Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 August 19, 2014 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES August 19, 2014 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Gary Gray, Robert Vajgrt EXCUSED: David Borsuk, John Hinz, Donna Lohry, Karl Nollenberger STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate 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 August 5, 2014 were approved as presented. (Vajgrt/Cummings) Mr. Gray requested a revision to the minutes of the July 15, 2014 meeting. He requested that his comment be revised to say “that staff may not have adequate time to compose and discuss it” to “he was concerned with members of the Plan Commission may not have sufficient time to accurately review and discuss the Zoning Code rewrite”. I. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF AN OFFICE/RETAIL BUILDING DEVELOPMENT AND RELEASE OF SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT AT THE SOUTH INTERSECTION OF WESTOWNE AVENUE AND NORTH WASHBURN STREET The petitioner requests development plan approval for the development of a three-unit office/retail building and accessory parking lot at the south side of the intersection of Westowne Avenue and North Washburn Street. Additionally, the applicant requests for the removal/release of an existing unneeded sanitary sewer easement on the outlot. Mr. Buck presented the item and noted that the portion of the request relating to the release of the sanitary sewer easement be removed as it was discovered that the easement belongs to the Town of Algoma and its release cannot be considered as part of the City’s approval. He reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in said area and stated that the lot was originally platted as an outlot and reviewed the certified survey map that was recorded when the Lowes development took place. He further stated that the petitioner would have to submit a new certified survey map or other instrument of correction to change the status of this lot from an outlot to a buildable lot. He also reviewed the site plan and traffic flow and pedestrian access to the site. He discussed the base standard modifications for setbacks for the development and explained that the reduced setback on the east side was not an issue as it is adjacent to the detention basin however the reduced front yard setback was more of a concern. He explained that by reducing the rear yard setback of the parking lot and reducing the width of the sidewalk on the south side of the building, the front yard setback base standard modification could be reduced to only one foot less than the required setback of 25 feet. He also discussed the base standard modification for the ground sign which was not supported by staff as the building itself has ample area for visible signage. He also reviewed the conceptual landscape plan and building elevations for the development as well as the storm water management which would be handled through the existing detention basin adjacent to the site. He also reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 August 19, 2014 Mr. Cummings questioned if the south elevation would serve as the main entrance. Mr. Buck responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms commented that there was only one access point to enter or exit the site and questioned if the Fire Department had any concerns regarding this issue. Mr. Buck responded negatively and stated that the Fire Department could access the site from the parking lot as well as the street. Mr. Thoms also questioned if there was an existing easement in place for the use of the detention basin. Mr. Buck responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms inquired about the signage for the site as no plans had been submitted depicting the proposed signage on the building and questioned if there should be any requirements added as conditions in relation to allowed signage considering this was located in a planned development zoning district. Mr. Buck indicated that the petitioner does not currently have tenants in place for the development and that signage requirements are contained in the zoning code which would have to be met when signage plans are submitted. Mr. Thoms also inquired if a more extensive landscape concept should be submitted as it is a planned development. Mr. Buck replied that the landscaping requirements generally follow code requirements as with the signage and staff was not requiring any additional landscaping placed on this request. Mr. Burich added that the City’s landscaping code requirements are heavier than most other community’s particularly surrounding parking lots however it may be less around the foundation of the development. Board discussion ensued regarding rain gardens and other landscaping features that could be included on the site. There was no determination that this development required additional landscaping features than required by code. Mr. Gray questioned if this was a new or amended planned development. Mr. Buck responded that it was a new planned development in an area with a Planned Development Overlay District. Mr. Gray then questioned if the development could be moved one foot further to the south to eliminate the need for the base standard modification in the front yard setback. Mr. Buck replied that this would not be feasible as to move the development further south would then require a base standard modification on the south side of the development rather than the north and would also have the potential to reduce the amount of green space on the site. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 August 19, 2014 Mr. Gray also questioned if a condition was necessary to allow the use of the detention basin by this development. Mr. Buck responded negatively and stated that it was a condition of approval for the Lowes development that the detention basin was sized to take in additional volumes when constructed for which there is an easement in place. Mr. Gray further discussed the landscaping concept for the site. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the planned development of an office/retail building development at the south intersection of Westowne Avenue and N. Washburn Street with the following conditions: 1. A certified survey map or other instrument that changes the parcels status from outlot to a regular lot be created and recorded with the Register of Deeds. 2. Base standard modifications to allow the buildings front yard setback to be 24 feet and the east side yard setback to be five feet. 3. Approval of the release of the 20 foot sanitary sewer easement, as requested. Seconded by Thoms. Ms. Propp questioned since modifications were made to the original request, if the petitioner found these modifications acceptable. The petitioner responded affirmatively. Motion carried 7-0. II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 502 NORTH MAIN STREET (SKI’S MEAT MARKET) The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit for exceptions to the sign design standards of the Downtown Overlay District to install two wall signs and construction of a dumpster enclosure which do not meet the criteria listed in the Downtown Overlay District. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the zoning classifications and land use in said area. He discussed the history of the building and the current tenant and new tenant that will be occupying a portion of the building in the next month. He reviewed photos of the proposed signage for Ski’s Meat Market who is the new tenant. In regard to the south façade sign, he reviewed the current signage for Winnebago Bicycle who also occupies a portion of the building and reviewed the exceptions to the Downtown Overlay that were being requested. He discussed the size of the building which possesses an exceptional amount of area for signage and the condition recommended for this request that would require the proposed signage to have the same size with channel letters of the same size, font and color scheme to be complimentary with the existing signage. He also discussed the location of the sign which is virtually the only viable option to place it. He then discussed the proposed signage for the north façade and reviewed a photo rendering of it and reviewed the exceptions to the Downtown Overlay that were being requested. He explained that the owner was attempting to create a sign with a historical look to it and the location is in character with __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 August 19, 2014 signage from that era and the tree adjacent to the building would block the view of the sign if placed lower on the structure. He further stated that the vinyl material proposed to be used would have a condition recommended that the materials and installation method be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development. He also reviewed samples of historic old signage painted on structures in the downtown area. He reviewed the site plan for the proposed dumpster enclosure and discussed the horizontal wood planks that were proposed for its construction which according to the Downtown Overlay standards should be constructed of masonry to match the existing structure. Staff is not in support of the materials proposed but is open for suggestions from the Commission as this request was added at the time staff reports were prepared and there was no time to investigate alternatives. He also reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Gray commented about the concern with a previous submittal regarding vinyl window replacements in the downtown district and questioned what the difference was between vinyl windows and vinyl signage. Mr. Nau explained that this proposal was for vinyl that would be a thin plastic sheet that will wrap into the structure. Mr. Gray then questioned what would happen if the Winnebago Bicycle sign is removed. Mr. Nau responded that the conditional use permit goes with the building and signage could be replaced with the name of the new tenant. Mr. Cummings stated that the Landmarks Commission reviewed this proposal and suggested that the large sign on the north façade have a more Victorian look and questioned if the Landmarks Commission would get to have final approval on the signage before permit issuance. Mr. Thoms commented that the old historic signs were traditionally painted on the structure. Mr. Buck explained the features of old brick from buildings of that era and stated that staff has not had adequate time to investigate the result of applying vinyl to brick however he was aware that the application of latex paint is harmful to the brick as it does not allow it to breathe. Mr. Nau added that the sign contractor would have more information on that aspect of the proposal. Mr. Cummings voiced his concern regarding if the business should close their doors, how easy is it to remove the proposed vinyl signage from the building. Kris Larson, 502 North Main Street, discussed the methods of painting the sign on the building instead of going with the vinyl signage proposed and the option to trim out the brick to allow it to breathe. He distributed samples of the vinyl wrap and a photo example of it for the Commission to review. He further discussed these issues and stated that after further review of the vinyl sign, he discovered that it was only likely to have a life span of 18 months to 3 years and he had decided to not go with this method as it was too cost prohibitive. He also discussed the dumpster enclosure which is still being addressed as to build it out of masonry material is not affordable to his budget and he questioned if the development was required to have one. Mr. Fojtik suggested that the need for the dumpster enclosure should be discussed with staff. Mr. Thoms questioned what the petitioner was looking to receive approval on at this point. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 August 19, 2014 Mr. Larson indicated that he would like to proceed with the options for the sign on the south façade of the building as he has to further investigate the possibilities for the signage on the north façade. Mr. Thoms clarified that the petitioner would like to table the request for the exception to the Downtown Overlay for the sign on the north façade and the Commission would be considering the sign on the south façade and the materials for the construction of the dumpster enclosure. Discussion ensued on the changes to the signage on the north façade and it was determined that the petitioner desired to removed this from the request. Motion by Thoms to amend the request to remove condition #2 relating to the materials and installation method of the proposed north façade sign. Seconded by Vajgrt. Mr. Cummings commented that if the north side of the structure would have the sign painted on it and the business were to close, what provisions does the City have to ensure that it is properly removed. Mr. Burich responded that it would be the usual process of a correction notice being issued followed by citations if not addressed. Mr. Buck added that staff has not had adequate time to review the option of painting the sign onto the brick and the building currently has been well maintained over the years. Motion carried 7-0. Motion by Thoms to approve the conditional use permit for exceptions to the provisions of the Downtown Overlay District at 502 N. Main Street with the following condition: 1. Proposed signage on south façade shall be the same size with channel letters being the same size and font and color scheme to be complimentary with the existing Winnebago Bicycle sign. Seconded by Vajgrt. Ms. Propp commented that she thought the south façade signage looked good and she would be supportive of this exception to the Downtown Overlay District’s standards but would not support the exception for the materials for the dumpster enclosure. Mr. Gray inquired if there was a public safety issue with signs on buildings as it is a distraction to drivers. Mr. Burich indicated that signs can be a distraction however he has not seen any convincing studies on the subject and he would have concerns with the proposed signage if it was an electronic message center. Motion carried 6-1. (Ayes-Bowen/Thoms/Fojtik/Cummings/Propp/Vajgrt. Nays-Gray.) PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT: 1) Update to Economic Development Element of Comprehensive Plan __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 August 19, 2014 Mr. Burich reported that the Comprehensive Plan was approved ten years ago and next year we will be starting the process to update this plan. He reviewed the process that was followed last time which consisted of beginning the process with Steering Committees, then proceeding to the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee and finally completing the process with review and recommendation from the Plan Commission and adoption by the Common Council. He reviewed the various elements of the Steering Committees and stated that the process would restart as before for most of the elements however the City would like to start work on the Economic Development portion of the plan now. The reason for the change is that Brenda Hicks-Sorenson is currently under contract with the City for economic development purposes and the GO-EDC Board would serve as the steering committee for the Economic Development element portion of the plan. He further stated that all meetings would be noticed and open to the public. Mr. Gray commented that he has worked under many deadlines over the years and he felt that we need a solid due date for GO-EDC to accomplish this task. He felt a specific date was not necessary but that we need to establish a date range when this should be completed. Mr. Burich responded that the goal was to have this portion of the various elements completed by the end of the year however it was difficult to put a time frame on it as that may not be feasible. There will be reporting to the Plan Commission on what is transpiring with this element. Mr. Gray then questioned if the state has requirements for the update to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Burich replied that two public hearings are required and must be publicly noticed in the newspaper and the elements have to be compiled. He stated that he would gather any requirements and send them out to the Plan Commission members. Mr. Thoms stated that there have been a lot of changes in the last ten years and questioned if we will be reviewing the Comprehensive Plan for voids that need to be addressed. Mr. Burich indicated that it depends on what element we are getting into and that initially we need to review what it contains and consider what has changed since then. He further stated that each element is addressed with parties who would have beneficial input to that section of the plan. Mr. Thoms discussed some issues that should be considered and questioned if there were any issues at the state level that should be addressed. Mr. Burich responded that nothing was an issue at the state level at this time that he is aware of and discussed the fact that small communities did not all establish Comprehensive Plans as required. The County is required to enforce the City’s Comprehensive Plan which causes concern with some towns. He discussed Comprehensive Plan issues that arise with towns and counties and expanded on some of the City’s developed plans such as Transportation and Bicycle/Pedestrian Plans and other plans that all would be included in the elements of the updated Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cummings and Mr. Bowen left the meeting at 5:05 pm. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:06 pm. (Vajgrt/Gray) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services