Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES September 21, 2010 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thorns, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Tony Palmeri, Kathleen Propp, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: David Borsuk, Kent Monte, Donna Lohry STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; David Patek, Director of Public Works; Steve Brand, Superintendent of Utilities; 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 September 7, 2010 were approved as presented. (Propp/Palmeri) L ZONE CHANGE FROM M -3 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO R -3 MULTIPLE DWELLING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF OSBORN AVENUE AND MASON STREET Zone change from M -3 General Industrial District to R -3 Multiple Dwelling District is requested for review and approval to allow the development of multiple family housing on the property. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area including the zoning classifications and existing land uses. He stated that the multiple family development proposed would consist of six buildings containing 48 units total. He also reviewed the Comprehensive Plan which recommends residential use for this area and explained that staff was recommending denial of the zone change for the individual lot but approval of the zone change for the subject property and the adjacent property to the west. Mr. Burich added that Mr. Strey was approached regarding changing his property to the R -3 zoning classification as well as Mr. Rusch's property to make the adjacent lots consistent and he was not supportive of the suggested zone change. If the request would be approved for only the Rusch property it would result in the Strey property remaining as an M -3 zoning classification which would allow for an industrial use to be established at this site. He also suggested that a planned development overlay could be added to the zone change request to allow for further review of any development on these sites prior to the use being established. Mr. Thorns inquired about the zoning classification to the east where the storage units are located. Mr. Burich responded that the zoning classification on this site was also M -3. Mr. Thorns then questioned if this property could also be included in the zone change request. Mr. Burich replied that it could be done with a planned development overlay option however the R -3 zoning classification without the planned development overlay would make the existing storage unit use a nonconforming use on the site. Plan Commission Minutes September 21, 2010 Mr. Hinz asked for clarification of the action being considered today and if it would only affect the Rusch property. Mr. Burich responded that the petitioner is requesting the zone change for his site only however staff was recommending the zone change be applied to both sites to establish consistent uses in the area to avoid creating a situation that would result in a residential site being surrounded by manufacturing uses on three sides. The planned development overlay suggested could be added to both properties to ensure review authority of potential uses prior to being established. Ms. Propp commented that the Plan Commission was not in the habit of rezoning lands not requested by the property owner. Mr. Burich responded that the Plan Commission had reviewed several rezoning requests of areas where current zoning is not consistent with existing uses such as the recent Knapp Street downzone where all the property owners were not in agreement Ms. Propp questioned if this was an appropriate action. Mr. Burich replied that the Comprehensive Plan recommends residential use for this area and he felt it was in the best interest of the community to change the zoning to be consistent with this recommendation. Mr. Palmeri inquired if Mr. Strey was approached regarding the zone change to his property. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively and stated that Mr. Strey was not interested in having his site changed to a residential zoning classification. Mr. Palmeri then inquired if Mr. Rusch had discussed his proposed development with the neighboring property owners. Mr. Burich replied that he did not believe there was any contact with the neighbors as there were numerous inquiries with the Planning Services office in regard to concerns from neighbors that were opposed to any multiple family residential housing at this location. Mr. Nau stated that he had a statement from Dennis Schneider, 1425 Kensington Avenue, which was mailed to our office stating that he was opposed to a R -3 zoning classification but would be supportive of a R -1 zoning designation. He also had an email from Bea Halfen, 1125 Armory Place, which listed a number of reasons that she was opposed to apartments at this location or the approval of a R -3 zoning classification for this site. He summarized her statements which addressed issues such as her concerns with the density of the development, residential property being developed on the site while the Vulcan Quarry was still operational, the preservation of the Huntington Downs neighborhood, and that she felt the area should remain open space as it currently exists. Mr. Bowen commented