Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES July 3, 2012 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Dennis McHugh Donna Lohry, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: David Borsuk, Jeffrey Thoms, Kathleen Propp STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Allen Davis, Director of Community Development; 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 June 19, 2012 were approved as presented. (Vajgrt/Cummings) RD I. AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 670 TO 702 W. 3 RD AVENUE (NORTH SIDE OF W. 3 AVENUE) & 155 S. CAMPBELL ROAD The City of Oshkosh Department of Public Works is requesting approval to acquire approximately 2.28 acres comprised of nine parcels from multiple owners needed as part of the City’s Central Garage renovation project. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in said area. He reviewed the parcels proposed to be acquired and stated that the renovation of the City’s Central Garage should improve the aesthetics of the current site and is consistent with the existing uses in the area and the City’s Comprehensive Plan. There was no discussion on this item. rd Motion by Vajgrt to authorize the acquisition of property located at 670 to 702 W. 3 Avenue (north side) & 155 S. Campbell Road. Seconded by Nollenberger. Motion carried 8-0. II. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A RETAIL STORAGE FACILITY (MINI- WAREHOUSES) AT 2201-2281 W. WAUKAU AVENUE AND A PRIVILEGE IN THE STREET FOR PRIVATE STORM SEWER ACROSS INSURANCE WAY The applicant is requesting approval of a planned development to construct a “mini-warehouse” facility consisting of nine storage buildings (334 various sized storage units), access drive and fire lanes, storm water detention area and landscaped open spaces. Additionally, a privilege in the street is requested to install a private storm sewer pipe within the Insurance Way right-of-way. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in said area. He reviewed the site plan for the development and elevations for the structures. He commented that the Fire Department would like to see both accesses be fire rated rather than just one and discussed the proposed lighting plans for the development which would be __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 July 3, 2012 required to meet code requirements. He also reviewed the landscaping plans and stated that he had heard from several of the owners of the condominiums to the west regarding their concerns with noise and lighting issues. Staff was recommending additional landscaping along the west side of the development to address these concerns. He also discussed the storm water detention area which would service this development as well as the auto dealerships to the east which requires the privilege in street request for piping to cross the unimproved Insurance Way. He reviewed the conditions for both the planned development and the privilege in street and stated that condition #4 referred to the northern property line for additional landscaping in error as it should have stated the west property line. Mr. McHugh questioned if the only buffer was the proposed vegetation, who makes sure that this vegetation is maintained appropriately. Mr. Buck responded that the Department of Community Development monitors these situations and follows up on any complaints if it is not properly maintained. Mr. McHugh then questioned if this monitoring was carried out on a daily basis. Mr. Buck responded that it was reviewed periodically by staff or driven by citizen’s complaints. Mr. Burich added that if the proposed landscaping plans are deviated from, staff investigates the matter to ensure compliance with the original plans. He further stated that numerous developments in the community were re-inspected within the past six months and most were found to be in compliance. Steve Gries, Gries Architectural Group, petitioner for the request, stated he was present on behalf of the owner to answer any questions and along the west property line there were 36 plantings total and questioned what additional landscaping was going to be requested. Mr. Buck responded that both low level screening and canopy screening was necessary and staff would work with the developer to ensure that solid screening was installed on the western portion of the site. Mr. Gries asked for clarification of if additional plantings were being requested or different types of landscaping used rather than what was being proposed. Mr. Buck indicated that staff was seeking to have the landscaping be as solid as possible and the types and quantities would be reviewed during the Site Plan Review Committee process. Mr. Burich added that there appeared to be some bare areas on the landscaping plan that could be filled in to ensure adequate screening for the residential properties to the west. Mr. Gries responded that the proposed landscaping meets the City’s code requirements at this time. He further stated that from comments he received from the Site Plan Review Committee, the west drive does not have sufficient width to provide a fire rated access lane on both sides and he discussed the matter with the Fire Chief who seemed satisfied with the one fire rated access lane only. Mr. Burich responded that these issues will be addressed during the Site Plan Review process. Sherry Natzke, one of the property owners in the condominium units, questioned if there would be any kind of fencing around the development or security. Mr. Buck responded negatively. