Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 July 15, 2014 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES July 15, 2014 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Gary Gray, Donna Lohry, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: John Hinz, Robert Vajgrt STAFF: David Buck, Principal Planner; Elizabeth Williams, Assistant Planner; Benjamin Krumenauer, Assistant Planner; Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; Darlene Brandt, Grants Coordinator; 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 1, 2014 were approved as presented. (Nollenberger/Cummings) I. GRANT PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT AT 201 CEAPE AVENUE (RIVERSIDE PARK) Wisconsin Public Service is requesting a private utility easement located at Riverside Park and adjacent parking lot (101 Ceape Avenue and 201 Ceape Avenue). Mr. Krumenauer presented the item and reviewed the site plan and surrounding area. He explained that the easement was to accommodate electrical utilities and staff had reviewed the request and had no concerns with this issue. Mr. Thoms questioned why there were no stipulations on this request such as its removal if no longer required. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, responded that these stipulations are included in the easement document that is signed and recorded and that those conditions are not part of the approval process at the Plan Commission. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the granting of a private utility easement at 201 Ceape Avenue (Riverside Park). Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 8-0. II. GRANT PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT FOR BOATWORKS RIVERWALK PROJECT The City of Oshkosh – Redevelopment Authority is requesting a private utility easement for an AT&T communication line located 281 feet west of the northwest corner of W. 4th Avenue and Michigan Street. Mr. Krumenauer presented the item, reviewed the site plan, and stated that this was a relocation of an existing easement to enable the construction of the Riverwalk on the south shore of the Fox River. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 July 15, 2014 Mr. Borsuk inquired if the abandonment of the existing easement would be included as part of the easement documentation. Mr. Krumenauer responded affirmatively. Mr. Gray questioned why this easement was different in size than the last one presented. Mr. Krumenauer replied that the width of the easement is based on the size of the utility going in it as it has to accommodate the necessary area to install and maintain it. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the granting of a private utility easement for Boatworks Riverwalk project. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8-0. III. GRANT PRIVILEGE IN THE STREET AT 215 N. WESTFIELD STREET Gabriel’s Villa, Inc. requests a privilege in the street permit to install underground fiber utilities across the 200 block of North Westfield Street to connect three buildings to the existing fiber network located on the Lutheran Homes of Oshkosh Campus. The purpose of the request is to provide the infrastructure necessary to upgrade the campus’ phone and computer systems. Ms. Williams presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and the location of the privilege in street request. She described the layout of the Lutheran Homes of Oshkosh Campus and the necessity for the request and stated that the ten conditions recommended for this item were the standard conditions for all privilege in street requests. Mr. Thoms questioned why this item has the conditions on it and the first two requests for easements did not. Mr. Buck responded that it was due to the fact that a privilege in street is requiring work in the public right-of-way rather than property. Mr. Gohde added that a privilege in street request is not done with a recorded document as with granting an easement and that a privilege in street requires conditions to protect the City and an encroachment agreement is drafted. He further explained the difference between granting easements and privilege in street requests. Mr. Bowen arrived at 4:10 pm. Mr. Thoms then questioned if these stipulations recommended as conditions on the request are as enforceable as a legal document. Mr. Gohde indicated that from the City’s standpoint, a privilege in street is much more in the City’s favor as the City can request that the privilege in street to be relocated at any time whereas the granting of an easement gives that party the right to the easement area and the City would have to incur the costs to move the easement if necessary. Mr. Gray inquired about the condition regarding the necessity for insurance for the privilege in street as to what it covers and what liability issues are related to it. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 July 15, 2014 Mr. Gohde responded that the insurance is to cover any damage to the street or public utilities that may occur. Mr. Gray then questioned why the insurance is required to continue after the utilities are placed in the easement area. Mr. Gohde replied that the petitioner is allowed the right to maintain their utilities placed in the privilege area such as a break in the line or some other situation that would require repair which could cause damage to the street or other infrastructure. Mr. Gray also questioned if the easement would remain in place if ownership of the property would change. Mr. Buck responded that it would as the privilege in the right of way is for the property and not the owner of it, however the City has the right to order it removed at any time. Motion by Borsuk to grant privilege in the street at 215 N. Westfield Street with the following conditions: 1. Placement of the underground conduit shall be coordinated with the Department of Public Works to prevent conflicts with existing underground utilities. 2. The underground conduit is installed in a manner that is approved by the Department of Public Works with no modification or changes in construction procedure without prior approval by the Department of Public Works. 3. If no longer needed, the underground conduit is properly removed in accordance with City standards and under the direction of the Department of Public Works. 