Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWeekly Newsletter (3) PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES January 21, 2014 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Donna Lohry, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: Jeffrey Thoms, 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 December 17, 2013 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Cummings) I. DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CREATION OF A MULTIPLE FAMILY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2490 JACKSON STREET This request is for an approval of a development plan for a 54-unit multiple family apartment building, accessory garage structures, surface parking facility, playground, outdoor recreational area, and storm water management facility. 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 discussed the proposed land use amendment and zone change presented at the last meeting which the Commission recommended for approval. He reviewed the site plan for the development and discussed the various features and amenities to be included with this project. He also reviewed the access to the site, the parking and pedestrian walks, and the proposed signage for the development. He further stated that the project would require base standard modifications for the signage and the density of units. He also reviewed the proposed landscaping plan as well as the detention basin, building elevations and features, and renderings of previously developed apartment complexes in other communities. He concluded with reviewing the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Borsuk questioned if at least the first floor of the structure would be constructed with brick. Mr. Buck responded that the first floor as well as the interior columns and sides of the structure would be brick. Mr. Borsuk voiced his concern with the transitional yards and questioned who will be responsible for setbacks and additional landscaping when adjacent properties are redeveloped. Mr. Buck responded that required landscaping and transitional yard setbacks were unknown at this time as it would depend on the proposed use when the adjacent properties are redeveloped. Mr. Bowen commented that he thought the City owns the property to the south of the development with plans for storm water detention use. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 January 21, 2014 Mr. Burich stated that he did not want to impose additional requirements on this development without knowing what would be developed on the adjacent sites and felt we should wait and see what uses may be proposed in the future for adjacent properties. Mr. Bowen questioned if there was adequate room for the installation of sidewalks on Jackson Street in the future and if there was anything from a mechanical standpoint that would be an issue. Mr. Buck replied that this area was not under a singular municipal entity as far as the parcels as part of them are in the City and the other properties are still part of the Town of Oshkosh. Kyle Peterson, representing Herman & Kittle Properties, 112 E. North Avenue, Lake Bluff, Illinois, stated that he made a formal presentation at the last meeting regarding the development and passed around samples of the materials to be used on the structure. Mr. Hinz inquired if the renderings presented of other developments were the same color scheme that would be utilized on this project. Mr. Peterson responded that this development would be similar but not exactly the same. He further discussed the guarantee on some of the materials to be utilized. Mr. Cummings questioned if the materials had a 25 or 50 year guarantee on them, what happens when that time period has expired. Mr. Peterson indicated that the warranty expires on the materials which only means that at that point the colors may start to fade however repairs would be made as needed so the development would still be properly maintained. Ms. Lohry arrived at 4:15 pm. Mr. Borsuk commented that he felt this was spot zoning of the property and could cause additional requirements on adjacent property owners if they redeveloped their land in the future and therefore additional landscaping features should be applied to this development to address this concern. He also stated that he was not present at the last meeting but was not in support of this request as he wanted to see a long term plan for the Jackson Street corridor prior to approving any developments in this area. He did not support the proposed land use amendment and stated that timing was an issue with this development due to their tax credit submission however he did not feel that the Commission should take this issue into consideration. Mr. Cummings questioned if this property used to be a nursery in the past. Mr. Burich responded that parcel was located further to the south of this site. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the development plan for the creation of a multiple family apartment development on property located at 2490 Jackson Street with the following conditions: 1)Base standard modification to allow density of 15.6 units per acre. 2)Curbing is installed along all parking facility areas. 3)Base standard modification to allow a monument sign for development identification no taller than ten feet or greater than 100 square feet (50 square feet per side) of sign area designed to __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 January 21, 2014 match the aesthetics and materials of the building with landscaping at its base, as approved by the Department of Community Development. 4)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. Seconded by Propp. Ms. Propp stated that she was pleased with the proposed development and did not consider this to be spot zoning as there was already a mixture of various uses in this area. Mr. Hinz commented that he liked the placement of the green space facing Jackson Street rather than the building being located closer to the roadway with the detention area behind it. Ms. Lohry agreed with Mr. Hinz. Motion carried 7-1. (Ayes-Bowen/Fojtik/Hinz/Cummings/Propp/Lohry/Nollenberger. Nays- Borsuk) II. PUBLIC HEARING – PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Mr. Fojtik opened the public hearing at 4:25 pm. Mr. Burich commented that this was a public hearing to receive comments on the proposed residential design standards and that no action would be taken on it at this time. Ms. Propp inquired if it would be coming back to Plan Commission for a vote at the next meeting. Mr. Burich responded that this was the intention and that Mr. Buck would be reviewing an outline of the proposed standards. Mr. Buck gave a brief synopsis of the proposed changes of the design standards and stated that a workshop was held on the subject in December and an open house was held last week to present the proposal to the public. The proposal was scheduled to be presented for a recommendation from the th Plan Commission at the meeting on February 4. He briefly reviewed the proposed City-Wide Design Standards in regard to existing principal structures, additions and major changes to existing principal structures, and infill construction projects. He also reviewed the Overlay/Model Code Design Standards which could be applied as a Traditional Neighborhood Overlay or a Planned Development Overlay