that it appeared there were several different options to be considered with this request such as changing the individual site only to a R -3 zoning classification or a R -3PD classification, or changing both sites to either one of these zoning designations. Mr. Vajgrt inquired if the proposed apartments would be low income housing. Mr. Nau responded that this factor was not known at this time. Plan Commission Minutes September 21, 2010 Joe Schirger, 1355 Cambridge Avenue, stated that he was concerned with the density of the proposed development and the traffic problems it could create particularly on Osborn Avenue and Knapp Street. He further stated that he would find single family homes or duplexes acceptable but had concerns how the development of apartments at this location would impact the property values of homes in the neighborhood. Ron Abitz, 1125 Canterbury Drive, questioned how long the Comprehensive Plan has been in existence as there are storage units and the Armory in the neighborhood and he did not understand how the Plan could recommend this area to be residential with these existing uses. He also commented that he did not feel it was fair to force Mr. Strey to pay taxes on R -3 zoned property rather than M -3 if he did not wish to rezone his site. He believed that the City had offered to purchase the quarry property at one time and he also had concerns about an access road on the Strey property and if it would continue to exist. He voiced his concerns about what type of housing would be developed on the site and stated that he was opposed to low- income apartments but would find R -1 zoning for single - family homes acceptable. He also inquired how the storage units were allowed to be established on the adjacent site. Mr. Burich responded that the site was zoned M -3 which is General Industrial District and this zoning classification allows uses such as storage units. Mr. Abitz also inquired about the zoning designation for the Armory property adjacent to the site owned by Mr. Strey. Mr. Nau replied that the Armory property is zoned R -1 as it is classified as an institutional type use. He added that the Vulcan Quarry site was recommended for passive recreational use in the Comprehensive Plan when it is no longer operational. Mr. Burich added that any change in use on the Armory site would require approval by both the Plan Commission and Common Council. Cindy Smith, 1345 Kensington Avenue, stated that she has lived there since 1993 and does not want to live near apartments. She further stated that she purchased the property for the privacy it provided and the trees along the lot line of the Strey and Rusch properties provide additional privacy for her home. She voiced her concerns with the lighting, increased noise, destruction of her privacy, and children playing in the quarry or on the Strey property. She commented that she was told that nothing would ever be developed on these lots and her concerns that the ground on the Strey site was contaminated. She felt that single - family homes could be acceptable on this site but preferred to not have them developed either. She also had concerns regarding the blasting done on the quarry property which is disturbing and does not want to see the Strey property rezoned to residential. Kevin Diedrich, 1330 Kensington Avenue, stated that he was opposed to the apartment development on this site and questioned if any traffic flow studies had been completed for the additional vehicles that will be accessing the streets in the surrounding area. He also stated that he had concerns with the stability of the proposed structures due to the blasting operations in the quarry facility and the safety of the children in their neighborhood due to the increased density on the site that would add to the traffic congestion in the vicinity. He commented that he would find R -1 zoning acceptable. Tom Rusch, 3801 State Road 21, displayed a diagram of the proposed apartment development and stated that Mr. Strey has a 75 foot easement on the north side of his property and that he did not have any intentions of removing the existing trees on the north side of the lot. He commented that he has Plan Commission Minutes September 21, 2010 been building apartments in Oshkosh for the past 43 years and distributed photographs of some of his existing apartment developments. He stated that the proposed units would be typical apartments with detached garages comparable to the photos he distributed and that several more of these developments were already established around the city. He discussed some of the history of the area on Osborn Avenue and how it became zoned for industrial use. He felt that the proposed apartment development would be a better and more compatible use than the heavy industrial uses that could be established on the site with the current zoning designation. Mr. Thorns inquired if Mr. Rusch had contacted Mr. Strey in regard to purchasing his property. Mr. Rusch responded that he had done so a few years ago. Mr. Thorns also questioned if the issue of increased traffic in the Kensington Avenue area had been researched. Mr. Rusch replied that he anticipated that the streets that would handle the main traffic flow from the apartments would be Osborn Avenue, Knapp Street, and