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 July 3, 2012 David McKinney stated that he was speaking on behalf of one of the residents on White Tail Lane and commented that landscaping along the west side of the site already exists and voiced his concern with the lack of fencing surrounding the development and the safety issues that could be created by users of the storage units entering the condominium’s neighborhood. He felt that the development should have less buildings and more compliance however the lighting plans seem acceptable. He commented that he hoped the overhead doors for the storage units will not be facing the condos and he felt there should be a fire hydrant located on the site. He further commented that there was already a detention basin for the auto dealership facilities and he felt there could be potential problems with installing the proposed detention basin. Mr. Buck indicated that there will be overhead doors on the west and east sides of the proposed development and there was no code requirements for fencing as the property is zoned M-1 Light Industrial which does not require fencing. He further stated that the berm and landscaping along the west side of the development should address the screening concerns and the low active use of the site for an industrially zoned property should not be detrimental to the adjacent homeowners. The development will have fire access on site and whether a hydrant is necessary on the property will be addressed at the Site Plan Review Committee level. The detention basin will have safety shelves and emergent native plants that do not encourage entering the pond and the community has numerous other bodies of water within the city which are not fenced in for safety purposes. Mr. McKinney also questioned if there would be sidewalks installed along Insurance Way. Mr. Buck responded that Insurance Way is an unimproved road and it is not anticipated to be constructed in the future so no sidewalks would be installed. Mr. Burich added that Insurance Way is currently dedicated right-of-way only and will be vacated with the land reverting back to the property owner at some time in the future as there are no plans to develop the street. He further commented that the proposed development meets and also exceeds the City’s buffer yard requirements along the west property line. Mr. McKinney then questioned who owns the berm between the proposed development and the condominiums. Mr. Burich responded that there was an easement area between the condo site and the proposed development site where the berm and landscaping was located however he believed it was part of the developer’s property. Mr. McKinney inquired if the buildings would be constructed on an elevated grade. Mr. Burich indicated that he was not aware of any change in the grading for the site. Randy Sturma, 3140B White Tail Lane, requested clarification of what retail storage would consist of and the number of units and height of the buildings. Mr. Buck responded that the development would consist of 334 storage units for rent and the building elevations were proposed to be 14 feet up to 20 feet in height. Mr. Sturma questioned if these units would be rented to individuals and if people would constantly be coming and going from the site. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 July 3, 2012 Mr. Buck replied that the units would be rented to individuals for storage use. Mr. Fojtik added that he did not anticipate the activity being that intense for the type of use proposed. A resident from 3100C White Tail Lane questioned how this development was going to be blocked from their view. She further stated that she would like to see more landscaping other than their trees that are currently on the site and suggested heavy landscaping as they do not want to look at storage units. Mr. Buck indicated that the trees that are currently on the site belong to the property owner of the proposed development and staff was recommending that they fill in the existing landscaping area with additional plantings. He reiterated that this issue would be addressed at the Site Plan Review Committee level. He further discussed the location of the current landscaping and the location of the proposed additional plantings. Ping Wang, 3120D White Tail Lane, voiced her concerns with safety and public access and stated that the current landscaping was not adequate and additional landscaping was necessary. She does not support the development but felt that the neighbors’ interests should be taken into consideration. John Tollard, 3130B White Tail Lane, stated that he was concerned with who would be maintaining the easement area where the landscaping was located. Mr. Burich responded that it would be either the property owner or the condominium association and the legal document for the easement would have to be referenced to determine who was responsible for the maintenance of this area. Mr. Tollard commented that the storage unit use was the lesser of evils per say regarding what uses would be allowed on an industrially zoned property. He did however suggest that some type of fencing with lattice could be installed between the proposed development and the condos for screening purposes. Debra Fernau, 3190B White Tail Lane, asked for clarification of the drive access on the west side of the development for the Fire Department access. Mr. Buck indicated that the fire access requires additional asphalt depth be constructed to support the weight of the vehicles and it would not be an additional drive on the west side of the buildings but referred to the internal drive on the west side within the development. Ms. Fernau then questioned if Insurance Way could be vacated now so the entire development could be moved over further to the east. Mr. Burich responded that the vacation of Insurance Way was a long term goal and would not be taking place now as public utilities were located in this area. He further stated that the development could not be required to provide additional setback area as it already meets the code requirements by providing 25 feet of landscaped area on the west and staff is also requesting that additional landscaping be provided in the easement area as well. Barbara Savagian, 3200A White Tail Lane, stated that her biggest concern was the lighting and fencing as she felt that safety and security was an issue. She further stated that she researched some of the __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 July 3, 2012 other storage units in the community