HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 February 4, 2014 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 4, 2014 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Tho mas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: Donna Lohry, Robert Vajgrt STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Service s; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associates 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 January 21, 2014 were approved as pr esented. (Nollenberger/Cummings) I. EXTRATERRITORIAL TWO-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 5375 STATE ROAD 44 IN THE TOWN OF UTICA This request is for a two-lot land division/certifi ed survey map from one existing parcel containing a total of 18.100 acres. Sizes of the proposed lots are as follows: Lot 1 = 3.601 Acres Lot 2 = 14.499 Acres Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site an d surrounding area as well as the land use in said area. He also reviewed the proposed certified surv ey map and stated that it was consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. There was no discussion on this item. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the extraterritor ial two-lot land division/certified survey map on property located at 5375 State Road 44 in th e Town of Utica. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 8-0. II. TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLIS HING DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SINGLE AND TWO-FAMILY STRUCTURES OR H OMES AND ESTABLISHING A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN OVER LAY DISTRICT The City Department of Community Development reques ts review and approval of two additions to the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance, as follows: A) Creating Section 30-35 (M): Design Standards for Si ngle and Two-Family Structures or Homes; and B) Creating Section 30-23.1(A-J): Traditional Neighbor hood Design Overlay. Mr. Buck presented the item and discussed the proce dures involved to develop the proposed design standards which began in 2012 and continued through out 2013. The draft ordinance was developed after workshops, an open house for public comment, and a public hearing at the last Plan Commission meeting.
__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 February 4, 2014 Mr. Burich stated that this ordinance was not devel oped by just City staff only but through a cooperative effort involving an advisory stakeholde r group with a goal to reach consensus on as many items as possible. He further stated that the prop osed ordinance is a starting point at this time and provides basic framework to begin with which can, a nd likely will, be adjusted as the process is implemented. Mr. Buck reviewed the two sets of design standards for the single and two-family structures or homes which will be city-wide and the traditional neighbo rhood design overlay district which will apply through the adoption of individual overlay district s to yet undetermined areas. He also discussed the focus of the design standards ordinance and what it was meant to address. He discussed the traditiona l neighborhood design overlay district which contains specific standards based on style of structures an d neighborhood character in older areas and would app ly to a block face of properties. He reviewed what is addressed with this overlay district and di scussed some items that need to be changed or addressed by the Plan Commission prior to the final draft ordinance being completed. He also reviewed changes made by staff since the public hea ring such as clarification of language in some sections of the code. The following six items requ ire direction from the Plan Commission to determine how the ordinance should be adjusted: 1) Should porch enclosure language be included in the universal/city-wide design standards? Mr. Buck stated that staff was not recommending to include this language in this ordinance section and to include it in the overlay district section only. Ms. Propp and Mr. Nollenberger agreed with this rec ommendation. 2) Should metal doors be an acceptable replacement on a building’s front façade? Mr. Buck stated that staff felt this was a reasonab le amendment as metal doors can be made to look like real wood. Mr. Thoms stated that metal doors are used for both safety and insulation issues and he felt language could be added to allow metal doors as long as they stay within the character of the home. Mr. Buck responded that the current draft includes that metal doors are acceptable on only the rear or side facades. Mr. Thoms felt that the language could be adjusted to allow metal doors on the front façade if they consisted of an acceptable appearance. Ms. Propp commented that the front door of a home i s the most important feature of the structure and was concerned if it would be the right thing to do to allow metal doors. Mr. Borsuk stated that slab doors are all the same and we are looking to improve appearance in which case as long as the door is still appropriate, the material it is comprised of should not matter. Mr. Cummings commented that as long as it fits the style of the home, the material is not as relevant. Mr. Thoms questioned if non-wood doors would be req uired to be painted.
