Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES January 17, 2012 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Dennis McHugh, Donna Lohry, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: David Borsuk, Robert Vajgrt STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; Allen Davis, Director of Community Development; David Buck, Principal Planner; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Fojtik called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of December 20, 2011 were approved as presented. (Nollenberger/Propp) I. EXTRATERRITORIAL TWO-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 2997 CLAIRVILLE ROAD IN THE TOWN OF ALGOMA The applicant is requesting a two-lot land division/certified survey map from one existing parcel containing a total of 9.5 + acres. Sizes of the proposed lots are as follows: Lot 1 = 0.52 Acres Lot 2 = 8.98 Acres Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area. He stated that the lot division meets all criteria for city standards and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Kenneth Neubauer, 2960 Clairville Road, owner/petitioner, stated that he was present to answer any questions on the request. Mr. Bowen arrived at 4:02 pm. There was no discussion on this item. Motion by Thoms to approve the extraterritorial two-lot land division/certified survey map at 2997 Clairville Road in the Town of Algoma. Seconded by McHugh. Motion carried 9-0. II. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 30, SECTION 30-35 (I)(5) MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENS The Department of Community Development requests review and approval of an amendment to the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance repealing and recreating Section 30-35 (I)(5) Mechanical Equipment Screens, which is a portion of Article XI: Additional Standards and Exceptions. Mr. Buck presented the item and stated that a workshop had been held last year to discuss this proposed amendment. He further stated that the text amendment is a clean-up code revision and he reviewed the current code language and the proposed amendment. He discussed definitions, __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 January 17, 2012 applicability, screening design, and screening distance. The proposed text amendment was reviewed by the Inspections Advisory Committee and they had no concerns with the ordinance language. Mr. Thoms commented that antenna were listed under exempt equipment and questioned how this would impact items such as the one recently reviewed for telecommunication antennae on Mainview Apartments. Mr. Buck responded that telecommunication antennae are not exempt and the exemption was meant to be for standard antenna. Mr. Thoms stated that it was necessary to define this in the ordinance. Mr. Buck indicated that the language could be revised to “antenna except telecommunication equipment”. Mr. Thoms also had concerns with industrial uses in manufacturing zones not requiring screening as it was possible that it could be an industrial zone but adjacent to residential use. Mr. Buck responded that in that case, there would be a 25 foot landscape area as a buffer to the residential use which would address the issue. Mr. Thoms felt that there should be wording incorporated into the ordinance that addresses this issue as it was confusing. Mr. Buck stated that language could be added to address industrial uses adjacent to residential uses. Mr. Thoms then questioned what would occur when the zoning designation is changed on a property. Mr. Buck responded that the ordinance that regulates nonconforming uses would address these situations and that both the antenna and nonconforming uses are defined in other sections of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Thoms stated that the language in this amendment should include “except as exempted in other areas of the code”. Ms. Lohry felt that there should not be any exemptions in the Highway 41 Corridor Overlay District. Mr. Buck responded that the ordinance could not address this issue in some cases in this area due to the change in grade and height of some structures in this area. Ms. Propp questioned if schools and churches in residential zoning districts would fall under the code requirements. Mr. Buck replied affirmatively and stated that single and two-family uses were the only exemptions. Mr. Thoms requested an explanation of the Highway 41 Corridor Overlay District and if the screening requirements would apply in this area. Mr. Buck indicated that it was the area within 1000 feet of the highway and the screening requirements would apply. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 January 17, 2012 Mr. Bowen questioned what method of screening would be acceptable for air conditioning units. Mr. Buck responded that the units could either be built inside the wall or camouflaged by blending it into the color of the structure if on the exterior. Mr. Bowen stated that he was concerned with the functionality of some mechanicals with screening. Mr. Buck indicated that the Board of Appeals could grant a variance in some cases when circumstances would not allow the required screening. Mr. Bowen also questioned if transformers for utilities would be covered under this ordinance. Mr. Buck replied that they would be if located on private property however it would not address these units if located in the right-of-way. Mr. Bowen commented that gas and electric meters need to be accessible and questioned what constitutes sufficient screening in these cases. Mr. Buck responded that arborvitae with a landscaping bed are the usual methods for screening for these types of mechanicals as they still provide the appropriate screening from a distance. Mr. Bowen also questioned what type of materials would be considered identical or similar for screening roof mounted equipment on a brick building. Mr. Buck replied that it was a judgment call but brick colored vinyl products would be adequate. Mr. Burich added that the materials used would have to be compatible with the structure. Mr. Buck stated that this item could be laid over if the Commission members felt that another workshop was necessary to further discuss the issue before voting on this request. Mr. Bowen felt that another workshop was probably not necessary but a few tweaks to the language should be considered and the request could be laid over until the next meeting. Mr. Burich commented that Commission members should provide comments to staff indicating what changes were being requested prior to the next meeting. Mr. Hinz questioned if the screening was required from a height of five feet, what would prevent a property owner from just putting a six foot fence around the site. Mr. Burich responded that this would not work for rooftop equipment and would also not be allowed in the front yard area. Motion by Bowen to lay over the text amendment to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 30, Section 30- 35 (I)(5) Mechanical Equipment Screens until the next meeting. Seconded by Cummings. Motion carried 9-0. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 January 17, 2012 PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT Mr. Burich reported that there were not any items referred to the Common Council that required an update at this time. Mr. Burich discussed methods of improving the review process for potentially controversial land use requests. He suggested moving the “official” public hearing for items such as zone changes, conditional use permits, planned development reviews, plats, and official mappings to a separate meeting prior to the Plan Commission’s deliberations and the development of a staff report. That meeting would be held at a regular Plan Commission at the PC meeting prior to the action meeting in order to get more public input and comment on the front end of the process in order to develop better staff recommendations to the Plan Commission and to give the Plan Commission additional time to consider issues prior to taking action and making recommendations to the Council. He discussed the current process of meeting notices, presentation at Plan Commission and two readings before the Common Council. He stated that the concept of publishing the public hearing prior to the Plan Commission meeting was being considered and how to make that logistically work without having to significantly increase the time of the review process. The item would be discussed at the hearing and the staff report would be prepared after the hearing and presented to the Plan Commission at the next meeting for action. The Common Council would then act on the item at one meeting instead of two readings. He was also considering requirements for a neighborhood meeting prior to the public hearing process for items that could have impacts on a neighborhood, but also to include some type of waiver for non controversial items. Mr. Thoms questioned what information would be available for the first reading of the rezoning request and what the Plan Commission’s role would be. Mr. Burich indicated that the Plan Commission would be provided with the application material as well as a brief staff report on the requested item that would fall short of an in depth analysis or staff recommendations. Mr. Bowen inquired if Plan Commission members would be noticed for the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms asked to clarify that the first meeting would be for comments only and no action would be taken on the part of the Plan Commission. Mr. Burich confirmed this and stated that the purpose was for the Plan Commission to be better prepared to make recommendations to the Common Council on the request. Mr. Cummings questioned if the neighborhood meeting would be held on the proposed site of the request. Mr. Burich responded that staff has always recommended that neighborhood hearings be held as close to the neighborhood as possible if that can be accomplished. Mr. Cummings commented that problems could be ironed out prior to the request going before the Common Council and questioned if this would be for rezoning requests only. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 January 17, 2012 Mr. Burich stated that this process would also be utilized for conditional use permits and plats as well. These requests currently go to the Plan Commission for a recommendation with a meeting notice going to adjacent property owners and then are forwarded to the Common Council for action. It is being considered to change the process to a required neighborhood meeting first followed by a public hearing at the Plan Commission for comments with the Plan Commission making a recommendation at the second meeting for the request. It would then be forwarded to the Common Council for action. Ms. Lohry questioned if citizens would still be able to speak at the Common Council meeting regarding the request. Mr. Burich responded that citizens have always been able to comment at all the meetings and will continue to be able to do so. Mr. Nollenberger inquired if a motion was necessary to endorse this plan. Mr. Burich indicated that it was not necessary at this time and the intent was to get some consensus first with the Plan Commission and then report that to the City Manager to relay that information to the Council. Mr. Thoms questioned if the comments would be limited at the public hearing to five minutes as it is at the Common Council level. Mr. Burich responded that it will be considered. Mr. Thoms also questioned if official mapping requests would be included in this process. Mr. Burich responded that could be considered along with other land use actions. Ms. Propp commented that other communities require neighborhood meetings however she was concerned with if this would lengthen the process of approval for projects. She also commented that the Plan Commission could be held later in the evening to allow more citizens to attend. She felt that some type of staff report should accompany the application at the public hearing as they are more informative. Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, stated that the applicant would be required to provide the application material for the public hearing and a representative would need to be present to answer questions relating to the proposed project. Mr. Thoms commented that it would give the public additional opportunities to comment on requests and would enable the Plan Commission to provide better recommendations to the Council. Ms. Propp questioned if State statutes require two readings at the Common Council level for a zone change. Mr. Burich responded that the City’s Municipal Code requires that but it is not required in State Statute and that only the publishing of the notice in the paper is necessary. Mr. Burich also added that the Municipal Code would also have to be amended to reduce a zoning ordinance from two readings to one at the Council. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 January 17, 2012 Mr. McHugh commented that it was good to establish a five minute limit on public comments however it may be necessary to extend it at times. Mr. Burich agreed and stated that the Plan Commission could follow the same rules as the Council in that regard. Mr. Burich stated that he would move forward accordingly with discussions relating to the matter. Mr. Burich stated that the Department of Natural Resources recently completed the FEMA audit and the City had very good findings regarding administration of its floodplain program. Mr. Burich reported that the joint meeting with the Plan Commission and Common Council to discuss th the central garage would be held next Tuesday, January 24, at 4:45 pm. Mr. Burich also reported that the Grand Street rezoning request went for the first reading at the th Common Council on January 10 and will go for the second reading next week. Staff is still pursuing a review of the area and will be arranging to discuss the matter with property owners in this area to determine their long term proposed land uses. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:08 pm. (Nollenberger/Cummings) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 January 17, 2012