Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES December 18, 2012 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Robert Vajgrt EXCUSED: Ed Bowen, Donna Lohry, Karl Nollenberger STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Steve Gohde, Assistant 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 December 4, 2012 were approved as presented. (Vajgrt/Cummings) I. TWO-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 1726 DOTY STREET The petitioner is requesting approval of a land division/Certified Survey Map containing two lots. Lot 1 is proposed to be 9,293 square feet (0.2133 acres) and Lot 2 is proposed to be 9,111 square feet (0.2092 acres), both of which exceed the minimum lot size standard of 7,200 square feet. 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 stated that one concern is South Main Street is US Highway 45 and an arterial street which requires a new driveway opening maintains a 150 foot separation from other driveways per the Access Control Variance regulations. Therefore a new driveway on Lot 2 would have to be placed to the north on the lot to be adjacent to the driveway on the developed lot to the north. A third condition would be required to be added to the request to address this issue. He discussed storm management in this area and commented that a grading and drainage plan must be submitted prior to development of this new lot and an easement was also being requested for the existing storm drain located on proposed Lot 2. He reviewed the conditions recommended for this request with an additional condition to be added that prior to development the owner have an access control variance for construction of a driveway approach. Ms. Propp arrived at 4:04 pm. Mr. Thoms questioned if it is intended that Lot 1 and 2 will have the same boundary line as the developed lots to the north and if there would be adequate setback for the garage. Mr. Nau responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms then questioned if the condition regarding the storm sewer easement needed to address the size of the requested easement. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, responded that a size could be added or it could just be left open ended by stating that adequate area was necessary for the easement. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 December 18, 2012 Mr. Thoms suggested that “as approved by the Department of Public Works” could be added to condition #2. Mr. Hinz stated that the open area in proposed Lot 2 tended to gather a lot of water from the area and inquired how the development of this area was going to affect other properties in the vicinity. Mr. Gohde indicated that the area appears to be low however he would need to review a building footprint for development to adequately assess the affects on adjacent properties. Mr. Hinz commented that the flooding in yards in this area is bad after heavy rainfall events. Mr. Borsuk arrived at 4:10 pm. Bill Frueh, representing Gordon Kargus the property owner, discussed the history of the parcel in great detail beginning in the 1800’s when it was originally platted and was graded to drain into the Lake Winnebago. This was followed by the construction of the railroad through this area which included development of drainage areas for water to still reach the lake. In the 1930’s, Main Street was extended and drainage areas were extended to the lake again to continue to drain these lots th appropriately. He also discussed the proposed extension of 20 Avenue from Oregon Street to Main Street which never transpired and the widening of Main Street to four lanes which required an easement be obtained along the west side of Main Street and at least four storm drains were installed along this easement. The owner wishes to divide the lots the same as the lots adjacent to the north and he claimed the status of the yard drain on proposed Lot 2 is privately owned by the property owner. He further discussed privately owned drainage systems in the city and stated that common law rules in this case. A property owner cannot block or divert water to other people’s property and the notes on the certified survey map address this issue adequately. Requiring a storm sewer easement in the conditions is at the expense of the property owner as he is not being paid for the easement by the City. He further stated that the owner has no plans to develop the lot at this time and the easement can be moved but not without considerable work and the owner should have the flexibility to develop the property in the future. He felt that condition #2 relating to this easement should be removed from the request as common law principals and the notes on the CSM should address any concerns and at such a time that the lot would be developed, the easement could be addressed then. Ms. Propp commented that the owner is claiming that the drain is private however Public Works wants the easement to be granted and the property owner could move the drain if desired. Mr. Borsuk stated that when we were looking at city street reconstruction, attachment at the property line for storm water purposes was required. He questioned why this situation would be different. Mr. Gohde responded that those situations were different as they serve individual parcels where this drain serves the entire area similar to the easement requests at the previous meeting to address drainage issues in the neighborhood in the vicinity of Fox Tail Lane. Mr. Thoms inquired if a private drain is not maintained properly by the property owner, how is this enforced by the city. Mr. Gohde replied that it is very difficult and that is why the City prefers to have the easement granted as it gives the City control over the drain and its maintenance as there is little control over the situation when it is left to a private property owner. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 December 18, 2012 Mr. Thoms questioned who would be responsible to pay for an increase in the size of the drain if it is deemed inadequate. Mr. Gohde indicated that the parcels should be exempt from any storm water management requirements as the parcels are too small to trigger any regulations and further explained design standards of private drainage systems and issues with connections to the main system of the city. Mr. Thoms inquired how these types of situations have been dealt with in the past. Mr. Burich responded that he did not recall any situations similar to this one in particular in the past. Mr. Gohde added that with new developments, the City takes areas for easements for drainage and we do not run into too many situations like this one in an older already developed neighborhood. Mr. Borsuk commented that the lots to the south have the potential to be split in half in the same fashion as this proposal. Mr. Gohde stated that the entire area drain to the east and removal of the existing drains on Main Street with further development in this area could have a significant impact on the west side of Doty Street. Mr. Hinz questioned if the notes on the CSM are legally binding. Mr. Gohde indicated that with Lot 2, the issue is how does the City monitor the situation and going back to review it is difficult if drainage patterns are changed by private property owners that may create drainage concerns. The City needs to make sure the neighborhood drainage pattern is maintained and there is nothing on the CSM about the drain being privately owned. Mr. Hinz inquired if the City was going to be looking at other private drains in this area. Mr. Gohde responded that if the drain handles more than a private property owner’s water runoff, the City would like to have it under the City’s control. Mr. Thoms commented that since there are several of these private drains in this area, it seems that this would be a disadvantage to other property owners that the City is only taking control of this drain as far as maintenance. Mr. Gohde replied that these regulations would be consistently applied if property owners were doing a land division such as this one. He referred to the storm water ordinance for storm water detention requirements and further explained the regulations that a property owner cannot discharge their runoff to other people’s property or the right-of-way. Ms. Propp questioned that the City wants the easement granted but does not intend to pay the property owner for it. Mr. Gohde explained that any subdivision plats or CSM’s are reviewed and the necessary easements are granted at that time at no cost to the City. Ms. Propp also wished to confirm that if any maintenance was needed to be done, it would not happen at this time if no development was eminent and if the property owner could withdraw the request if they were not in agreement with the condition requiring the easement. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 December 18, 2012 Mr. Gohde indicated that no maintenance to the drain would be performed at this time if the proposed Lot 2 was not being developed and ordinance regulations apply to new developments in the city. Mr. Burich added that the request could be withdrawn, or the owner could go before the Board of Appeals to request a variance or take the issue through the court system and the issue was under prevue due to the proposed land division. Mr. Hinz questioned what ground the Plan Commission would have to remove condition #2 from this request. Mr. Burich responded that the conditions recommended for this request are recommendations by staff and the Plan Commission can accept, modify, or remove conditions at their discretion. Mr. Thoms stated that if we can put conditions on the land division, can we put something on it that the property owner has to maintain the drain on the site. Mr. Burich indicated that it is on the CSM in the notes but the easement gives the City the ability to deal with it without going through several court procedures and delays when addressing issues. Mr. Borsuk stated that he would support the request with conditions as he felt it was good planning and also supported the additional condition for the access control variance discussed and the approval of the Department of Public Works added to condition #2 relating to the easement. Motion by Borsuk to approve the two-lot land division/certified survey map at 1726 Doty Street with the following conditions: 1.A variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow a driveway opening within the required side yard setback shall be granted prior to development. 2.A storm sewer easement be granted to the City for the existing storm drain located on proposed Lot 2 with the approval of the Department of Public Works. 3.Approval of an access control variance prior to development for construction of a driveway with 150 foot separation. Seconded by Vajgrt. Mr. Hinz questioned if condition #2 should be altered to include upon the sale or development of the property, the drain can be moved. Mr. Buck indicated that that option was always open and was not necessary to be included in the conditions. Mr. Thoms commented that we need to look at it with a holistic approach as we need to do a better job of controlling the water in the city. Ms. Propp stated that the drain serves several properties in the area and is a public issue. Motion carried 7-0. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 December 18, 2012 II. EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLACEMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT ON THE ROOFTOP OF MAINVIEW APARTMENTS AT 522-530 NORTH MAIN STREET The Oshkosh Housing Authority is requesting a six month extension to a previously issued Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that allowed placement of new telecommunication/cellular antennae on the rooftop of the building known as Mainview Apartments (formerly the Raulf Hotel) at 530 North Main Street. Mr. Buck presented the item and stated that in 2011, a request was approved for three additional antennae to be added to the rooftop with the condition that a stealth plan be provided by December of 2012 for all the antennae on said rooftop. He explained the progress to date and that the plan was taking longer than expected to develop and the owner was requesting a six month extension to complete the project. The owner submitted three options for stealthing the antennae which Mr. Buck reviewed as well as examples both on Mainview Apartments and other structures. He stated that by not allowing the requested extension, the three additional antennae would have to be removed at this time. Mr. Borsuk questioned if the owner ever submitted an inventory of all the antennae that are located on the roof as requested. Mr. Buck responded affirmatively. Mr. Borsuk also questioned if this plan addresses all the antennae on the roof. Mr. Buck indicated that it did not include the whip antennae. Jim Weinmann from Wireless Planning, LLC, stated he was present as the liaison for all the carriers with equipment located on the rooftop and several of the whip antennae are not in use and could be removed however some still need to be addressed as yet. He further stated that he was working with these companies to address the issue. Mr. Thoms inquired if he had identified all the antennae and the number of them that could be removed. Mr. Weinmann responded that he has accounted for all the carriers’ antennae and there were just two whip antennae left that they do not have incorporated into the plans. Mr. Thoms then inquired if these stealth plans were something that could be used in other areas as well as at Mainview Apartments. Mr. Cummings left at 5:16 pm. Mr. Weinmann described several options available for stealthing antennae that would be viable at other sites. Mr. Hinz questioned if Option #1 with the signs would make at easier to hide the whip antennae. Mr. Weinmann responded that the issue is the penthouse blocks the signal at some points and the logistics are what has to be dealt with. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 December 18, 2012 Mr. Borsuk questioned if the wrap around features displayed in one of the options could be painted on as far as false features such as windows. Mr. Weinmann replied that this option was mainly used to match the buildings and he would have to look into the possibility of painting features on them. The facades and covers could deal with all the antennae present and the sign is at the desire of the owner of the Housing Authority. Mr. Borsuk inquired what the State of Wisconsin Historic Preservation Office’s desire was as far as the options presented. Dan Meissner, architect for the renovation project, stated that he has been involved with the designs and the historic signs that the owner desires used to be in place many years ago when it was still a hotel. The Housing Authority wants to keep the antennae low profile as possible as they are in the process of a grant application for funding for the renovations and they do not want to jeopardize the grant. Mr. Borsuk felt the Plan Commission should not make a decision on this request without the owner present. Mr. Meissner replied that Brad Masterson, Executive Director of the Housing Authority, could not be present today as he had a meeting in Madison regarding their grant application. Mr. Buck stated that the owner was requesting an extension at this time and a decision on the options did not need to be determined today. Mr. Weinmann commented that it would be nice to have the extension granted now and they would like to get on a future agenda for input on the various options presented. Mr. Thoms suggested that the extension be granted and the Plan Commission could hold a workshop at a later date to further discuss the options. Mr. Meissner stated that a workshop would be a great idea. Motion by Propp to approve the extension of a conditional use permit for placement of telecommunication equipment on the rooftop of Mainview Apartments at 522-530 N. Main Street with the following condition: 1)Plans and building permits for the roof rehabilitation and equipment concealment are provided no later than July of 2013 or the Conditional Use Permit be considered null and void and the three antennae included within CUP Resolution 11-543 are removed. Seconded by Hinz. Motion carried 6-0. III: ZONE CHANGE FROM R-4 MULTIPLE DWELLING DISTRICT TO R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 205 WEST LINWOOD AVENUE The applicant is requesting a zone change from the R-4 Multiple Dwelling District to R-1 Single Family Residence District with Planned Development Overlay to match the Oaklawn School property to the south and east to provide the ability to incorporate the parcel with the school redevelopment. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 December 18, 2012 Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and land use and zoning classifications in said area. He explained that the Oshkosh Area School District acquired the parcel adjacent to their school site and the zone change would give the property the same zoning classification as the school’s existing site. The zone change would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. There was no discussion on this item. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the zone change from R-4 Multiple Dwelling District to R-1 Single Family Residence District with Planned Development Overlay for property located at 205 W. Linwood Avenue. Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:32 pm. (Vajgrt/Propp) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 December 18, 2012