__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 February 4, 2014 Mr. Buck responded that colors were not addressed i n the proposed ordinance just what will be seen from the public right-of-way. Mr. Fojtik questioned if the draft ordinance could be altered to state that the doors would be require d to match the appearance of the house. Mr. Buck suggested adding language that the door wo uld be required to have a finished coating. Mr. Borsuk felt that this was getting too technical and from an administrative standpoint, difficult t o enforce. Mr. Bowen commented that in the traditional overlay district, he felt that the homeowners will make sure that any renovations would be finished correct ly and it would be too difficult to regulate too ma ny small items. Mr. Hinz stated that we have already heard comments from landlords regarding this ordinance and he felt they would look for loopholes in it but the or dinance language could be adjusted to address issue s at a later date if the city finds it is being abuse d. Mr. Burich agreed and stated that a good foundation is most important and minor details can be addressed in the future if necessary. 3) Should there be a requirement that a specific numbe r of property owners (suggested 75%) be in support of the overlay before application can be considered or to start the process to repeal? Mr. Buck stated that staff does not support this am endment as it could potentially hinder the ability to place the overlay district on some areas that may b e appropriate and it would be a great departure fro m normal zoning practices through regular legislative process. Mr. Burich added that ultimately what an area is zo ned is a political decision and he had discussed th at matter with the City Attorney and the percentage me thod may conflict with state statutes and the proposed overlay districts could still be initiated by Common Council or staff and what would really b e accomplished through this provision. Mr. Borsuk questioned how the city would distinguis h between owners and residents in an area. Mr. Buck responded that the property owner on recor d would possess the only vote that would count. Mr. Bowen stated that he would not support the perc entage method. Mr. Nollenberger, Ms. Propp, and Mr. Borsuk agreed as they felt it would take all the ability of the intention of the overlay district out of the code. 4) The definition and limits on “sides visible from th e street” needs adjustment because in most cases all side facades will be visible. Mr. Buck commented that staff was considering eithe r a method using linear feet of the side façade extending from the front façade or a percentage of depth of the house. Staff’s preference would be th e
__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 February 4, 2014 linear feet method as it would be easier to calcula te and does not make it more difficult for homes wi th more depth. He reviewed examples of both methods a nd how it would affect the home. Mr. Nollenberger stated that he would prefer the li near feet method over the percentage method but 15% seemed a little short. He felt 20-25% would be more adequate if this was the method decided upon. Mr. Thoms questioned the definition of “visible fro m the street” and how this would be used. Mr. Buck explained the effects of any alterations e quating to 50 percent cumulative change and what constitutes a major change and to what degree of ei ther side elevations should count as being considered “visible from the street” or would only the front façade be considered. Mr. Thoms commented that if an owner would have the ability to change whatever they desired after the first 15 feet, more than that could be visible from the street. Mr. Hinz stated that corner lots would be more diff icult as more is visible from the street that inter ior lots. Ms. Propp felt that 15 feet from the front façade i s not enough as why would the city want homeowners to have the ability to do inappropriate renovations to the back third of the home. Mr. Buck indicated that the goal of the ordinance w as to maintain the street presence of the property. Mr. Thoms commented that he felt all of the sides o f the home should be included as visible from the street and that the ordinance should not be limited to a portion of the side elevation. Mr. Burich stated that this alteration would involv e the entire façade and the intention of the propos ed ordinance was to preserve the general curb appeal o f properties. Mr. Hinz felt that the city needed a starting point for the ordinance and it was a matter of if we sho uld start out small or heavier handed. Either way, the ordinance could be adjusted to address concerns at a later date. Mr. Cummings commented that the width of the lot co uld be a concern with either the linear or percentage method as it would effect what was visib le from the street and he felt that both sides and the front should be treated the same. Mr. Burich indicated that the city was attempting t o find ways to protect the facades of homes and do so in a manner that would be administratively enfor ceable. Mr. Borsuk stated that some of these details we may not have another chance to alter and he was comfortable with applying the 25 linear feet method . Mr. Bowen felt that the easiest thing to regulate i n the proposed code was exceptions and appeals to the code and if both front and side facades were pr otected within the ordinance, property owners could bring forward an appeal if they had issues with com plying with it. He stated that the entire side elevations should be addressed by the ordinance.
__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 February 4, 2014 Mr. Thoms commented that the intent of the proposed ordinance was to preserve the heritage of older homes and the appeals could be addressed. He felt we could stay within what the ordinance was supposed to address which is to protect the appeara nce of the home’s façade. Mr. Hinz stated that a corner home would have no si des that are not protected under this adjustment to the ordinance. Mr. Burich commented that those homeowners would st ill have the appeals process and some things such as a wrap around deck in the rear yard may be affected by this alteration. 5) Discuss refining/changing the definition of major c hange – “50% change to façade. Concern has been expressed whether the limit is too high in that it would destroy the façade incrementally without reaching the 50% limit. Mr. Buck stated that staff was attempting to more c learly designate what would be considered the definition of major change and displayed examples o f what would be considered 50% change to the façade. Staff felt that the benchmark of 50% was t oo great and was recommending amending the ordinance to simply be “change” only and remove the percentage issue from it. Ms. Propp commented that she felt the diagram says it all and suggested the Commission recommend proceeding with the “change” only reference and not applying a percentage in the ordinance. Mr. Thoms questioned if this would constitute any c hange that would impact the home such as changing a light fixture. Mr. Burich responded that the proposed ordinance wo uld apply to building elements only and things such as a light fixture would not be considered a b uilding element. Mr. Buck reviewed the architectural features descri ption of the proposed ordinance and reviewed the items that would qualify as building elements and i tems such as door knobs, etc. that would not. Mr. Cummings commented on the Jackson Street neighb orhood where homes mostly all have porches which are part of the neighborhood style and remova l of the porch can change the continuity of the neighborhood. 6) Multiple sections of the ordinance use the word “sh ould” instead of “shall”. Mr. Burich informed the Plan Commission that staff was going to change applicable wording in the proposed ordinances from “should” to “shall” in ord er to be able to actually enforce the ordinance provisions. Should is generally found in guideline s or advisory language. Mr. Buck summarized the Commission’s findings on th e six items that required additional direction as follows: 1) Porch enclosure language should not be included in the Universal/City-Wide Standards. 2) Metal doors would be an acceptable replacement on a buildings front façade. 3) A percentage of property owners would not need to s upport the overlay before application is considered or repealed. 4) The definition and limits on “sides visible from th e street” will include the entire side elevation.
