Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES May 15, 2012 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Dennis McHugh, Donna Lohry, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: none STAFF: David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Chris Strong, Director of Transportation; 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 May 1, 2012 were approved as presented. (Cummings/Vajgrt) I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER LOCATED AT 825 NORTH WASHBURN STREET (THE BAR) The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a telecommunications tower and accessory equipment at 825 N. Washburn Street. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the zoning and land use in said area. He reviewed the portion of the property where the tower would be located which will be leased from the owner and reviewed the site plan for the request. He further stated that the area will be screened with fencing and landscaping and also reviewed the plans for the tower itself. He explained that the tower facility would be capable of collocation for additional users and the tower installation was to provide coverage in an area that currently has a gap in service. He also reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Bowen questioned if the city has any agreement or policy to enforce the collocation of users on a single tower as high fees will force other users to construct new towers rather than collocate on existing ones. Mr. Nau responded that the city has an inventory of tower sites that they can direct companies to look into for location prior to applying for the installation of a new tower. Mr. Borsuk inquired what the city can do to prevent companies from extorting unfair fees from other companies to collocate on their existing towers. Mr. Buck indicated that if a company was not permitting collocation on their tower, the city could pursue the matter in court. Mr. Thoms commented that the property behind the subject site was zoned R-1 and questioned if there were any concerns with that issue. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 May 15, 2012 Mr. Buck responded that there was no development on this property currently and since the tower will be constructed before any other development, he did not anticipate any issues. Mr. Thoms questioned why the ANR easement issue was not included in the conditions. Mr. Buck replied that the two companies were private entities and were required to work out their issues amongst themselves. Mr. Nau added that the only element of the development in the ANR Pipeline easement area was landscaping. Mr. Thoms then questioned if the six foot high fencing would be adequate. Mr. Nau responded that the six foot height is required by code and the tower structure will be far enough away from any other development and there should be no negative impact on adjacent property owners. Mr. McHugh inquired how this development would benefit the city. Mr. Nau indicated that it would benefit the city by providing service in this area to citizens that do not have coverage in this zone of the city. Mr. Buck added that with technologies advancing in the wireless field, more citizens depend on coverage for wireless facilities with more capabilities and it will benefit them as well as the property owner. Mr. McHugh stated that it will be a visual eyesore and be of no benefit to the city. Derek McGrew, CelluSite LLC, 10701 Firelight Court, Noblesville, Indiana, stated that he was present representing AT&T and stated that future collocations were a necessary evil. He further stated that agreements between companies were in place and AT&T would have collocated on another existing tower in the area however it did not have the capability of housing the additional equipment necessary. He commented that wireless coverage was necessary for the community and that they would like approval to move the entire tower site seven feet to the east to remove the landscaping from the area of ANR’s easement. Mr. Thoms questioned where the service area for the tower coverage is located and if the property owner found the movement of the development seven feet to the east acceptable. Mr. McGrew distributed a map depicting the area that the tower would service and stated that he felt the property owner would be agreeable to it however he first needed to see if the City would be willing to approve the amendment to the original plan. Mr. McHugh questioned why the tower could not be placed somewhere out in the country. Mr. McGrew indicated that constructing a tower outside of the city would not be effective in providing service in the area that has a gap in coverage as it would be too far away. Mr. Thoms stated that the conditions should be amended to include the change in the tower’s location by moving it seven feet to the east. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 May 15, 2012 Motion by Vajgrt to approve the conditional use permit for construction of a telecommunications tower located at 825 N. Washburn Street as requested with the following conditions: 1)The proposed tower and tower site shall be designed to accommodate collocation of at least two additional users per Section 30-35(J)(2)(c)(i) of the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. 2)The permit holder for the tower shall allow collocation of at least two additional users per Section 30-35(J)(2)(c)(ii) of the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. 3)Movement of the telecommunications tower seven feet to the east of the originally proposed location with approval from the property owner. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 9-0. II. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A PHARMACY/RETAIL BUILDING WITH DRIVE-THROUGH IN 1700 BLOCKS OF THTH WEST 7 AVENUE AND WEST 9 AVENUE The petitioner requests development plan approval for the development of a retail pharmacy with thth drive-through service in the 1700 blocks of West 7 and West 9 Avenues. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the zoning and land use in said area. He reviewed the project’s history and timeline to date and stated that the development would still need to go before the Traffic Review Advisory Board and the Common Council in June. He discussed the Neighborhood Protection Plan developed by the neighbors during the Neighborhood Steering Committee process and reviewed the site plan for the development. He explained that the thth setback on 7 Avenue has been increased from 25 feet to 40 feet and reduced on 9 Avenue by 15 feet to move the development as far as possible from the residential neighborhood which will require a base standard modification. The developer also increased the buffer area and landscaping on the neighborhood side to address concerns with noise. He explained the use of the three foot collapsible th barriers to be placed on 7 Avenue to restrict access to the neighborhood and that they would be in place for a one to three year trial basis. These barriers would allow emergency vehicles to access the neighborhood during this time period and the street closure would be reviewed by the Traffic Review Advisory Board in June and would be reviewed annually after that to ascertain if they should remain or the street be closed permanently or reopened. A developer’s agreement would be necessary to address costs related to the street improvements which would be reviewed and approved by the City and the th Department of Public Works. The developer is also proposing to realign the intersection of 7 Avenue and Koeller Street to allow movements both north and south without cutting back the existing median on Koeller Street. This proposal would also require review and approval by the Traffic Review Advisory Board and the Department of Public Works with any costs relating to it to be borne by CVS. He reviewed the increased landscaping on the north and east side of the development and reviewed a diagram of the landscape berm in relation to vehicles. The developer proposed a pylon sign at 60 feet in height with an electronic message center however staff is willing to support signage that is no larger or taller than the Walgreen’s sign to the south which will also require a base standard modification. He also reviewed elevations for the structure and reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Fojtik questioned the feasibility of the Neighborhood Protection Plan developed and if any business would be able to construct a development with these guidelines. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 May 15, 2012 Mr. Buck responded that neighbors and staff worked on this document together as a directive from the Common Council to help resolve the issues between the neighbors and the developers for this project. th Mr. Vajgrt questioned how the blocking off of the access to 7 Avenue would affect school buses going to/from the day care center in the area and the parking lot for the Red Robin restaurant. Mr. Buck replied that the buses would have to access the site from Koeller Street and the parking lot layout for Red Robin would have to be redesigned in that area. The petitioner is currently working with the owner of the restaurant on negotiating this issue. Mr. Thoms mentioned that condition #1 relating to the pylon sign does not state that it is a base standard modification and felt that it should be included in the wording of the condition. Mr. Bowen questioned if the area of the sign was to be comparable to Walgreen’s, was it calculating the dimensions of the EMC panel and sign panel together or defined separately. Mr. Buck responded that the signage was to be comparable to Walgreen’s on both panels calculated on a separate basis. Mr. Thoms inquired if the illumination levels for signs were restricted and if the hours for the drive- thru were to be limited. Mr. Buck indicated that smaller signs are measured by the light levels of foot candles at the property line however this does not apply to larger signs of this nature and the Commission members could recommend limitations on the hours for the drive-thru; however with the increased berming and denser landscaping proposed, it should not be an issue. Mr. McHugh asked to clarify the areas that were residentially and commercially zoned. Mr. Buck displayed the areas on the map as requested. Mr. McHugh then questioned if this area was recently rezoned. Mr. Buck responded that it was partially rezoned within the area that was designated as commercial in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Thoms inquired about the traffic concerns that were discussed at previous meetings and if the th situation had been reevaluated with the changes proposed to 7 Avenue and moving the access to the west. Chris Strong, Director of Transportation, stated that the traffic study review was completed prior to the installation of the roundabouts however there has not been a congestion issue in this area although th there is additional traffic going through it due to the closure of Highway 21. The Koeller Street and 7 Avenue amendment submitted seems to make sense and the Red Robin traffic was added in however the day care center traffic was not included in the calculations. Considering there is not a lot of traffic th on 7 Avenue, it did not appear to be an issue. Mr. Thoms questioned with the Kwik Trip being developed across the street, will left turns be an issue th coming from both entities onto 9 Avenue. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 May 15, 2012 Mr. Strong responded that the roundabouts make traffic less predictable however they keep traffic moving which is safer. He could not comment on the effect of the Kwik Trip driveway at this point as th the effects remain to be seen, but the CVS development would consolidate several driveways onto 9 Avenue into only one access which should be safer. Mr. Hinz inquired, if approved, if the construction of the CVS development would overlap with the construction of the Kwik Trip development. Mr. Buck replied that he could not predict the timing of the construction however the CVS development still has other city approvals to be obtained prior to moving forward with the project. He also commented that the proposed pylon sign was changed to be perpendicular to the right-of-way on th 9 Avenue to reduce any residual lighting going into the neighborhood. Mr. McHugh commented that all other cities in the area have commercial zoning in the gateways to the th city except Oshkosh which was done in an attempt to protect the downtown. He felt that 9 Avenue should all be rezoned to commercial zoning as well as some of the other east/west streets and it should be done now. Mr. Buck responded that any action taken today has to be related to this project. Attorney Russ Reff, 217 Ceape Avenue, representing Velmier Properties, stated that it was important that this application be approved from a zoning standpoint and discussed the history of this area and how it has been built up in the last 50 years. The area has been long term residential however the th situation has evolved and 9 Avenue is no longer a residential area. All commercial developments cannot occur out of town and the City needs to balance all interests. When considering appropriate land use, we need to consider the highest and best use of the property and this area was rezoned to commercial as this use is the most profitable for this area. The proposed pharmacy use is one of the least intrusive to the neighborhood and the city has made tremendous efforts to save this project. CVS has addressed most of the concerns raised by the neighbors and is a very successful business however th there are certain features this development requires. One is access to 7 Avenue and another is full ingress/egress for Koeller Street. Red Robin is willing to cooperate to provide the requested access for th 7 Avenue and the costs would be at the expense of the developer. He further stated that a change in this area is necessary and the city needs to balance the interests of the neighbors with the interests of the community. This development would create jobs, increase the tax base, and provide access to needed services for the community. The increased competition benefits consumers and the city has worked hard to change Oshkosh’s reputation as not being developmentally friendly. Mr. Thoms questioned if the base standard modification was necessary for the proposed signage. Attorney Reff indicated that it was and stated that the sign could be included as part of the development by right if located on Koeller Street and its location on the site was very close. th Bruce Gutsmiedl, 527 Lilac Street, stated that his main concern was still the traffic coming out on 7 Avenue and moving the building away from the residential sites was irrelevant. He also did not th approve of closing off 7 Avenue as it also closes off the neighborhood as well. There are more properties available for CVS to develop and he does not understand the need for the larger sign requested. Steve Suhm, 617 Lilac Street, stated that CVS would not consider the use of this site without access to th 7 Avenue and the city originally supported no access to this street. A&E Jewelers only has eight __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 May 15, 2012 th parking spaces and the employees park on 7 Avenue however with trucks exiting the driveway from CVS, this will cause congestion. The day care center also holds events at their establishment and the th parents park on 7 Avenue as well. He voiced his concern that these parties will now all park on Lilac thth Street. He further stated that 5 and 7 Avenues are the only access to Lilac Street and taking away the access to Koeller Street would be detrimental to the neighborhood. The proposed barriers would be reviewed on a yearly basis and could be taken down in the future; however the high school students th use Lilac Street to access Koeller Street. He felt that 9 Avenue was congested at rush hour and the project would be detrimental to the area. He also commented on robberies that caused disturbances in the neighborhood and felt that they were due to the 24 hour businesses in the area. th Dave Dahlke, 626 Lilac Street, stated that this business was supposed to be located on 9 Avenue, not th 7, and the city has been accommodating CVS and they have been getting everything they want. He thth felt they could locate their second access on 9 Avenue as 7 Avenue was a residential street and this th development would devaluate their properties. The second access on 7 Avenue was not necessary. Jane Slattery, 512 S. Westfield Street, stated she has lived there for 37 years and was a member of the Neighborhood Steering Committee and helped develop the Neighborhood Protection Plan which she felt was an asset to the city. She further stated that CVS has addressed some of their concerns however th the 7 Avenue access has not been addressed appropriately. The placement of the street barriers is not the answer and she recently observed the traffic on Koeller Street while in the Red Robin parking lot th and the proposed new access to 7 Avenue is very close to the median and visibility is not good. Vehicles moves very fast through this area and safety will be an issue although CVS claims to need these two accesses for safety and convenience of their customers. This area is an established th neighborhood and the closing off of 7 Avenue will be a loss of convenience to them. The access on th 7 Avenue needs to be eliminated. Jim Collier, Velmier Companies, 5757 W. Maple Road, West Bloomfield, Michigan, stated that the th sign survey package included in the staff report was not correct as it included signage on 7 Avenue that was not current. Mr. Nollenberger commented that commercially zoned property directly adjacent to residential land is not an ideal situation however the development plan has evolved since its initial submission. The developer has provided the street barriers and additional berming which he agrees with and we have to balance the needs of both parties. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the planned development to allow development of a thth pharmacy/retail building with drive-through in 1700 blocks of W. 7 and W. 9 Avenues with the following conditions: 1)Pylon sign not to exceed the area and height of the Walgreens development sign to the south thth across W. 9 Avenue with the height of the sign measured from the centerline of W. 9 Avenue. th 2)Base standard modification to permit the West 9 Avenue front yard to be 10 feet. 3)All costs for work related to right-of-way related improvements or maintenance shall be the responsibility of the applicant, property owner, or CVS and secured in a form acceptable to the City. th 4)Base standard modification to allow the 9 Avenue driveway to be a three-lane 36 ft. wide driveway (one 12-foot entrance lane, 4-foot rumble strip divider & two 10-foot egress lanes). 5)Maximum height of light standards is 15 feet and the use of metal halide lamps or bulbs is prohibited. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 May 15, 2012 6)Final landscape plan meet code requirements including dense evergreen landscaping on the berm area, as approved by the Department of Community Development. 7)Grading, erosion control and stormwater plans are approved by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits. Seconded by Vajgrt. th Ms. Lohry stated that she wouldn’t support this request as she can see no reason for the access to 7 Avenue. Ms. Propp agreed with Mr. Nollenberger in that this was a better plan than the original however she did not like the temporary barriers in the street although this aspect was a decision for the Traffic th Review Advisory Board. She did not feel it was safe for the neighborhood and 7 Avenue needs to be open to Koeller Street. Mr. Cummings inquired what the barriers would be made of and what happens if they are knocked down. Mr. Strong responded that he has not yet seen a sample of the proposed barriers. Mr. Collier stated that the materials for the barriers had not yet been finalized but the information he had thus far were three-inch wide fiberglass material which would be bolted to the surface. They would have the capability of bouncing back up however they will break if struck at high rates of speed. Mr. Buck stated that these details should be discussed at the Traffic Review Advisory Board meeting as there were a variety of products available for this type of use. Mr. Cummings stated that although the sign seems to be an issue he felt that the Walgreen’s size of sign was agreeable and CVS should be allowed to have the same size of signage. The developer is bringing a business to Oshkosh that already exists and it will take business away from other entities. The neighborhood has numerous rental properties in the area that are not being maintained and deteriorating rental properties in the neighborhood may not be any more detrimental than the proposed pharmacy. Unmaintained rental properties create a lot of issues in Oshkosh and CVS will maintain the site. Some commercial business is going to locate on this site or the existing rental properties may remain and will deteriorate further which will impact property values in the neighborhood. He felt that th the 7 Avenue access should be addressed at the Traffic Advisory Review Board meeting. Mr. Thoms agreed with Mr. Cummings and felt that commercial and residential properties can co- th habitat together. The commercial zoning designation goes to the middle of 7 Avenue and businesses th are located in that area now. He further stated that blocking traffic to 7 Avenue may not be ideal but necessary and a commercial use on this site could be more intense than the CVS development proposed. He voted against this proposal previously because of the traffic concerns and access to the business is essential. Mr. Hinz commented that citizens are going outside of Oshkosh currently to obtain good pharmacy service so he felt there was a need for this business in our community and although traffic going to Red th Robin via 7 Avenue would be eliminated, the developer has worked immensely on this project to appease the neighbors and the barriers are a temporary fix which can be adjusted at a later date. Mr. Vajgrt left the meeting at 5:40 pm. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 May 15, 2012 Mr. Bowen questioned who would be reviewing the functionality of the barriers in the future. Mr. Buck responded that the Traffic Advisory Review Board would review it but the Common Council would have the final approval on future changes. Mr. Bowen commented that not everyone was going to come away happy with this decision however a balance is necessary. Mr. McHugh stated that there has been an increase in traffic in this area and it was bad before but an additional 1,100 customers accessing this site per day will make things worse. Adding both Kwik Trip and CVS at this location will intensify the situation and this location may be best for CVS but not best for the community. There was nothing beneficial in this for the city and the proposal was turned down before because it is not a good idea. He also felt the big sign was obtrusive and he would not support it as it was not helping the neighborhood. Motion carried 8-1. Ayes-Borsuk/Bowen/Thoms/Fojtik/Hinz/Cummings/Propp/Nollenberger. Nays-Lohry. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:45 pm. (Borsuk/Propp) Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey Nau Associate Planner __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 May 15, 2012