Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES March 6, 2012 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Donna Lohry, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: John Hinz, Dennis McHugh, Robert Vajgrt STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; 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 February 21, 2012 were approved as presented. (Nollenberger/Borsuk) I. FINAL PLAT-LAKE VIEW PARK ESTATES The owner is requesting approval of a 178 acre final plat of a commercial and residential subdivision containing 10 lots, four outlots, right-of-way and parkland dedication, all identified as Lake View Park Estates. Mr. Bowen arrived at 4:02 pm. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the zoning and land use in said area. He also reviewed the past history of the platting process for this site. He stated that the lots all meet or exceed the minimum lot requirements and the Department of Public Works and the owner are working out the details of the developer’s agreement. Mr. Thoms questioned if the entire 178 acres are located within the city limits and if the costs of the infrastructure were included as part of the developer’s agreement. Mr. Buck responded affirmatively. Ms. Lohry inquired about the 47 acres gifted to the city as parkland, of which part of this area is wetlands, and how far from the edge of the water will the development be located. Mr. Buck responded that the wetlands and flood plain areas appear to be about 50 feet from any development areas and the only active parkland will be on the north portion of the site. Ms. Lohry also questioned if the city has accepted the responsibility for the care of the parkland area and if the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) was involved. Mr. Buck replied that Ray Maurer, Director of Parks, has reviewed the parkland dedication and although he could not be present at today’s meeting; he has indicated that he had no issues with it. He further stated that the city will maintain the park area under the WDNR regulations however no formal work has been done at this time. The Parks Advisory Board and Common Council will make any decisions related to the use of the parkland. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 March 6, 2012 Motion by Bowen to approve the 178 acre final plat identified as Lake View Park Estates. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8-0. II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USES AND DEVELOPMENT OF A PARKING FACILITY AT 576-582 NORTH MAIN STREET (ALSO 500 BLOCK JEFFERSON STREET) The applicant is requesting two actions within this petition: A.Conditional Use Permit to create three second floor residential living units above the commercial space at 578-582 N. Main Street; and B.Planned Development approval to create a first/ground floor living unit and for the development of a 13 stall parking facility on the 500 block of Jefferson Street. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the zoning and land use in said area. He stated that the buildings were historic structures with a gravel nonconforming parking area in the back facing Jefferson Street. He described the current use of the site and the history of past uses and reviewed the site plan submitted for the development. He discussed the base standard modifications requested for the project which are mainly pertaining to the parking lot area as the lot is too narrow to meet required setbacks. He also stated that the privacy fencing proposed along the Jefferson Street side is recommended to be reduced to four feet high and 50 % open. The refuse enclosure is also being recommended to be relocated to allow refuse removal vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward motion. He reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Thoms questioned if the ground floor unit will front on the Jefferson Street side of the structure. Mr. Buck responded affirmatively. Mr. Cummings inquired since this structure was located in a historic district, what control would the City have in regard to the façades. Mr. Buck indicated that no Main Street façade changes were proposed with this development and the owner should come before the Landmarks Commission for advice if this would be a consideration. The Downtown Overlay zoning designation could also regulate any proposed changes to the façade. Motion by Thoms to approve the conditional use permit/planned development to residential uses and development of a parking facility at 576-582 North Main Street and the 500 block of Jefferson Street with the following conditions: 1.Base standard modifications of the Zoning Code, as follow: •Permit a residential living unit of the first/ground floor on the east/rear side of the building, as proposed. •Allow 0 foot parking lot side yard setback on the north and south lot lines. •Allow 14 foot 6 inch parking lot front yard (Jefferson Street) setback. •Allow fencing along the southern lot line at 6 foot 4 inches high to encroach within 7 feet of the Jefferson Street property line. •Eliminate the required pedestrian walk from the building entrance to Jefferson Street. •Eliminate parking lot perimeter landscaping requirements on the north and south lot lines. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 March 6, 2012 2.Jefferson Street fencing is limited to 4 foot high and no greater than 50% solid with design approval by the Department of Community Development and proposed landscaping is located on the street side of the fence. 3.Parking lot includes wheel stops on the northern row of parking stalls. 4.Refuse enclosure fencing match the proposed perimeter fencing on-site and the design and/or placement of the refuse enclosure allow refuse removal vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward motion. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 8-0. III. ZONE CHANGE FOR TWO BLOCK AREA BOUNDED BY MT. VERNON STREET ON THE EAST; NEVADA AVENUE ON THE NORTH; BROAD STREET ON THE WEST; AND CUSTER AVENUE ON THE SOUTH Staff has prepared several alternative zoning scenarios for the subject area and is requesting the Plan Commission evaluate and recommend one of the options. Zoning for this area was discussed at previous workshops and was the subject of an official zone change request for the residential dwellings at 1406 and 1407 Grand Street that was subsequently denied by both the Plan Commission and Common Council as being contrary to the Comprehensive Plan land use plans for the area. The zone change request was to change the zoning from M-2 to R-2, which would then make the residential dwellings “permitted uses” versus being non-conforming uses in the industrial zoning district. The subject area historically contained viable manufacturing uses that have since given way to more light industrial uses such as contractors’ yards and storage. Staff is presenting seven different options to accommodate the various uses in this area. Mr. Burich presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the zoning and land use in said area. He explained that out of the various zoning scenarios offered, staff’s preference was Option #1 to change the block to the west and a portion of the block to the east to C-1 Neighborhood Business District with a Planned Development Overlay and change the remaining portion of the block to the east along the railroad tracks to M-1 Light Industrial District with a Planned Development Overlay. This option would accommodate all the existing uses in the area including the two residential homes. He also reviewed the other options presented in the staff report for consideration. Ms. Propp questioned why the area designated to be changed to M-1PD was not extended down to the residential lot at 1406 Grand Street. Mr. Burich responded that the City was looking to have symmetry with this zone change and, as proposed, it creates a buffer area between the industrial and residential uses. Light industrial uses are also allowed in the C-1 zoning district. Bob McGuire, First Weber Real Estate, stated that he was listing the home at 1407 Grand Street and the ability to sell it with the M-2 zoning designation was impossible as buyers were not able to obtain financing for the purchase. He further stated that what is being proposed would help but it will still put some hardship on the buyer. The home is a 1920’s era structure and is in excellent condition and would be most likely a first-time home buyer’s opportunity. The C-1 designation would require the City to issue a rebuild letter at the time of sale. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 March 6, 2012 Mr. Burich indicated that the City would not have any issues with this as the home could be rebuilt on the site with a C-1 zoning classification as it is a permitted use in this district. Mr. McGuire stated that a letter from the appraiser would also be necessary indicating that the residential use was the highest and best use of the land. Considering the amount of other residential uses in the area, he did not see any reason to make selling the property more difficult for the owners. Lola Schroeder, owner of the property at 1407 Grand Street, discussed the Fair Acres site recently being developed and the base standard modifications allowed. She felt it was unfair that the City would give allowances to this developer but would not permit any allowances to her when it comes to the desired zoning classification she seeks. Mr. Nollenberger commented that since the original request to change the zoning from M-2 to R-2 for the residential properties was voted down by both the Plan Commission and Common Council, he felt that Option #1 was the best choice. Mr. Cummings commented that the banking regulations have caused the change in the industry and these changes in regulations are taking place on a daily basis and he felt we must do what is best for the City when considering the zone change for this area. Mr. Bowen stated that we need to reference the Comprehensive Plan and although there is no way to predict what will happen in this area in the future, there is no perfect solution for every property owner in this area. Option #1 would accommodate the petitioner and respects the Comprehensive Plan as C- 1PD allows for existing uses as permitted uses. Ms. Propp inquired what the outcome of the neighborhood meeting was as she was unable to attend. Mr. Burich responded that only three property owners attended and two were the residential property owners requesting the zone change with the remaining one being the party with the storage and workshop use. The zoning Option #1 was the best choice as it permitted all current uses in the area. Property owners were also notified of the Plan Commission meeting today. Mr. Thoms questioned if local zoning standards have allowed C-1 in other residential areas of the city and if the zoning letter mentioned by Mr. McGuire would be obtainable. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively to both inquiries. Ms. Propp stated that she would support Option #1 for the zone change and questioned if the M-1PD zoning designation would extend to the center of the railroad tracks. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the zone change Option #1 for the two block area bounded by Mt. Vernon Street on the east, Nevada Avenue on the north; Broad Street on the west; and Custer Avenue on the south from M-2 to C-1PD and M-1PD. Seconded by Cummings. Motion carried 8-0. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 March 6, 2012 PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT Mr. Burich reported that both the CUP/PD and rezoning request for the reconstruction of Oaklawn School would be going before the Common Council next week as well as the text amendment for the mechanical screening. He also discussed some of the legislation that is currently being considered that is anti-community development and anti-planning. SB 472 would impact nonconforming structures by allowing owners to reconstruct nonconforming structures on their present site without regard to zoning setback requirements. SB 504 was also discussed which limits municipalities authority to enact development moratorium ordinances which would add restrictions to what the city would be allowed to do and takes away communities’ flexibility to respond to unforeseen development situations that may negatively impact municipalities. SB 449/AB 618 was briefly discussed which affects billboards and Department of Transportation projects. This bill would allow the replacement of billboards removed to another area of the city or the municipality would be required to reimburse the billboard owner for the cost of the billboard. The concern with this bill is that it seeks to pre-empt a local jurisdiction’s control of outdoor or off-premise advertising. AB 181 has already passed which erodes municipalities authority with annexation regulations by taking away some advantages that cities had with unanimous annexations by allowing townships to challenge these actions. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:50 pm. (Nollenberger/Propp) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 March 6, 2012