Mason Street and he did not foresee an increase in traffic in the Kensington Avenue neighborhood. Mr. Fojtik inquired if he had concerns with the operations at the Vulcan Quarry. Mr. Rusch responded negatively. Ms. Propp questioned if the office building next to the storage units was vacant. Mr. Rusch replied that they use one of the offices and the other one is currently vacant but may be rented as of next month. Ms. Propp also questioned if the high voltage lines in the area were a concern. Mr. Rusch replied that he did not have concerns with the lines. They exist in other areas of the country and had not caused any incidents to his knowledge in the past. Ms. Propp inquired if he was aware that he would have to come back to the Plan Commission and Common Council with the proposed plans for the development and if he had any issues with this. Mr. Rusch responded that he was willing to do whatever was required to move forward with his project which would entail free standing brick apartment buildings. He noted that the driveway shown on the diagram was not there and will be omitted as the ingress and egress from the site would be on Osborn Avenue and Mason Street. Mr. Burich stated that the planned development overlay that was discussed previously would be the only mechanism that would require additional review for the proposed development and if a zoning classification of R -3 only was approved, no additional review would be necessary as it would be a permitted use in this district. Mr. Palmeri questioned if the neighbors had been contacted regarding the proposed development. Mr. Rusch replied negatively. Plan Commission Minutes September 21, 2010 Mr. Hinz inquired if the trees would be remaining on both the Strey and Rusch properties along the north property line. Mr. Rusch responded that there was one tree in the center of the site that would have to come down but the remaining trees would be preserved. He further commented that he has apartment developments on both Ninth Avenue and Highway 41 and State Highway 44 with no buffers in between the apartments and the single family homes adjacent to the site without issue. Mr. Palmeri stated that the City recently bought some properties because of potential methane issues near an abandoned quarry and questioned what assurances we have that there will not be an environmental issue in the future with this site. He also suggested that perhaps some further studies should be completed on the site before allowing any development to proceed. Mr. Burich stated that the methane issues that required the acquisition of several homes on Knapp Street and West South Park Avenue was due to the filling of the abandoned quarry with garbage and this was not the case with the Vulcan Quarry. Mr. Palmeri then questioned if the blasting operations at the quarry would create issues with the structures proposed on the adjacent site. Mr. Burich responded that the City had no way to test for this type of issue and it would be the responsibility of Mr. Rusch to investigate the matter. He further commented that there is residential development adjacent to the quarry on Knapp Street and South Park and there were no issues to date that he was aware of where the city has had to condemn the houses because of structural failure. Mr. Palmeri commented that the City should be concerned that no structural or soil issues exist prior to development. Mr. Burich replied that the City can not get involved with these types of issues and he has not heard of any structural problems in this area however engineering studies could be requested if deemed necessary. Mr. Palmeri stated that the citizens in the residential development to the north are apparently not happy with the proposed apartments and the petitioner has not had any communications with these neighbors. He felt that the Commission should request that this conversation take place before moving forward with this request. Mr. Thorns commented that issues could not be addressed regarding the proposed development without a planned development overlay being placed on the site. He further commented that he did not understand why the neighbors had objections to the R -3 zoning classification but had no objections to the M -3 zoning classification that currently exists on the site. He felt that the planned development overlay seems to be the best decision for all involved as approving the zone change without knowing what will be built there could be problematic. Mr. Burich stated that the planned development overlay can address issues of what will be developed on the site prior to it being constructed. Mr. Bowen commented that he agreed with Mr. Thorns and as it sits right now a distribution center or some other type of heavy manufacturing use could be established on this site and the Plan Commission or the Common Council would have no say in the matter as it would be an allowable use. He further Plan Commission Minutes September 21, 2010 commented that any development of the site will impact the neighborhood however the only request being considered today is the rezoning of the property and no development of the site would be approved at this time. The planned development overlay on one or both of these properties should be imperative to ensure review of any