Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWeekly Newsletter (4) PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 4, 2014 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: Donna Lohry, Robert Vajgrt STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; 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 presented. (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/certified 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 and surrounding area as well as the land use in said area. He also reviewed the proposed certified survey 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 extraterritorial two-lot land division/certified survey map on property located at 5375 State Road 44 in the Town of Utica. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 8-0. II. TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SINGLE AND TWO-FAMILY STRUCTURES OR HOMES AND ESTABLISHING A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT The City Department of Community Development requests review and approval of two additions to the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance, as follows: A)Creating Section 30-35 (M): Design Standards for Single and Two-Family Structures or Homes; and B)Creating Section 30-23.1(A-J): Traditional Neighborhood Design Overlay. Mr. Buck presented the item and discussed the procedures involved to develop the proposed design standards which began in 2012 and continued throughout 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 1 February 4, 2014 Mr. Burich stated that this ordinance was not developed by just City staff only but through a cooperative effort involving an advisory stakeholder group with a goal to reach consensus on as many items as possible. He further stated that the proposed ordinance is a starting point at this time and provides basic framework to begin with which can, and 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 neighborhood design overlay district which will apply through the adoption of individual overlay districts to yet undetermined areas. He also discussed the focus of the design standards ordinance and what it was meant to address. He discussed the traditional neighborhood design overlay district which contains specific standards based on style of structures and neighborhood character in older areas and would apply to a block face of properties. He reviewed what is addressed with this overlay district and discussed 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 hearing such as clarification of language in some sections of the code. The following six items require 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 recommendation. 2)Should metal doors be an acceptable replacement on a building’s front façade? Mr. Buck stated that staff felt this was a reasonable 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 is 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 required to be painted. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 February 4, 2014 Mr. Buck responded that colors were not addressed in 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 required to match the appearance of the house. Mr. Buck suggested adding language that the door would be required to have a finished coating. Mr. Borsuk felt that this was getting too technical and from an administrative standpoint, difficult to enforce. Mr. Bowen commented that in the traditional overlay district, he felt that the homeowners will make sure that any renovations would be finished correctly and it would be too difficult to regulate too many 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 ordinance language could be adjusted to address issues at a later date if the city finds it is being abused. 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 number 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 amendment as it could potentially hinder the ability to place the overlay district on some areas that may be appropriate and it would be a great departure from normal zoning practices through regular legislative process. Mr. Burich added that ultimately what an area is zoned is a political decision and he had discussed that matter with the City Attorney and the percentage method may conflict with state statutes and the proposed overlay districts could still be initiated by Common Council or staff and what would really be accomplished through this provision. Mr. Borsuk questioned how the city would distinguish between owners and residents in an area. Mr. Buck responded that the property owner on record would possess the only vote that would count. Mr. Bowen stated that he would not support the percentage 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 the street” needs adjustment because in most cases all side facades will be visible. Mr. Buck commented that staff was considering either 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 the __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 February 4, 2014 linear feet method as it would be easier to calculate and does not make it more difficult for homes with more depth. He reviewed examples of both methods and how it would affect the home. Mr. Nollenberger stated that he would prefer the linear 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 from the street” and how this would be used. Mr. Buck explained the effects of any alterations equating to 50 percent cumulative change and what constitutes a major change and to what degree of either 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 difficult as more is visible from the street that interior lots. Ms. Propp felt that 15 feet from the front façade is 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 was to maintain the street presence of the property. Mr. Thoms commented that he felt all of the sides of 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 involve the entire façade and the intention of the proposed ordinance was to preserve the general curb appeal of properties. Mr. Hinz felt that the city needed a starting point for the ordinance and it was a matter of if we should 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 could be a concern with either the linear or percentage method as it would effect what was visible 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 to find ways to protect the facades of homes and do so in a manner that would be administratively enforceable. 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 in the proposed code was exceptions and appeals to the code and if both front and side facades were protected within the ordinance, property owners could bring forward an appeal if they had issues with complying with it. He stated that the entire side elevations should be addressed by the ordinance. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 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 appearance of the home’s façade. Mr. Hinz stated that a corner home would have no sides that are not protected under this adjustment to the ordinance. Mr. Burich commented that those homeowners would still 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 change – “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 clearly designate what would be considered the definition of major change and displayed examples of what would be considered 50% change to the façade. Staff felt that the benchmark of 50% was too 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 change that would impact the home such as changing a light fixture. Mr. Burich responded that the proposed ordinance would apply to building elements only and things such as a light fixture would not be considered a building element. Mr. Buck reviewed the architectural features description of the proposed ordinance and reviewed the items that would qualify as building elements and items such as door knobs, etc. that would not. Mr. Cummings commented on the Jackson Street neighborhood where homes mostly all have porches which are part of the neighborhood style and removal of the porch can change the continuity of the neighborhood. 6)Multiple sections of the ordinance use the word “should” 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 order to be able to actually enforce the ordinance provisions. Should is generally found in guidelines or advisory language. Mr. Buck summarized the Commission’s findings on the 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 support the overlay before application is considered or repealed. 4)The definition and limits on “sides visible from the street” will include the entire side elevation. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 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 amendment to the zoning ordinance establishing design standards for single and two-family structures 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 proposed ordinance and felt it was reasonable. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT 1)Mr. Buck discussed the state and federal historic tax credits available that provide tax credits of 25% for work done to qualifying homes including work such as furnaces, plumbing, etc. The application form must be completed in advance of the 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 advantage 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 information out to the public so it could be better utilized. Mr. Buck responded that they were looking at ways to get the word out other than the methods that are already in place. 2)Mr. Nau discussed expanding the requirements for certified 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 requires a certified survey map for either action. 3)Mr. Burich reported that current legislation has made changes impacting Shoreland Zoning Regulations providing for more flexibility. With the 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 City is considering a change to 50 feet as the requirements currently are very stringent and can negatively impact shoreland properties’ ability to develop the parcel. 4)Mr. Burich discussed the progress on the zoning ordinance 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 and a Steering Committee formed and although it is still a work in progress, it was coming 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 Commission for review when a draft zoning code is completed. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 February 4, 2014 Mr. Borsuk requested that all Plan Commission members 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 planned to be created to develop design guidelines for the riverfront. The Comprehensive Plan 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 but 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 the new zoning ordinance update. Mr. Cummings commented that we have to consider what 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 formatted 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 complex items that were reviewed at the last th Plan Commission meeting were approved by the Common Council at their January 28 meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:12 pm. (Borsuk/Propp) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 February 4, 2014