__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 February 4, 2014 5) The definition of major change was determined to be any change and not have a percentage applied to it. 6) The word “should” in the ordinance will be changed to “shall” in all areas. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the text amendmen t to the zoning ordinance establishing design standards for single and two-family structur es or homes and establishing a traditional neighborhood design overlay district. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8-0. Ms. Propp commented that she was proud of the propo sed ordinance and felt it was reasonable. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT 1) Mr. Buck discussed the state and federal historic t ax credits available that provide tax credits of 25% for work done to qualifying homes including wor k such as furnaces, plumbing, etc. The application form must be completed in advance of th e work being performed and most people do not take advantage of these credits. He stated that the Planning Services office will assist homeowners with this process if they are interested . He also discussed that commercial properties with qualified repairs could take advant age of tax credits of up to 40% however income-producing properties are more work to submit . The tax credits are imposed on a five year increment. Mr. Thoms questioned if staff was getting this info rmation out to the public so it could be better utilized. Mr. Buck responded that they were looking at ways t o get the word out other than the methods that are already in place. 2) Mr. Nau discussed expanding the requirements for ce rtified survey maps as the current practice for combining lots and quick claim deeds are just a nominal fee and the completion of a form which can be problematic and that the County requir es a certified survey map for either action. 3) Mr. Burich reported that current legislation has ma de changes impacting Shoreland Zoning Regulations providing for more flexibility. With t he state changes, some of the County requirements that the City has to enforce could be changed at the City’s municipal level such as the County’s 75 foot setback from waterways. The C ity is considering a change to 50 feet as the requirements currently are very stringent and c an negatively impact shoreland properties’ ability to develop the parcel. 4) Mr. Burich discussed the progress on the zoning ord inance update that has been contracted out to Vandewalle & Associates who has been working on revamping the current zoning ordinance code. Interviews and open houses have been held an d a Steering Committee formed and although it is still a work in progress, it was com ing to a decision path in the near future. The Steering Committee will be meeting in the next few months to discuss the matter. Ms. Propp questioned when the Plan Commission would weigh in on the topic. Mr. Buck responded that it would come before Plan C ommission for review when a draft zoning code is completed.
__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 February 4, 2014 Mr. Borsuk requested that all Plan Commission membe rs be invited to the Steering Committee meeting. Mr. Thoms commented that mapping should not be done until the zoning ordinance has been adopted. Mr. Buck responded that mapping would follow after the zoning code update has been completed. 5) Mr. Burich reported that an adhoc committee was pla nned to be created to develop design guidelines for the riverfront. The Comprehensive P lan and Marion Road guidelines were to be considered in this process. Mr. Thoms commented that he thought there were more than design standards to be considered. Mr. Burich responded that marketing was discussed b ut this process is not part of the Planning Services office responsibility and that going into it, we first need to develop design guidelines for the area. Mr. Borsuk stated that this could be included in th e new zoning ordinance update. Mr. Cummings commented that we have to consider wha t the riverfront should look like in the coming years and have a plan to achieve this rather than just develop the area in piecemeal. Marketing the site can be done once designs are for matted and decisions made on what is desired. Mr. Burich stated that a vision for the riverfront can be adopted when design guidelines are finalized. 6) Mr. Buck reported that the veteran’s apartment comp lex items that were reviewed at the last Plan Commission meeting were approved by the Common Council at their January 28 th meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjour ned at approximately 5:12 pm. (Borsuk/Propp) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services