Scherer stated she was also pleased with the landscape plan although
she questioned if 36 parking spaces would be enough for all tenants. Mr. White stated the Starbucks Coffee shop will have a high turnover rate of parking spaces for their tenants, and
also shouldn’t need long term parking, therefore he felt 36 parking spaces should be adequate. Ms. Mattox questioned if the City would be working with the developers to provide a homogeneous
look to the property since the subject site fronts on the City’s property containing the water detention basin. Mr. Burich stated the City was working on a landscape plan for the detention
basin site. Discussion followed regarding the landscaping of the City property and for the entire shopping center, outlot, and city property to have the appearance of one large property.
Mr. Thorkildsen encouraged the City to include a natural fence line as a safety precaution around the detention basin to deter children. Mrs. Propp agreed that it is a potential safety
concern and it is the City’s responsibility to landscape to the site to fit in with the surrounding property and provide a safe environment. Mr. Burich stated City staff would be made
aware of their concerns upon review and approval of the landscape plan. Mrs. Propp added that Murdock Avenue is also somewhat of a Gateway to the City and the area to the east of the
Fair Acres Shopping Center should be properly maintained.
Plan Commission Minutes -9-April 4, 2006 Motion by Weinsheim for approval of a conditional use permit /planned development for a retail shopping center with a drive-through on West Murdock
Avenue, east of 1800 Jackson Street, subject to the following conditions: 1) An access easement is established between the two properties and recorded at the Register of Deeds subject
to approval by the Department of Community Development of said agreement and/or changes to the agreement. 2) The sidewalk is extended along the east side of the access drive from Murdock
to Fair Acres parking lot. 3) The northern property line be moved 9’6” to the north to encompass the proposed improvements and required 5’ rear yard setback 4) Base Standard Modification
for a reduction in the east side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet. 5) East elevation of the building is modified to add some vertical elements with final approval by the Department
of Community Development. 6) Base Standard Modification for a reduction in required parking parking from 38 spaces to 36 spaces. 7) Decorative style lights no higher than 24 feet tall
be used with final approval by the Department of Community Development. 8) Drainage and grading plan is submitted for review and approval of the Department of Public Works. 9) A revised
landscape plan be submitted for review and approval by the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Thorkildsen. Motion carried 7-0. There being no further business, the meeting
adjourned at approximately 5:45 p.m. (Thorkildsen/Weinsheim). Unanimous. Respectfully submitted, DARRYN L. BURICH Director of Planning Services DLB/vlr