4. Any problem that may arise as a result of placement of the underground conduit be the responsibility of the petitioner/owner to correct in coordination with the Department of Public Works. 5. All appropriate permits be obtained prior to the start of placement of the underground conduit. 6. The underground conduit be modified or removed immediately upon request of the City. 7. The petitioner/owner secures and submits to the City Clerk a separate insurance policy which names the City as an additional insured with a minimum coverage of $200,000 per person and $500,000 in general aggregate. 8. It is the responsibility of the petitioner/owner to file in a timely manner a new insurance certificate with the City Clerk upon expiration of an existing certificate. Failure to do so will result in the revocation of the privilege in the right-of-way permit within ten (10) days of notice. 9. The petitioner/owner executes a hold harmless agreement with the City. 10. The facility become part of and documented with Digger’s Hotline system. Seconded by Cummings. Motion carried 9-0. IV. UPDATE ON RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE ATTACHED GARAGE OF THE SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6 MYRNA JANE DRIVE On June 17, 2014 the Plan Commission laid over a residential design standards variance request to permit a second story addition to the attached garage of the single story residence located at 6 Myrna __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 July 15, 2014 Jane Drive for 30 days to provide time for the property owner to consult with staff regarding alternatives for the proposed addition that would have less impact than that which was proposed. Staff met internally to discuss the issue and investigate alternate design schemes and also met with the property owner. The preferred option involves utilizing a steeper roof slope and incorporating dormers to minimize the height of the garage addition and reduce the drastic vertical change of the wall planes and its impact on the single-story character and appearance of the neighborhood. The property owners are currently considering the option and requested that their variance be placed on hold until they can determine if the alternative option will meet their needs. After further discussion with staff, the item will be brought back to the Plan Commission for review and consideration with the recommended option or a revised one. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the variance that was requested at the June 17th meeting and discussed the issues with the design standards variance. He reviewed the alternative concept that staff presented to the property owners who are currently looking into that option, which would reduce the overall height of the proposed addition. He also reviewed photos of the existing home and stated that he is currently trying to coordinate a meeting with the owners and Noffke Lumber to discuss the option. The property owners are requesting a hold be placed on the design standards variance request until this meeting occurs. He also reviewed the subject site depicting the other areas on the property that could accommodate accessory structures for storage use without a variance to the design standards. Mr. Thoms stated that he requested to have information provided that would give the Commission an idea of the height of other structures in the area and how much higher than other existing levels in the neighborhood this new design would create. Mr. Buck responded that most homes are four to five feet taller than this home but are single story structures and the design would have to accommodate head room and upper flooring which would have to be further discussed with the owners and Noffke Lumber. The reduction in the height with this new design is thought to be about four-five feet but this was just an estimate at this time. Mr. Cummings commented that if they are working with an architect, they should produce more detailed renderings and questioned how we make sure that the addition is built as approved. Mr. Buck explained that if not built as approved, the owner would first receive a correction notice and if not addressed, it is followed by a citation and then potentially court proceedings. Mr. Borsuk inquired if changes to the structures do not require an occupancy permit. Mr. Buck responded that it does not as it is only an addition to an existing structure and the Zoning Administrator or an inspector from Inspection Services would go out to inspect the project after completion and enforcement procedures could take at least 30 days prior to citations being issued and could eventually include court proceedings if not corrected to meet the approved plans. Mr. Borsuk stated that this was no real remedy for this type of situation. Mr. Buck indicated that this procedure was in place for all projects in the City. Mr. Gray discussed the reasons to be considered by the Plan Commission for granting a variance to the design standards and stated that he had difficulty understanding them and he needs some system to see if it meets the standards. He felt something should be added to the zoning code to address this and the __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 July 15, 2014 Plan Commission should research this matter and possibly obtain guidance from the American Planning Association or other outside sources. Mr. Buck stated that there are three specific standards that authorize the Plan Commission to grant a variance to the design standards code and reviewed what the standards were and the intent of this judgment. Mr. Gray commented that he has personal concerns about the design standards issue and needs further guidance than what was discussed and questioned how long of an extension was being requested. Mr. Buck responded that we do not have a specific timeframe as staff still needs to coordinate a meeting with the property owners and Noffke’s to discuss the alternative plan. Motion by Lohry to put a hold on this request until further notice. Seconded by Propp. Ms. Lohry commented that the conceptual renderings have been reviewed and she did not want to continue discussions on an item that was not yet determined and did not wish to inconvenience the owners any further until something definite was prepared and presented. Motion