Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 October 7, 2014 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2014 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Gary Gray, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: Ed Bowen, Donna Lohry STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Benjamin Krumenauer, Assistant Planner; Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; 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 September 16, 2014 were approved as presented. (Vajgrt/Borsuk) I. VACATION OF MICHIGAN STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH OF W. 4TH AVENUE City Administration requests the vacation of a portion of Michigan Street right-of-way. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and explained the reasons for the vacation request and the size of the area proposed to be vacated. He further explained that the vacated area was to be divided between the City and the City of Oshkosh Redevelopment Authority, (RDA), as they are the adjacent property owners. He further described the amenities of the riverwalk and park area that is initiating the vacation request and the certified survey map, (CSM), that will be prepared reconfiguring the three City-owned parcels. The Department of Public Works has reviewed this request and has no concerns regarding the proposed right-of-way vacation as there are utilities located in this area however the City will still have access to this area for maintenance and repair of the facilities. He further stated that this request has been reviewed by the RDA and approved. Mr. Thoms questioned if this area was planned to be developed into a walkway. Mr. Nau responded that it was planned as a drive access from West 4th Avenue to the parking area for the riverwalk and park area. Mr. Gray questioned why the City could not maintain the street area and use it for the park access rather than vacating it. Mr. Nau replied that it will still be used as a drive access to the area however the vacation would eliminate the right-of-way line which would be beneficial as far as setback requirements. Mr. Thoms questioned who would maintain the area. Mr. Nau responded that the Parks Department would be responsible for maintenance as once the CSM is completed, the drive access area will be part of the parking area and riverwalk site. Motion by Vajgrt to approve vacating Michigan Street right-of-way north of W. 4th Avenue. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 October 7, 2014 Seconded by Gray. Motion carried 8-0. II. LAND DISPOSITION OF OUTLOT 3, RIVER MILL SUBDIVISION The City of Oshkosh requests the land disposition of Outlot 3 of River Mill Subdivision. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and reviewed the original plat from when the subdivision was created. He explained how the outlots were created due to the removal of the rail line that was then deeded to the City and that this was the last outlot remaining in this area of the plat. The adjacent property owner has currently been maintaining the area and has approached the City with the desire to acquire the outlot and combine it with his parcel. The parcel serves no purpose to the City and the disposition would result in the City no longer being responsible for maintenance of this site. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the request and recommended approval with a revision to the conditions stated in the staff report to change condition #3 to “grading and drainage easement be placed over all of Outlot 3”. Mr. Nau also reviewed the revised conditions recommended for this request. Ms. Propp questioned if the property owner would be prevented from placing any structures or landscaping in this area if a grading and drainage easement was to be placed over the entire area. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, responded that the City would not allow structures, mulch, or low growing vegetation in this area however light landscaping such as small shrubs or trees would be allowed as long as the plantings do not prevent the drainage flow of the area. These provisions would be addressed as part of the grading and drainage easement document. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the land disposition of Outlot 3, River Mill Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Outlot 3 shall be attached to 1695 River Mill Road (Parcel #12-2437-0000). 2. Outlot 3 area shall continue to function as part of approved grading and drainage plan. 3. Grading and drainage easement be placed over all of Outlot 3. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8-0. III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT-3735 S. WASHBURN STREET THIS ITEM WAS REFERRED BACK TO THE PLAN COMMISSION BY COUNCIL WITH DIRECTION TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO DEVELOP AN ACCEPTABLE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE DETENTION BASIN AREA. The applicant is requesting a Planned Development (PD) amendment to Resolution 12-414 condition #1: “natural” style of detention basin be utilized involving planting of emergent plants in the safety shelf area and native plants on the side slopes. Mr. Krumenauer presented the item and stated that the amendment was being reviewed again as the detention basin and landscaping was not properly implemented according to the original planned development. He reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in said area. He reviewed the history of the site including the approval of the planned development in 2012 and discussed the conditions for this development which were all met with the exception of the construction of the detention basin. He explained that the applicant had originally __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 October 7, 2014 requested to leave the detention basin as constructed