Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMnutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES July 17, 2012 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Donna Lohry, Robert Vajgrt EXCUSED: Dennis McHugh, Karl Nollenberger STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; David Patek, Director of Public Works; 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 July 3, 2012 were approved as presented. (Vajgrt/Cummings) I. ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CENTRAL GARAGE FACILITY LOCATED AT 639 WITZEL AVENUE The applicant is requesting an architectural building plan review for reconstruction of the Central Garage facility located at 639 Witzel Avenue. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site plan and building elevations for the proposed new facility. He discussed the materials to be used and the architectural features incorporated in the plans as well as reviewing the additional storage buildings that would also be part of the development. David Patek, Director of Public Works, distributed larger photos of the building and site plan for the Commissioners to review. Mr. Bowen commented that the Commission was directed to review the architectural plans for the building only for this request and questioned if there were any Comprehensive Plan guidelines that could be referred to when dealing with this type of request. Mr. Buck responded negatively. Mr. Burich added that the Commission should be reviewing the building’s features and considering its context with the area it would occupying to determine if it would fit in with the adjacent properties. Mr. Thoms inquired how this type of building would fit in with adjacent properties as he did not feel that it did. Mr. Buck replied that the building’s plans would meet the Highway 41 Corridor and industrial park standards and meets these standards at the most strict criteria. He further stated that it fits well in the area as it is adjacent to a number of other institutional type uses and is located in an industrially zoned area. Mr. Thoms then questioned where the mechanical features would be located as well as fencing, gating, and landscaping features. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 July 17, 2012 Mr. Buck responded that although those details were not included in the site plans, the location of the mechanical equipment would be required to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. The fencing and landscaping features would be elements discussed during the Site Plan Review Committee process and that today’s request was for an architectural review of the building only. Ms. Lohry commented that she felt the concept was very cold with no individuality, no landscaping, and not appropriate in the central city area. Mr. Borsuk felt that there were conflicting standards from staff regarding this area as to whether it was an industrial area or a redevelopment area. Mr. Burich indicated that this was not a redevelopment area. Mr. Borsuk commented that he felt it was an anchor property in this area and the standards should be higher for the development. Tom Phillips, 225 Idaho Street, stated that he lives across the street from the garage’s drop off site for yard waste and questioned if any of this would be screened from view as the debris pile is about 20 feet high presently. He also inquired if there is a storm water plan for the site. Mr. Burich responded that he did not have information on the screening of the yard waste area however the area north of the parking lot was designated for storm water management. Mr. Patek added that this project was in the conceptual phase only at this time and all plans for the site are not yet finalized. Storm water management will be addressed around the whole site but the plans were not yet prepared for review. Mr. Burich added that these items were engineering issues and the request is for a building review only for architectural design. Bernard Pitz, 617 W. Irving Avenue, stated that he owns part of the property being acquired by the City for the development however he also owns land across the street from the site that is not part of the City’s acquisition plans and he feels it will now be worthless. He commented that the City should purchase all of his property or none of it. Mr. Patek commented that the Department of Public Works will be working with Planning Services staff on the fencing and landscaping features and these elements were not part of the architectural review. The concept for the structure needed to be approved first. The waste drop off site will be screened to some degree by the other structures and the City may consider purchasing property on the south side of Third Avenue in the future however the north side parcels are the only ones being acquired at this time. Ms. Propp questioned if the City owns all the property necessary for this development. Mr. Patek responded that they are in the process of acquiring the necessary land and both the Plan Commission and Common Council approved the acquisitions. The necessary documents need to be filed with Winnebago County and the entire process will take months to complete. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 July 17, 2012 Ms. Propp then questioned if there would be several structures left that were owned by Winnebago County. Mr. Patek replied that the University of Wisconsin owns a parcel adjacent to the site and there were a few other properties that were owned by the City but were used for other purposes. Ms. Propp inquired if the site plans distributed represented all the buildings planned on the site. Mr. Patek responded that the Commission was reviewing the concept of the main building only and the site plans displayed all of the buildings and uses on the site however state statutes require approval of the main building only. Ms. Lohry questioned what screening would be provided for the yard waste area. Mr. Patek displayed on the site plan the area designated for the drop off site for yard waste materials and stated that it would be screened by other storage buildings on the site. Mr. Borsuk inquired if the structures would be the only screening for the yard waste area. Mr. Patek responded that there would be a fence around the site along Witzel Avenue, Third Avenue and Idaho Street however those plans were not yet complete. Mr. Bowen requested a description of the architectural pre-cast panels that would make up the building. Jon Wallenkamp, Kueny Architects LLC, discussed some of the building’s features including that the mechanicals would be hidden from view and the structure would consist of granite looking panels with contrasting colored panels on the upper portion of the building. He did not have samples of the materials with him but could provide them for the Common Council to review. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the architectural building plan review for the Central Garage facility located at 639 Witzel Avenue. Seconded by Propp. Mr. Borsuk commented that he felt screening was important for the site and he generally supported the request however he did not feel he had adequate information. Mr. Bowen stated that as far as his personal preferences, he was not supportive of what was presented and the community may not be satisfied with the look of the site over time. Mr. Thoms commented that the request was to review the building only but he felt that as a whole, there was not enough information provided about the development. He further stated that the development would be located on a very visible site and could be more aesthetically pleasing. It may be located in an industrially zoned area however it is adjacent to commercial property and he was not inclined to support the building review as presented. Mr. Cummings commented that Oshkosh seems to be architecturally challenged however when it comes to City projects, we should raise the bar somewhat. He further stated that someone should provide an example of what it should look like if the concept presented is not satisfactory. The design __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 July 17, 2012 presented would serve the purpose and costs have to also be considered as the city has a limited budget to spend on the development of this site. Mr. Patek stated that the budget for the entire site was $12-$19 million. Ms. Lohry commented that she was not being critical of the architectural design but the neighboring properties adjacent to the site have nicely landscaped areas. She discussed a nursing home that was recently built in Oshkosh that she felt was a good example of fine architecture and she did not want this development to look like a garage even if that was its purpose. Mr. Hinz stated that he did not support this location for the central garage and he felt that something had to be done about the yard waste issue with both the looks and odor as it was offensive. Mr. Bowen discussed the time line for the central garage and his concerns with the architectural features and the various opinions of the other Commission members as well. He felt it may need to be discussed at greater detail before a recommendation could be forwarded to the Common Council. Mr. Burich commented that if the Commission was going to vote against the approval of this design concept, then the Plan Commission should make some specific recommendation on the matter to provide guidance to the staff and Council on the matter. Mr. Borsuk stated that he would like to see it come back for further review. Mr. Cummings commented that he would like to see the Plan Commission have time to review it in greater detail and he would support laying over the request. Ms. Propp stated that she doesn’t know enough about architecture to make specific suggestions however she did not like the colors of the panels and felt the north façade looked rather stern. She also would like to see ample screening while keeping the cost factor in mind. Mr. Fojtik commented that it is not the responsibility of the Plan Commission to develop architectural designs. Mr. Bowen stated that if the motion to approve the request fails, he felt a motion should be made to lay the request over. Board members decided that a second motion overrides the original motion if not yet voted upon. Motion by Bowen to lay the request over for the architectural building plan review until the th meeting of August 7. Seconded by Hinz. Mr. Hinz stated that he felt it would be unfair to the Common Council to forward the request on without input from the Plan Commission. Mr. Thoms agreed with laying the request over until the next meeting however he felt that a workshop would be beneficial. He also questioned the intention of additional discussion on the matter and if softening the looks of the structure was the only concern. Mr. Borsuk suggested that the request be laid over for 30 days instead of until the next meeting to give staff sufficient time to respond to some of the concerns raised. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 July 17, 2012 Mr. Burich stated that staff would require guidance on what concerns needed to be addressed and a workshop prior to the next meeting may be better. The Plan Commission could hold a special meeting stth for the workshop on July 31 and the request could be placed back on the August 7 agenda for a recommendation to the Council. th Mr. Fojtik clarified that the motion was to lay over the request until the meeting of August 7 and hold a workshop for discussion on the matter prior to that meeting. st Ms. Lohry stated that she had other conflicts on July 31 and would not be able to attend. Mr. Vajgrt commented that Commission members need to keep in mind that this is an industrial structure and that the building is the only portion of the development that should be reviewed. The discussion on fencing and landscaping was getting off track from the task at hand. st Mr. Fojtik polled Commission members to see if they could attend a special meeting on July 31. Most Commission members responded that they would be able to attend. Motion carried 9-0. II. ZONE CHANGE FROM C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT AND C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1839-1861 OREGON STREET The City is presenting several zone change options from C-2 General Commercial to R-1 Single Family Residence District and a combination of R-1 Single Family Residence District and C-1 Neighborhood Business District. Four rezoning options/scenarios will be presented for the Plan Commission’s consideration. 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 area being considered for the zone change was currently zoned C-2 which in the past allowed residential use. This has changed over the years and the residential uses are currently legal nonconforming. He reviewed photos of the properties in the area being considered for the zone change and also reviewed the four scenarios being offered. He reviewed all the options and explained the differences between them. Staff was recommending either Scenario 3 to rezone the residential homes from C-2 to R-1 and the commercial use to C-1 or Scenario 4 to rezone the entire area to R-1. Mr. Thoms questioned what zoning classification allowed both residential and commercial uses. Mr. Buck responded that it was the C-1 classification. Mr. Thoms then questioned why the business use would still be nonconforming if the zoning designation was changed to C-1. Mr. Buck responded that the use could be brought into conformance with zoning through conditional use permit however it could impact the business by possibly adding conditions to the request. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 July 17, 2012 Mr. Burich added that the use can continue to utilize the site the way it is with just the zone change as it is an existing use. Mr. Thoms inquired what would the down side be of keeping the zoning as it currently exists. Mr. Buck replied that if any of the existing structures were damaged beyond 50% of its assessed value, the reestablishment of the use would be prohibited and redeveloping any property commercially would be impossible due to the parcel’s small size and setback requirements unless multiple parcels were combined. This could potentially take years and the damaged parcel would remain vacant and become a blighting influence to the neighborhood. He also discussed that two of the property owners in the existing residential uses were having difficulty refinancing their homes due to the zoning classification and requested that the city consider a zone change for their properties. Mr. Thoms questioned if changing the zoning to either C-1 or R-1 would be detrimental to any of the property owners. Mr. Buck responded that the main difference was that the one commercial property existing in the area would not be able to be reestablished if the zoning was changed to R-1. If this property is rezoned to C-1, it would provide the ability of the site to be redeveloped strictly neighborhood commercial or residential. Mr. Thoms asked again to clarify that the difference between scenario 3 and 4 was that the C-1 designation for the commercial use would allow the business to continue or be redeveloped. Mr. Buck responded affirmatively. Larry Schmick, 1839 Oregon Street, stated that he was one of the property owners requesting the zone change so he could refinance his home and was present to support the request. Motion by Hinz to approve a zone change from C-2 General Commercial to R-1 Single Family Residence District and C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District for property located at 1839- 1861 Oregon Street (Scenario 3). Seconded by Thoms. Motion carried 9-0. III. REVIEW OF 2011 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER), COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Staff submits the 2011 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER), for the Community Development Block Grant Program for review. The purpose of this review is for informational purposes only. Ms. Leslie presented the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report for the period of May 1, 2011 through April 30, 2012 summarizing accomplishments and detailing how funds received from HUD were expended. Funding is received annually from HUD based on census data and is required to be utilized on programs benefiting low to moderate income objectives such as housing, economic development, public services/facilities, acquisition and demolition, and planning/administration. Available funding for 2011 was $1,847,555 with expenditures totaling $880,814 with a percentage of 72% of current funding expensed to benefit low and moderate income. Ms. Leslie displayed photos of some of the projects these funds were utilized to support such as __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 July 17, 2012 housing rehabilitation projects, homebuyer assistance program, lead abatement grants, rental rehabilitation, and neighborhood initiatives/services. She also summarized the amounts granted to local public service sub recipients and total planning and administration expenditures. Ms. Leslie stated that the full CAPER report has been prepared and will be submitted to HUD, who will perform a comprehensive review of the program activity. A copy of this report is available in the Planning office, library or online for anyone who wishes to review it. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:17 pm. (Vajgrt/Cummings) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 July 17, 2012