carried 9-0. V. UPDATE ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 401 N. MAIN STREET (NEW MOON CAFÉ) On July 1, 2014 the Plan Commission laid over a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) request for an exception to the building design standards of the Downtown Overlay District to replace the windows of the second story apartments at 401 North Main Street with windows that do not match the historic windows in size, shape, arrangement of panes and materials. The CUP request was laid over for 14 days to provide time for the property owner to consult with staff and the Landmarks Commission regarding alternatives and costs for the proposed window replacement. The Landmarks Commission contacted the Wisconsin Historical Society for an opinion and investigated potential alternatives including contacting a local carpenter and other window replacement contractors. The Landmarks Commission hopes that additional time can be provided for them to work with the owners, the State Historical Society and multiple contractors and provide an appropriate and more complete recommendation on alternatives but if the CUP is approved as proposed, they would like to see the existing windows salvaged for reuse. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the request that was laid over from the last meeting. He reviewed a map of the downtown historic district area and the windows on the subject site proposed to be replaced. He also reviewed photos of window replacements on other structures in this area and discussed the costs of the replacement windows. He also discussed some of the contacts that were made with contractors who provide window replacements and the Wisconsin Historical Society’s response which included a statement that vinyl windows were not ideal in our climate. He reviewed three potential alternatives to investigate which were to repair the existing windows, replace the existing windows with wood windows with the potential for Historic Tax Credit assistance, or replace the windows with aluminum or fiberglass windows also with the potential Historic Tax Credit assistance. He also discussed various window contractors and the estimated costs he was able to obtain from Lueck’s and another vendor however he has not been able to coordinate access to the __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 July 15, 2014 building for the contractors to give accurate estimates. He also reviewed the cost estimates obtained for aluminum and fiberglass windows. He stated that the Landmarks Commission reviewed the request and felt that the windows should be repaired rather than replaced whenever possible and the Wisconsin Historical Society was of the same opinion. The Historical Society feels that the tax credit program should be utilized to help soften the costs to the owner who was agreeable to working with staff on this issue. If the Plan Commission decides to approve this item at this time, the Landmarks Commission wants the original windows retained for future use on this building or another structure. Mr. Borsuk commented that there were some questions at the last meeting if an economic hardship could be considered and if there was a cost hardship provision built into the Downtown Overlay District, and if so, what are the criteria to establish this. He also questioned if this building was eligible for the Historic Tax Credit program through the Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS). Mr. Buck replied that economic hardship is not defined as part of the design standard exception/variance criteria for the Downtown Overlay District and that the building is eligible for the Historic Tax Credit program. An application would have to be submitted first and if approved, the owner could receive 20% tax credit from the State of Wisconsin and 20% from Federal Government. He added that with other work planned to be completed on the structure, those costs may also be eligible for tax credits based on the structure’s historic designation. Mr. Cummings commented that we need to consider what is best in the long term for the building, the city, the downtown, and the property owner. If the building is renovated appropriately, it will be a far greater asset now and when it is sold however if it is done wrong, it will devalue the property and he felt we should work together to do the renovations right. Ms. Lohry questioned how long it would take to see if the tax credits would apply to this structure and investigate alternatives to the proposed window replacements. Mr. Buck responded that the contractors need to obtain access to the inside of the building to make accurate estimates and to complete the process of tax credit eligibility could take up to six months. Mr. Gray commented that there were examples of other buildings with window replacements in the staff report and questioned if these structures were also contributing structures in the historic district. Mr. Buck stated that some properties are contributing and others are not but he indicated that the Downtown Overlay District was not put into effect until 2009 therefore some of the examples shown did not have to adhere to the current standards when window replacement took place. Mr. Gray stated that he felt if it was done in the past, we should not deny this project from proceeding. Mr. Cummings commented that just because it was done in the past, does not make it right. Paul Arnold, 453 Mt. Vernon Street, and a member of the Landmarks Commission stated that his home was built in 1910 and has multiple windows that have required repairs therefore he has some appreciation for original windows. He further stated that the lower sash has more of a tendency to become damaged and discussed a carpenter he is aware of who handles window repairs. Window companies generally do not want to repair windows as they are in the business of replacement and the Landmarks Commission members would be willing to assist the property owner in this process of further investigating alternatives. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 July 15, 2014 Shirley Mattox, 1313 Jackson Street, who is also a member of the Landmarks Commission stated that she reviews building permits issued for renovations to historic homes and always questions if the tax credit program was utilized to help pay for the costs to assist in doing the renovations correctly. She discussed methods of getting the word out to the public about the Historic Tax Credit program to improve renovations to historic structures and stated that the Wisconsin Historical Society may respond to an application in a much shorter timeframe that anticipated by staff. She also discussed the quality of the wood used in old windows versus vinyl replacements and thanked the Commission for allowing the time to talk about this request in more detail and the Landmarks Commission is open to assist in any way possible. Jason Baer, owner of 401 N. Main Street, stated that he would like to request to table this item for now to give him more time to investigate the alternatives and would work with Mr. Buck on the matter before proceeding with repairs to the windows and the roof. Mr. Nollenberger questioned if the item was to be tabled or withdrawn. Mr. Buck replied that he would suggest that putting the item on hold would be appropriate as a layover of a request is based on a time limit. Motion by Lohry to place a hold on this request until further notice. Seconded by Cummings. Ms. Propp stated that the correspondence from the WHS helped her decide how she would vote on this request and thanked the property owner for being willing to put this item on hold until further investigation could be completed. Mr. Fojtik commented that he appreciated the efforts to work with the Landmarks Commission and the property owner to complete this renovation appropriately. Mr. Thoms commented that we have to find a balance of what works for everyone and discussed the costs of the project, the building value and the costs of the windows. He also discussed the benefits of the tax credit program if applicable and also stated that he appreciates the work of all parties involved in this matter. Motion carried 9-0. VI. REVIEW OF 2013 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Due annually 90 days after the end of the Program Year (which is April 30), the City is required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to prepare an annual Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). Ms. Brandt presented the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report for the period of May 1, 2013 through April 30, 2014 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 2013 was $841,404 with expenditures totaling __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 July 15, 2014 $757,202 with a percentage of 89.9% of current funding expended to benefit low and moderate income. Ms. Brandt explained some of the projects these funds were utilized to support such as 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 subrecipients and total planning and administration expenditures. Ms. Brandt 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. Mr. Cummings questioned if the remaining 11.1% of the funding would be carried forward. Ms. Brandt responded affirmatively and stated that the remaining funds would carry over to the same type of categories that it was in for this year. Mr. Thoms inquired as to why there was any funding left that was not spent. Ms. Brandt explained that weather played a part in some projects not being able to be completed in time and gave other examples of reasons to not have all the funding spent in any one year. Ms. Lohry questioned if the funding could be juggled in some way to utilize it better. Ms. Brandt responded that a lot of the activities are approved as part of the Consolidated Plan and it depends on what was approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). She further stated that the City attempts to complete mostly LMI projectS as that is what the funding is designed to support. Ms. Lohry then questioned how these activities are discussed and determined. Ms. Brandt indicated that there was an annual meeting held each fall to discuss these activities and the report needs to be submitted to HUD by March of the following year. Mr. Buck added that the City tries not to move approved activities around too much as any major alterations would require additional approval by HUD. Mr. Thoms commented that it does not seem logical to have funds left that are not spent. Mr. Brandt reviewed the processes and deadlines of the program and how the approval processes work which often times can affect the ability to expend all the funds in the current year’s program. Mr. Thoms inquired about from year to year how much of the funding gets carried forward and if it is a small percentage of the total funds available. Mr. Buck indicated that it is normal to carry over funding to the next year however it cannot be banked indefinitely. He further explained that there is a lot of regulation on everything we do with this program and reviewed some of these regulations and time lines of this program. The goal is to spend all of the funding in one year however it is usually not possible. Ms. Brandt added that program income received also has to be spent first which is money received back from rehabilitation loans that are repaid and the amount of income cannot be forecasted in advance. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 July 15, 2014 Mr. Gray inquired if the notice published for the CAPER was a class one, two or three notice; if all the goals were met for this year for this program; if the City will be submitting another Consolidated Plan; will there be a time when this grant money would no longer be available; and if the City gets the money in a lump sum. Ms. Brandt responded that it was a class one notice; all the goals were met for this year; that the City would be submitting another Consolidated Plan which covers a five year period so the next plan was due in 2015; that the grant funding may not be available in future years depending on the federal budget; and that the City does not receive the funds in a lump sum but gets reimbursed over time as the money is spent. VII. RIVERFRONT VISION PROCESS “LET’S BE PIONEERS?” PRESENTATION Eric Fowle, Executive Director of East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, passed out copies of their annual report and stated that their assistance to the City for planning purposes was free and the purpose of this presentation was to encourage the Plan Commission to take a