and he reviewed the landscape plan that was submitted and some of the revisions that were required and stated that the primary concern was the detention basin issue. When this amendment was reviewed in July of 2014 by the Plan Commission, the planned development amendment for the detention basin was denied and the request then proceeded to the Common Council with this recommendation and was referred back to the Plan Commission with direction to work with the business owner to develop a compromise. The landscaping requirements around the building and transformer were corrected and he discussed the differences between the natural styles of landscaping around detention basins and the use of rip rap and reviewed photos of the site as it currently exists. He also reviewed other detention basins in the community with natural plantings and explained their benefits in assisting with keeping erosion from occurring and aesthetic value. He also explained the types of plantings to be used for the best effect and functionality and reviewed photos of detention basins with rip rap used only and the difficulties to maintain these types of basins. Mr. Cummings arrived at 4:20 pm. Mr. Krumenauer proceeded with reviewing the four conditions that were agreed upon with the applicant to come to a compromise from the original planned development approval and reviewed the revised landscape plan. He further stated that the owner is willing to agree with the issues relating to the compromise for the detention basin and has already installed the landscaping that was lacking on the site. Mr. Thoms asked to clarify that the rip rap would not be removed on the west side of the detention basin near the building. Mr. Krumenauer verified that was correct as the slope of the basin was too steep on that side to handle the installation of natural plantings. Mr. Borsuk voiced his concerns with the fact that the applicant disregarded the conditions on the original approved planned development and questioned what safeguards are in place to ensure that this type of situation does not continue to occur as he would like to prevent this from happening going forward. Mr. Krumenauer responded that both staff and the Plan Commission recommended denial of the planned development amendment which would have required the applicant to construct the detention basin as the conditions stated in the original approval however the Common Council requested that a compromise be reached instead. He further stated that staff was working on drafting requirements for all developments for the construction of detention basins being discussed and we are working towards developing more detailed specifications relating to the construction of these basins. Mr. Burich added that a final follow-up is completed for planned developments to ensure conditions have been met however landscaping is often added after the occupancy permit is issued as the landscaping requirements do not have to be installed for 18 months unless the City wants to pursue holding up the issuance of the occupancy permit until after the landscaping has been installed or requiring some type of bond to be posted. Mr. Thoms inquired if we could put stronger language in the planned development to address this. Mr. Burich responded that the applicant is required to conform to what is approved as part of the planned development however developers do not always submit formal landscape plans at the time of __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 October 7, 2014 Plan Commission review as it is too costly and the landscaping plans are often submitted at the Site Plan Review level. Mr. Borsuk commented that setbacks and other conditions were also a concern and that it was more than just landscaping issues. He questioned if the City had the ability to make developments subject to shut down if conditions were found not to have been met. Mr. Burich indicated that the City would not have the ability to shut down an operation without court proceedings and in a recent review of planned developments that received approval, 95% or more had complied with the conditions placed on their request. The developments proceed to the Site Plan Review Committee after Plan Commission and Common Council approval and with a better system and more staff in place, most developments are constructed as approved however these situations cannot be prevented completely. Ms. Propp commented that there will be a line of rip rap still visible on the detention basin and her concerns with if this will eliminate some of the functionality of the basin without the natural plantings to help mitigate the sediment from the storm water runoff. She was most concerned with if the detention basin would function properly as proposed. Mr. Burich responded that from an environmental standpoint, the elimination of the sediment will not be as effective with grass plantings as natural plantings however the grass will slow down the sediment runoff to some degree. Mr. Krumenauer gave a more extensive explanation of how detention basins function with sediment control and settling within the basin itself and that the basin would still control the issue adequately with the proposed compromise. Ms. Propp then questioned if the rip rap will not cause the detention basin to become unsightly in time. Mr. Krumenauer indicated that the basin will accumulate weeds but the owner will have to be responsible to maintain the site appropriately. Mr. Burich added that all detention basins will accumulate weeds over time however the natural plantings are more aesthetically pleasing than the rip rap style. Mr. Cummings voiced his concerns with the limited resources and staff available to the city for these processes and that an approved development has taken up a considerable amount of additional time with this amendment due to the fact that the original approved plans were not adhered to and felt that there should be some type of penalty implemented to prevent this in the future. Mr. Fojtik commented that the natural plantings around these detention basins are like gardens and require work and people need to understand that it is going to cost money to maintain these basins. Mr. Gray inquired how deep the rip rap was in the detention basin. Mr. Krumenauer responded that it was present on the side slopes and safety shelf however we do not know if it is also installed in the center of the basin. Mr. Gray questioned if condition #3 and #4 were based on landscaping requirements according to code or in addition to these requirements. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 October 7, 2014 Mr. Krumenauer responded that certain requirements are to bring the development up to code and there are also some additional landscaping requirements requested to make up for inadequacies in other areas and to provide additional screening due to the detention basin compromise. Mr. Hinz inquired how many feet of rip rap there was currently in the detention basin as constructed. Mr. Krumenauer replied that it was approximately 10-12 feet. Mr. Borsuk asked if the applicant has agreed to do what the conditions recommended for this request require and to maintain the landscaping and detention basin to keep it in good condition. Tony Welnicke, applicant representing the Big Rig Chrome Shop, responded that taking care of the site was important to him and that he will take appropriate measures to ensure that the rip rap areas of the detention basin are well maintained. Mr. Fojtik thanked the staff and the applicant for working together on this issue to come to an agreeable compromise. Ms. Propp stated that she was still unsatisfied with not having natural plantings surrounding the basin and allowing the applicant to use grass instead however if the Common Council requested the Plan Commission to agree to compromise on this issue, she would support it. Mr. Nollenberger agreed with Ms. Propp and stated that the Common Council was in the position to decide what was acceptable and if they felt the request should be reconsidered to obtain a compromise he felt that the Plan Commission had to make some concessions. Mr. Hinz stated that a compromise means that both parties are going to have to give a little and he felt there was adequate give and take on both sides and it is what the Council requested the Commission to do. Motion by Vajgrt to approve a planned development amendment to allow the installation of rip rap and landscaping in accordance with the revised landscaping plan with the following conditions: 1. All existing rip rap on the north, east and south sides of the basin be removed from two feet above the waterline and up, with the exception of the spillway located at the northeast corner of the basin; 2. Natural plantings or turf grass be planted on the north and south side slopes; 3. The landscape bed to the east of the pond be increased with additional trees or shrubs to help shield the remaining rip rap; 4. And, additional trees be planted on the north side of the basin. Seconded by Nollenberger. Motion carried 9-0. IV. TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 October 7, 2014 The City of Oshkosh Department of Community Development requests review and approval of the creation of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance Section 30-51, establishing a Shoreland Overlay District. Mr. Buck presented the item and discussed the creation of a City Shoreland Overlay District as reviewed in a previous Plan Commission workshop and discussed background information relating to this issue. He explained that the City currently enforces the Winnebago County ordinance which applies to any shoreland areas annexed by the City of Oshkosh after May 7, 1982. He stated that the Wisconsin Act 80 was enacted in December of 2013 giving the City the ability to enact an ordinance of their own and provided a model ordinance to work with. He reviewed the Winnebago County current code and also a map depicting the areas that would be affected. He reviewed the proposed City draft ordinance and reviewed the definitions contained in it and stated that the most significant change would be the setback from the ordinary high water mark. He reviewed the most significant changes to the County’s code which are setback changes for structures, setbacks specific to boathouses, and new regulations for subordinate structures and provided a description of what would be considered a subordinate structure. He further discussed this issue with a property owner who has a shoreland home where all the houses are built with a 75 foot setback from the shoreland. After this discussion, he was proposing an alteration to the draft ordinance that was sent out that would require a “line-up” provision which would require the setback for infill lots to match the adjoining lots structures even if further back than the minimum 50 feet established. This alteration would be added to the proposed ordinance if the Plan Commission found it to be agreeable. He displayed a graphic of this concept depicting the effect it would have to further clarify the alteration. He explained that the rest of the proposed City code is identical to the Winnebago County ordinance but the adoption of a City ordinance would be beneficial as it would allow more of shoreland lots to be utilized and the “line up” provision would alleviate issues with previously built structures. He also explained that having a City ordinance would be more user friendly as it would be more apparent and accessible to city residents. Mr. Nollenberger inquired why the ordinance would not be regulated by the current or proposed code if annexed prior to 1982. Mr. Buck responded that he believed that was when the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources established the setback ordinance. Mr. Burich added that many of the lots in shoreland areas were already developed when the setback was established. Mr. Buck stated that many lots that are smaller in size would be undevelopable with a 75 foot setback from the high water mark. Mr. Cummings asked for clarification of what a boathouse would be considered. Mr. Buck responded that it would be to store the resident’s boat only and would not be a standalone structure for other purposes. Mr. Cummings commented about the small amount of vacant land that is green areas along the shoreland. Mr. Buck indicated that this ordinance would address new development as well as redevelopment of parcels in shoreland areas that would have to comply with the setback regulations. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 October 7, 2014 Mr. Cummings also discussed the amount of vegetation growth coming in along the shoreland and how that was to be handled. Mr. Buck replied that property owners would have to remove dead or invasive species but could not remove shoreland native plants. Mr. Thoms commented that from his research to rebuild a structure you must keep the existing foundation if you want to rebuild on that same footprint within the same setback and that you cannot remove any plantings that are living. He further stated that Winnebago County was considering changing the vegetative buffer regulations at some point in the future. Mr. Buck indicated that he discussed the vegetative buffer guidelines with both Winnebago County and the WDNR and some of these details are not defined in their code for that reason. Mr. Thoms discussed the “line-up” provision and asked for further definition of how this would apply with homes that are set back further than 75 feet from the shoreland with large lots. Mr. Buck responded that infill structures would have to adhere to the “line-up” provision however this provision would not apply if the adjacent structures possessed more than a 75 foot setback. He further stated that the Board of Appeals could address specific cases that could not meet the setback requirements due to a hardship through a variance request. Ms. Propp commented that from the map provided, it does not appear that there was very much area this ordinance would effect. Mr. Buck explained the areas on the map that would be affected which would include annexations and attachments of properties currently out of the city limits that may become part of the city in future years. Mr. Gray inquired if this ordinance would require changing the City’s official zoning maps. Mr. Buck responded negatively and stated that this overlay district would be applied over the top of the current City zoning map. Ms. Propp left at 5:10 pm. Mr. Gray questioned some of the language in several sections of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Buck explained the reasons for the way the language was drafted. Mr. Gray then questioned the allowance of temporary structures for 90 calendar days and how that would be enforced. Mr. Buck responded that temporary structures are allowed by the issuance of a temporary use permit which allows the use for only the dates specified on the application which is monitored by staff. Mr. Gray also commented on the definition of shoreland in sections of the proposed ordinance as he felt it was confusing and should be modified to be more consistent and clarified with terminology prior to this item being forwarded to the Common Council. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 October 7, 2014 Mr. Thoms questioned how this would affect man-made navigable waterways such as detention basins. Mr. Buck responded that it would not have an effect on detention basins unless they are connected to a navigable waterway. Mr. Thoms discussed this issue and if it would create problems with man-made lakes or ponds in regards to having to adhere to a setback from these areas. He also had concerns with detention basins being created in the community. Mr. Gohde commented that in the Southwest Industrial Park there will be a detention basin adjacent to Sawyer Creek. Mr. Buck stated that navigable lakes, ponds and other bodies of water will be listed in the WDNR’s records and the proposed ordinance would have a 50 foot setback from these and any man-made features if created after the adoption of this ordinance however the previous setback was 75 feet. He further stated that it should be considered when creating these aspects within a development. Mr. Gray questioned if this proposed ordinance has been discussed with the public. Mr. Buck responded that it was discussed with staff only as the setback issues are already in place and this ordinance will be beneficial as far as allowing a smaller setback from the shoreland than what currently exists. Tom Zillges, 3815 Shorebird Court, stated that he has a vacant lot next to his property and his home is built with a 75 foot setback from the shoreland. He had concerns with someone being able to build a home with a reduced setback than his home as he paid $100,000 for his lot and a home closer to the shore would be impeding his view of the lake. He further stated that he was satisfied with the “line- up” provision for setbacks that was proposed to be added to the ordinance as that would address his concerns with having a home built on this lot closer to the lake than his own. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the creation of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance Section 30-51 establishing a Shoreland Overlay District. Seconded by Nollenberger. Motion carried 7-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:25 pm. (Vajgrt/Cummings) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services