proposed plans prior to proceeding with development. Ms. Propp questioned if we could leave the M -3 zoning classification on the Strey property with a planned development overlay. Mr. Burich responded that the planned development overlay does not prevent a manufacturing use from being established on this site. Ms. Propp stated that it is not practical to place a planned development overlay on the storage unit property as the use on this site already exists. She also commented that it is unrealistic to place a R -1 zoning classification on this area as she did not feel the site would be appropriate for single family homes. Mr. Burich commented that the storage units are not usually built to the highest standards and could be removed at some point. He suggested that this site could be considered for a zone change in the future. Mr. Hinz stated that the rezoning request was the issue at hand today and there would be no plans for review at this time however a manufacturing use on this site is not desirable. The planned development overlay would provide protection for the neighborhood and leave room for further input from the community and the City prior to any development being established. Mr. Palmeri commented that he felt the City and the Department of Community Development are putting citizens in a position to accept a proposed development they do not desire to see at this location instead of another possible development that they also do not want. He felt Mr. Rusch should initiate a meeting with the neighbors to discuss his plans and he was not ready to vote on this request at this time. Mr. Thorns stated that all developers are not required to hold neighborhood meetings prior to bringing an item forward for review by the Plan Commission and he did not feel it was fair to ask Mr. Rusch to do this when other developers are not held to the same standard. An ordinance should be passed by the Common Council making this a requirement for all developers rather than single out certain requests. He also commented that the Commission does not want to create development pockets of spot zoning in any area but we have to consider the zone change of this site as that is the petitioner's request presented today. He did not think it was necessary to have the developer incur the costs of preparing full development plans at this point until it is known if the rezoning request would be approved. Mr. Palmeri felt that the item should be laid over to a future meeting until matters could be worked out with the neighbors who are opposed to this development. Mr. Burich stated that Commission members could opt to lay the item over if they felt it appropriate. Ms. Propp commented that she had mixed feelings about the issue as Osborn Avenue has mostly industrial type uses currently although some of the other uses make the area sort of a mixture of various uses. She did not feel that an industrial use on this site would be appropriate however residential use may also not be desirable with both adjacent lots remaining with a M -3 zoning classification. She also commented that she was not comfortable with rezoning the Strey property if the owner was not agreeable to the change. Plan Commission Minutes September 21, 2010 Mr. Bowen stated that a neighborhood meeting is not a requirement of the City and he had concerns with holding off on this request for the developer to meet with the neighbors as the neighbor's desires may not be financially feasible in which case the rezoning request would not proceed and it could result in both of these lots left with a M -3 zoning classification. If the developer decides to abandon the development plans, we may not be able to facilitate any zone change to this area whatsoever in the future. He felt the planned development overlay would be the most advantageous choice as it would provide the opportunity for further review of the development plans and he would not support laying this request over until a later meeting. Mr. Fojtik agreed. Mr. Nollenberger commented that a neighborhood meeting could take place before the development plans are brought forward for Plan Commission and Common Council review. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the zone change from M -3 General Industrial District to R -3 Multiple Dwelling District with a planned development overlay for property located at the northwest corner of Osborn Avenue andMason Street as requested. Seconded by Propp. Mr. Palmeri stated that both the Plan Commission and Common Council would have less difficulty approving development plans for this site with input from neighboring property owners. Mr. Thorns stated that he felt this action was too narrowly focused and would not support it. This will leave the Strey property with a M -3 zoning classification and we should at least put a planned development overlay on the property to provide some review authority for any development of the site. Mr. Nollenberger questioned if that issue should be addressed with a separate motion. Mr. Burich responded that the items could be separated and considered with two individual votes. Mr. Thorns suggested that staff could address the other two properties (Strey's property and the site with the storage units) at a meeting in October. He also supported the