with the standards also applying to existing structures, additions, and infill projects but with a more stringent set of standards. He further reviewed some of the details of the proposed standards. Jennifer Sunstrom, representing the Realtors Association of Northeast Wisconsin, stated that she felt these proposed design standards made some important improvements however they felt that the application process should require 75% of affected homeowners within a Traditional Neighborhood Overlay district to sign on to the application before it is accepted by the City. She felt it would assist the process if neighbors could organize and inform each other and could bring neighborhoods together during this process. They would also like to see the ordinance create a process by which the Traditional Neighborhood Overlay district would be repealed if 75% of the property owners no longer wished to have the overlay apply to them. She further stated that there was a low percentage of owner occupied homes in some neighborhoods in our community. She also had concerns with some of the language in the ordinance under “applicability” as she felt it was confusing as to what level of changes __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 January 21, 2014 to the exterior of a home in a Traditional Neighborhood Overlay district would trigger a project large enough to require conformance with the new design standards. She felt that language should be clarified on this aspect so it is clear to the public. She commented that she appreciates the efforts of City staff on this matter and was interested to see how an application will move through the process once the details have been addressed. Deb Lederhaus, Winnebago Home Builders Association, also commented about the language clarification issue as she felt it was not understandable enough. th Aaron Steele, representing the Brick Industry, 414 S. 17 Street, Ames, Iowa, stated that he was present as his company sells brick and sales are better in communities with higher building standards. He further stated that these ordinances can be difficult when it comes to working out the details and wanted to offer assistance to property owners as they have both engineers and planners on their staff that could help. Paul Schmidt, 1280 W. South Park Avenue as well as another residence on Bayshore Drive, stated that he was a realtor in the community and that the Realtors Association appreciates the time that has gone into this project and he also felt that the clarity of the language in the ordinance is important. He further stated that in addition to the plan needing to be clear, the owner occupied and landlord status and the voting rights associated with these two categories needed clarification as well. He discussed that funding has been set aside for assistance to low income families however he had concerns with what happens when there is no funding available and safety hazard issues arise and what would be proposed at that point. Gary Gray, 815 W. Linwood Avenue, commented about the percentage of homeowner’s opinions counting toward applying an overlay to their neighborhood as he felt that homeowners are more conscientious about maintaining their property than landlords. The public hearing was closed at 4:45 pm. Discussion ensued on the mechanism for the percentage of homeowners that would be able to constitute a change to a Traditional Neighborhood Overlay in their area. It was also discussed if a percentage was set, if it would have to meet that percentage precisely or if it would be considered if it was close to the designated percentage. Mr. Burich stated that the percentage would have to be adhered to and not just close to it. It was also determined that it would be a change to City policy as other items such as zone changes do not require a percentage of citizens living in that area to approve however the Council considers citizens opinions at the time of the request. Mr. Burich explained this process in more detail and stated that staff was researching the legality of the percentage method process for the neighborhood overlay. Mr. Borsuk questioned whether the new design standards would be triggered starting with the first window or first door. Mr. Buck responded that the standards would apply to any changes made to the structure. Ms. Propp commented that she felt that the 50% cumulative change to a structure seems too high of a trigger and that the traditional standards are fairly simple. She wants to see the standards utilized if a neighborhood chooses to do so and she does not want to see inappropriate modifications completed. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 January 21, 2014 Mr. Hinz questioned if this proposed ordinance would be revisited again and if this was just a starting point for it. Mr. Burich responded that it was a learning process and the 50% cumulative façade change was a number staff thought we could work with. The City would like to move forward and adopt some type of ordinance and that once adopted it can be re-evaluated again in the future for fine-tuning. Mr. Cummings felt that the 75% threshold of support from neighbors is designed for failure as some neighborhoods are too saturated with rental properties and questioned if the landlords who do not reside in these neighborhoods will count towards voting for or against the overlay district. Mr. Burich indicated that staff was still researching this change to City policy and the legalities of it. Ms. Propp stated that she did not support a percentage of the neighborhood signing off on the design overlay as both the Plan Commission and Common Council will be reviewing the applications and she recommended that a percentage not be applied in the ordinance. Mr. Bowen commented that this was the first time he has heard of the percentage method discussed and inquired if staff would have an answer on the legality of it by the next meeting. Mr. Buck responded that it will be investigated and a supplement will be included with the staff report for this request. Mr. Nollenberger stated that the rental properties in his neighborhood are about 60% of the homes and he did not feel that the percentage method should be considered for this proposal. Ms. Lohry agreed and stated that citizens who live on the block should have a vote on the overlay district however rental properties that are not owner occupied should not have a say in the matter. Mr. Burich reiterated the zone change process and stated that although there is not a vote by the neighbors in this process; the Common Council usually does not support a zone change when the vast majority of residents oppose the action. Mr. Fojtik commented that if the process is completed properly, there is no need for a percentage of the neighborhood to approve it. Mr. Cummings complimented staff on their efforts and stated that homeowners like the direction this is taking and want to see their investment in their properties protected. Mr. Hinz commented that City staff is learning a lot in this process and staff does listen to residents of the community. He further commented that that the previous Near East Neighborhood plan was not successful but any plan has some issues. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:00 pm. (Bowen/Borsuk) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 January 21, 2014