and they provided fencing and key cards to access the property and questioned what the security plan would be for this development. Mr. Fojtik responded that the developer was not required to provide a security plan. Ms. Savagian commented that landscaping was a big concern and the developers should respect the homeowners concerns relating to this issue. Mary Kunde, 3100 White Tail Lane, questioned how property values of the condominiums would be affected by this development. Mr. Buck replied that was not something reviewed by staff and the property is zoned manufacturing which could allow more intense uses than the storage unit complex proposed. Mr. Cummings inquired how long the property had been zoned M-1PD. Mr. Burich indicated that the property had possessed an industrial zoning classification since the land was annexed into the City in 1991 or 1993 which was prior to the construction of the condominiums. Mr. Nollenberger asked to clarify that condition #4 requiring the additional landscaping on the northern property line was in error and should be the western property line. Mr. Buck responded affirmatively. Mr. Nollenberger then questioned if there was some way of providing additional detail on the landscaping plans for the development. Mr. Buck responded that the conditions recommended for this request are typical relating to the landscaping plans requiring the approval of the Department of Community Development however the Commission could request that more detailed landscaping plans be required prior to Common Council approval or the item could be tabled today and brought back to the Plan Commission in two weeks with more detailed landscaping plans. Mr. Burich suggested that the Commission could also consider approving the general site plan today pending approval of a revised landscaping plan. Ms. Lohry suggested that the area where the existing berm was located should be elevated. Mr. Cummings commented that he would like to see detailed plans before the request goes to the Common Council and a maintenance plan for the landscaped area should also be provided. Mr. Fojtik stated that it was not appropriate to impose special requirements for additional plans on a single request that is not mandated for other developments. Mr. Bowen did not feel that the request needed to come back before the Plan Commission for review of a landscaping plan only however the impact should be determined prior to the request going to the Common Council and the decision could be made at that level. He suggested that a condition be added that a revised detailed landscaping plan by provided for the Council and neighbors to review. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 July 3, 2012 Mr. Fojtik commented that these issues are typically encountered when adjacent properties possess different zoning classifications. Motion by Nollenberger to table the request until a detailed landscaping plan was provided. Seconded by McHugh. Mr. Bowen voiced his concern with delaying the project by tabling the request and that public comments can be heard at the Council meeting regarding this issue. Mr. Burich suggested that the developer could comment on some of the concerns raised by adjacent property owners. Mr. Gries stated that he does not want the request tabled as this would delay the process for another two weeks particularly if screening of the development was the only issue. He further stated that detailed landscaping plans could be provided prior to the Council meeting for review. Ms. Lohry questioned when the Council meeting takes place. Mr. Gries responded that the meeting would be next week. Mr. Burich suggested that the developer could provide a revised landscape plan which the neighbors could review and the Council could table the request at their level if it did not appear to be adequate or vote on the request next week. Mr. Gries suggested that the request could be approved with an additional condition relating to the revised landscaping plan, or to have the revised landscaping plan only come back to the Plan Commission in two weeks but at least approve the general development now so the process could move forward. Mr. Burich offered adding a condition to the approval of the request referencing that it would be subject to approval of a landscaping plan by the City prior to the issuing of occupancy permits for the development. Mr. McHugh commented that there seemed to be so many concerns from the adjacent property owners and he did not feel the questions were answered adequately and the submission of a revised landscaping plan at this time would not give the Common Council sufficient time to review it. Mr. Bowen felt it was the logistics of bringing the request back at the next meeting as he did not feel it was the Plan Commission’s role to micro-manage every detail of a development. He felt that the condition referencing additional vegetative screening is installed with the approval of the Department of Community Development addresses the issue of a review of the landscape plan and the neighbors concerns can be addressed during that review. Mr. Fojtik agreed. Ms. Lohry questioned if there was a maintenance agreement in place for the landscaped area. Mr. Gries stated that the current vegetation would remain in place and they were proposing to add additional landscaping to the area. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 July 3, 2012 Mr. Cummings inquired what the most efficient way would be to move this request through the process without unnecessary delays. Mr. Burich replied that since there seemed to be significant concerns with the buffer area and not the proposed use, the request could be recommended for approval by the Plan Commission with a condition that the landscaping plan be approved by the Department of Community Development prior to any occupancy permit being issued. Motion by Nollenberger to amend his previous motion to table the request to approval of the request with the landscaping plan approved by the Department of Community Development prior to any occupancy permit being issued for the project. Mr. McHugh refused to second the amended motion, therefore the Commission voted on the original motion to table the request. Motion denied 1-7. (Ayes-McHugh. Nays-Bowen/Fojtik/Hinz/Cummings/Lohry/Vajgrt/ Nollenberger) Motion by Nollenberger to approve the planned development for a retail storage facility at 2201-2281 W. Waukau Avenue and a privilege in the street for private storm sewer across Insurance Way with the following conditions for the planned development including revising conditions #4 changing the northern property line to the western property line and adding a condition that the landscaping plan would require approval by the Department of Community Development prior to any occupancy permit being issued for the project: 1)Base standard modification to allow a five foot setback along undeveloped Insurance Way. 2)Base standard modification to allow two access drives onto Waukau Avenue. 3)Appropriate fire access is provided with approval of the Oshkosh Fire Department. 4)Additional vegetative screening is installed along the western property line designed to act as a screen/buffer to the properties to the west with approval of the Department of Community Development. 5)Detention basin is designed without riprap above the water line and native plants be planted on the side slopes of the basin and emergent plants on the safety shelf. 6)Easements are provided as necessary for storm water facilities with approval of the Department of Public Works. 7)Approval of a landscaping plan by the Department of Community Development prior to any occupancy permit being issued for the development. And the following conditions for the privilege in street request: 1.Placement of the underground facilities shall be coordinated with the Department of Public Works to prevent conflicts with existing underground utilities. 2.The underground facilities are installed in a manner that is approved by the Department of Public Works with no modification or changes in construction procedure without prior approval by the Department of Public Works. 3.If no longer needed, the underground facilities be properly abandoned and removed in accordance with City standards and under the direction of the Department of Public Works. 4.Any problem that may arise as a result of placement of the underground facilities be the responsibility of the petitioner/owner to correct in coordination with the Department of Public Works. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 July 3, 2012 5.All appropriate permits are obtained prior to the start of placement of the underground facilities. 6.The underground facilities be modified or removed immediately upon request of the City. 7.The petitioner/owner secures and submits to the City Clerk a separate insurance policy which names the City as an additional insured with a minimum coverage of $200,000 per person and $500,000 in general aggregate. 8.It is the responsibility of the petitioner/owner to file in a timely manner a new insurance certificate with the City Clerk upon expiration of an existing certificate. Failure to do so will result in the revocation of the privilege in the right-of-way permit within ten (10) days of notice. 9.The petitioner/owner execute a hold harmless agreement with the City. 10.The facility is part of and documented with Digger’s Hotline system. Seconded by Vajgrt. Mr. Bowen commented that the added condition is already addressed in the staff report in condition #4 and he would like to see the plan also approved by the public. Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, stated that City staff can ensure that the neighbors are allowed to review and comment on the landscaping plans submitted prior to receiving approval from the Department of Community Development. There was also some brief discussion on the time line for the occupancy permit. Mr. McHugh questioned if the Common Council would deliberate the same issue. Mr. Burich responded that they could as the Plan Commission makes a recommendation only and the public can attend and comment on the request at the Council meeting and the Common Council will make the final decision on the matter. Motion carried 8-0. Mr. Burich commented that he would like some representatives of the condominiums to contact the Community Development Department next Wednesday to further discuss the landscaping details. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Buck presented the review of the six month progress report that was due on the rooftop stealth plan for the antennae located at 522-530 North Main Street. He reviewed the plans submitted to the State Historical Preservation Offices and stated that the three major carriers had agreed to the locations of their equipment. He reviewed the site plan and elevations and explained the faux walls that would be constructed on the rooftop to hide the antennae installations. He noted that the whip antennae still visible on the elevations were not part of the other carrier’s equipment but were owned by the Housing Authority. He reviewed the timeline for the process and stated that he anticipated the item coming back to the Plan Commission and Landmarks Commission by October for review and, if approved, construction on the project was scheduled to begin in November. Ms. Lohry questioned if the Housing Authority would be hiding their whip antennae as well. Mr. Buck responded that he anticipated they would be doing so. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 July 3, 2012 PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT Mr. Burich reported that the CVS proposed development went to the Common Council last week and th received approval for the development without the access requested to West 7 Avenue. He stated that th changing 7 Avenue to a one way street or full closure of the street would be considered at the next Council meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:10 pm. (Bowen/Vajgrt) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 July 3, 2012