initiating of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the development plans for the Rusch property. Motion carried 7 -1. ( Ayes- Bowen /Fojtik/ Hinz / Palmeri /ProppIVajgrt /Nollenberger. Nays - Thoms.) Motion by Nollenberger requesting staff initiate a neighborhood meeting between the developer and the citizens in the neighborhood as soon as possible relating to the proposed development of the site and requesting staff to consider rezoning of the Strey property. Seconded by Palmeri. Motion carried 7 -1. ( Ayes- Bowen /Fojtik/ Hinz / Palmeri /ProppIVajgrt /Nollenberger. Nays - Thoms.) II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE (HICKORY LANE PUMP STATION) 2065 HICKORY LANE The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to upgrade an existing utility structure (sanitary sewer pumping station) at 2065 Hickory Lane. Plan Commission Minutes September 21, 2010 Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area including the current land uses and zoning classifications. He discussed the need for the upgrades to the pump station and described the proposed pump station structure and details of the project plans. He also reviewed the relocation of the existing arborvitae to provide screening for the structure and the potential issues with reconstructing the existing pump station underground. He also explained that it would not be economically feasible to relocate this pump station to another area and further reviewed details of the pump station and photos of the existing conditions and examples of the proposed above ground structure. Mr. Vajgrt left the meeting at 5:11 pm. Mr. Hinz questioned if the pump station was left as it currently exists, would it continue to flood out. Steve Brand, Superintendent of Utilities, stated that the pump station was constructed in 1986 at which time this area was undeveloped. The valves were located underground at that time and there are safety concerns with maintenance to this facility and it could also be more costly to repair if we wait until the pumps fail to address the issue. He also stated that the project has been discussed with neighboring property owners as the City wishes to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. This is a low point of the area and that is why relocating the pump station elsewhere is not a feasible option. He assured Commission members that they would continue to work with the neighbors as this project proceeds. Mr. Thorns questioned any of the neighbors had issues with this proposal. Mr. Brand responded negatively. Ms. Propp inquired how high the proposed structure would have to be. Mr. Brand replied that the structure would have to be high enough to allow someone to be able to stand up on the inside of it. He further stated that the picture included with the narrative for this project is much larger than the actual planned structure. Ms. Propp commented that this may be the only alternative however she was not pleased with the pump station in the park from an aesthetic standpoint and questioned if the arborvitae proposed for the screening would be adequate. Mr. Brand responded that the neighbors had offered some suggestions for additional screening if necessary and the color of the structure was also discussed with property owners to try to make the building as compatible as possible with the surrounding homes. Mr. Palmeri questioned if 24 years ago when this pump station was constructed, the level of housing in this area was not anticipated. David Patek, Director of Public Works, replied that the City anticipated the service area and that the issue was the underground valves were unsafe and difficult to maintain and the proposed plan was a different design than what was previously constructed. Mr. Palmeri then questioned if the existing design of the pump station was not considered unsafe 24 years ago and if there had been any incidents on the site since its installation. Plan Commission Minutes September 21, 2010 Mr. Patek responded that design standards and worker's safety concerns were looked at differently years ago and to his knowledge there had not been any incidents at the site however an equipment failure would result in sewage backup into basements and flowing into Lake Winnebago. The brick structure is more aesthetically pleasing than a steel building and would be more compatible with the residential homes. Mr. Palmeri inquired if there were any alternatives to addressing this issue. Mr. Patek replied negatively. Mr. Nollenberger commented that it appeared that the staff had discussed the proposed project with the neighbors and it seemed to be effective as there were no property owners present opposed to the plan. Mr. Thorns stated that he applauded staff for their efforts and as the neighbors do not have issues with the proposed structure, he felt the plan to bring this pump station above ground was appropriate as we need to be more cognizant of the safety of workers. Motion by Bowen to approve the conditional use permit for a public utility structure located at 2065 Hickory Lane. Seconded by Hinz. Motion carried 7 -0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:28 pm. (Bowen/Propp) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services Plan Commission Minutes September 21, 2010