fresh look at the development of the riverfront area and take the opportunity to explore new ideas. He stated that they have worked with other communities such as Kaukauna, Waupaca, and New Holstein on community development efforts. He felt that the river is one of the largest assets in our community and to view it in a manner that would utilize public engagement. In an effort to take the opportunity to garner diverse public input, they are planning to hold three workshops on the subject and distributed a flyer promoting these sessions which will be held on August 6th, 13th, and 20th. These workshops were trying to target neighborhoods in the riverfront area but all who are interested are welcome to attend. This informational brochure would be published and he distributed a larger diagram for review of the Riverfront Visioning Workshops which would be an open house style workshop with exercises at six separate tables with the diagram denoting the subject of each table. He reviewed each table exercise which could assist in developing themes for the riverfront area. He discussed the generation of ideas that would come from these sessions and could help to get a better sense of the desired uses the public would like to see for this area. The workshop promotes the generation of discussion and there are no restrictions as the sessions are meant to be open and creative. After the conclusion of the three sessions, results would be tabulated and a summary and interpretation of the results would be provided to the city. This is meant to help guide conversation and is of value to the public and the city can review the results and take it from there are far as future planning for this area. A representative from the University of Wisconsin-Extension offered to assist in this process and the summary report would be available around October, 2014 to share what comments and input came from the workshops. Mr. Borsuk questioned if it is a visioning workshop, how you make sure that answers are not steered. Mr. Fowle responded that they do not make note of who said what at these sessions as they are held to obtain public input which would have to be reviewed by the Common Council and staff and he felt that any public input is valid. Mr. Bowen left the meeting at 5:30 pm. Mr. Thoms inquired if they had pre-conceived ideas of what the riverfront contains. Mr. Fowle responded they do not other than it is about a 3 ½ mile stretch of area and everyone looks at it differently. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 July 15, 2014 Mr. Gray commented that the Plan Commission needs to be careful that the process is fair and complete. Mr. Fowle stated that they will be very cautious on their approach and examples of plans already drawn up would be available for review. Mr. Cummings questioned how closely their organization works with the Fox Valley Heritage Parkway organization. Mr. Fowle responded that a member of their board sits on the committee and there may be people from this organization that will participate in the workshops. Ms. Propp asked Mr. Fowle to describe the process. Mr. Fowle indicated that the idea was to get people to participate in all exercises which would take 30 minutes to an hour to complete and they may not have balanced input at all tables depending on if all participants complete all the exercises. He further discussed how the process would work and stated that they attempt to gather contact information on attendees to notify them of the results. Mr. Cummings left the meeting at 5:36 pm. Ms. Lohry inquired who the Fox Valley Heritage Parkway organization was. Mr. Fowle replied that it was a non-profit organization that has been around for a number of years and described some of the projects they have worked on in the past and their purposes of working with communities on these types of projects. Mr. Buck stated that the City of Oshkosh is a member of the organization. Mr. Nollenberger left the meeting at 5:37 pm. Mr. Fojtik inquired if they were planning on making a presentation to the Common Council on this matter. Mr. Fowle responded that they were not planning on it however it could be done if the City so desired. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT 1) Planned development amendment-Big Rig Chrome, 3735 S. Washburn Street Mr. Buck reported that this request was forwarded to the Common Council who referred the request back to the Plan Commission to look at alternatives to resolving the issue with the detention basin that was not built as approved. Staff is currently working with the property owner to work out the details and will bring it back to the Commission when alternatives are vetted. 2) Zoning Ordinance update status Mr. Buck reported that the land use section of the zoning ordinance is completed in draft format and questions need to be addressed by the steering committee and the Plan Commission. The steering committee was hoping to meet next month to discuss the matter. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 July 15, 2014 Mr. Gray stated that he would like to be notified when the steering committee meeting would be held and questioned if there was any schedule for this process. Mr. Buck responded that we hope to have most of it drafted by the end of the year and work on the map for it during the winter season. Mr. Gray commented that he was concerned with the zoning ordinance code revision as it requires very careful review. Mr. Borsuk stated that he has been through several revisions to the ordinance over the years and the level of review by the steering committee and Plan Commission is very thorough. He also stated that in the analysis of the Big Rig Chrome amendment, what is the effect of non-compliance with conditional use permits and planned developments and how to remedy these situations was a major component of this issue. Mr. Fojtik commented that the terms and conditions of the request were violated in this case by not complying with the conditions of the approved request. Mr. Borsuk added that the terms and conditions were agreed upon at the time of approval and this should be an integral part of the analysis and aesthetics in this case were secondary. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:45 pm. (Gray/Thoms) Respectfully submitted, David Buck Principal Planner