Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 December 2, 2014 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES December 2, 2014 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Gary Gray, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: David Borsuk, Donna Lohry STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Allen Davis, Director of Community Development; 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 November 18, 2014 were approved as presented. (Vajgrt/Cummings) I. DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR A MULTIPLE FAMILY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE MARION ROAD REDEVELOPMENT AREA (EAST OF 475 MARION ROAD) The City of Oshkosh Redevelopment Authority is requesting disposition of 1.19 acres of land within the Marion Road Redevelopment area and Northpointe Development Corporation has submitted site plans and elevations for Development Plan Review for Rivers Senior Living-Phase 2, a multiple-family apartment building to be located on Marion Road along the Fox River. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the zoning classifications and land use in said area. He stated that the proposed 40-unit apartment building would be situated between the other two apartment buildings and reviewed the site plan for the development. He also discussed the other features of the plans such as the parking lot layout and stall count, the landscaping, and refuse enclosure. He further stated that the number of parking stalls provided will require a base standard modification to allow 56 stalls which is less than the code requirements however since it is a senior living facility with part of the units being only one-bedroom, staff felt the modification was supportable. He explained that the density is slightly higher than what is permitted within the C-3 zoning district which would also require a base standard modification to the code. He discussed the layout of the building including the patio areas and balconies and the base standard modifications for setbacks for the parking lot, refuse enclosure, building, and signage. He explained that the setbacks were necessary as it was a small site and the petitioner was trying to maximize the green space on the site. He also discussed the access to the development which would be off Marion Road and a secondary access from this site to the Rivers Senior Living development to the west. He also discussed the pedestrian access points proposed for the development and the signage for which no details were provided but would be consistent with the signage for the other two apartment buildings adjacent to this site. Formal landscaping plans have not yet been submitted but Mr. Buck reviewed the landscape features included on the site plan. He also discussed the required landscape island that is being excluded on the north row of parking stalls due to the lack of area which will also require a base standard modification. He also reviewed the handicapped access area near the drop off zone and discussed the landscaping to be installed around the refuse enclosure for screening purposes. Formal lighting and storm water detention plans have also not yet been submitted at this time however a detention area is depicted on the site plan along Marion Road. He reviewed elevations for the structure __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 December 2, 2014 which will require a base standard modification for the height as it exceeds the maximum allowed height in this zoning district and the materials proposed for the exterior which are proposed to be consistent with the other apartment buildings. He also reviewed the location of the refuse enclosure for which the materials would be required to be constructed to match the principal structure’s exterior. He reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Ms. Propp commented that she recalled there being environmental concerns with this site and questioned if those issues had been resolved. Mr. Buck responded that he believed that part of the area of concern had been capped with the park space area on the southeast corner of the site. Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, added that the plans for the Anthem apartment building pushed the parking lot over and the park green space area adjacent to it would act as a cap of the area with environmental issues. He further stated that we wanted to provide a public access area to the riverwalk between these two facilities and the southeast corner of the site cannot be built on however the current development plans would meet the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources requirements. Mr. Gray questioned the density requirements being allowed to be higher than what is allowed by code requirements and the comment in the staff report relating to it being consistent with the City’s goal of activating the central city and riverfront. He questioned who set this goal. Mr. Buck responded that it is part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan to provide more residential units in the downtown area. Mr. Gray then questioned who would be using the public walk proposed to extend between the two apartment buildings from Marion Road to the riverwalk. Mr. Buck replied that anyone could access this sidewalk from Marion Road which has on-street parking and the City desires to keep a connection from this street to the riverwalk. Mr. Gray also questioned what is going to happen to the vacant space near the water tower. Mr. Buck indicated that the Comprehensive Plan has this area marked for mixed use development and the water tower is scheduled to be replaced at some point but it will remain in the same location. Mr. Gray inquired why the underground parking appeared to be only under half of the proposed apartment building. Mr. Buck responded that he believed it was related to a change in grading on the site. Mr. Gray also inquired if a traffic study will be completed with all the new residential units proposed for this area. Mr. Buck replied that the Transportation Director has reviewed all the development plans for this area and did not feel that traffic volumes are that significant to require a traffic study to be completed as yet. Mr. Thoms questioned if the access exit on the west side of the property was required. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 December 2, 2014 Mr. Buck responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms then questioned when the public walk depicted on the east side would be constructed. Mr. Davis indicated that it would depend on the completion date of the proposed development but he would estimate it to be constructed in 2016. Mr. Thoms also questioned if the signage placement would interfere with snow removal due to its close proximity to the road. Mr. Buck responded that it was located near the apron for the driveway and he did not anticipate it to be an issue other than the petitioner may have to shovel around it at times. Mr. Thoms stated that due to the cross access arrangement with the other apartment building, he had concerns regarding the number of parking stalls and if they would be adequate. He questioned if the cross access agreement would allow for overflow parking to utilize the parking stalls at the other apartment complex. Mr. Burich replied that the cross access agreement was to provide another access point to both developments but was not for parking purposes. Mr. Buck added that the nature of senior living apartments does not generate the necessity for the number of parking stalls required for multi-family apartments as there is less demand at these types of units due to most seniors not possessing the multiple vehicles per unit as regular apartments. Mr. Burich added that the City tries to place less emphasis on parking in downtown areas and the C-3 zoning district does not require providing parking and provided examples of mixed use structures downtown that have residential units on the upper floors with commercial uses on the lower levels. Mr. Thoms commented that the City is trying to promote citizens to utilize the riverwalk and not providing any public parking for this use he felt was an issue. He had concerns with approving this development without any area reserved for public use. Mr. Burich responded that the more space that is utilized for public parking would result in that much less space available for development purposes which contribute to generating additional tax revenues for the City. Mr. Vajgrt inquired how many of the parking stalls would be underground. Mr. Buck indicated that 24 stalls would be underground with 56 stalls total for the development. Mr. Hinz commented that nine base standard modifications seem excessive and questioned if the approval of this development would set precedence. Mr. Burich explained that the zoning code standards in a C-3 zoning district does not possess the setback and parking requirements of other districts and that other developments along the riverfront have had numerous base standard modifications in the past. He further discussed these issues and stated that the zoning ordinance code update was still in the process and would address this once completed. He further stated that if this development was proposed to be a more intensive use than an __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 December 2, 2014 apartment building, there would be more concerns with granting numerous base standard modifications of this nature. Mr. Davis added that the soil contamination is an issue with excavating down further to provide additional underground parking for this development and there would also be issues with the water levels. Mr. Gray commented about the visioning study that was held for the riverfront and if approving this development before reviewing the results of the study would be detrimental. Mr. Burich responded that this development was consistent with the Marion Road redevelopment guidelines as this visioning process was completed for this area in the late 1990’s or early 2000’s and was planned for mixed use, residential, or commercial development. Mr. Gray inquired if both of the other apartment buildings are also for senior living purposes. Mr. Buck responded negatively. Mr. Thoms commented on the lack of a formal landscape plan for this development and the comments in the staff report that it would be required to be code compliant as he felt for this area that this was not good enough. He felt the City should have imposed stricter landscaping requirements for developments in this area and the developer should have to install something more aesthetically attractive than simply meeting the minimum code requirements. Mr. Burich indicated that without any other guidelines to reference it is difficult to conclude what additional landscaping should be requested and although it is appropriate conversation relating to this development, the City cannot impose additional requirements on just this specific site. Mr. Thoms stated that the City should apply an overlay within the zoning code that would apply to this area that could have aesthetic requirements that are more stringent than traditional development areas as he did not feel that minimum code standards are good enough for this area. He felt with the entire City’s investment in the riverwalk that the area needs to possess more aesthetic appeal than other sites. Mr. Burich indicated that the developer would have to meet the code standards for landscaping requirements and that the City’s requirements are stricter than most other communities in the area. He added that the Commission could also request that the developer come back with a formal landscape plan for approval at a later date once the development proceeds to the Common Council and is approved to move forward. Mr. Thoms suggested that the Commission may want to consider requiring not only quantities of trees and shrubs in this case but also types of species and features. Mr. Burich responded that City staff has the ability to handle quantities when reviewing landscaping plans but are not landscaping architects so determining appropriate species may be difficult. He reiterated that a formal landscape plan can be brought back for approval after approval of this potential development has been determined. Ms. Propp commented that she understood the base standard modifications other than the one for the building height and questioned what the reason was for it. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 December 2, 2014 Mr. Davis indicated that the developer had to avoid excavating further down into the ground in order to keep out of the water table and ground soil issues and this method of construction would avoid that issue and also keep the costs down. Mr. Burich added that the height limitations do not make sense in the downtown area and this building is only three feet higher than the other existing apartment building. Ms. Propp inquired about if there would be income limitations for residents of this proposed development. Andy Dumke, 230 Ohio Street, stated that market rate apartments and 55 and older restrictions have nothing to do with each other. He further stated that there would be income restrictions for this apartment building but the units at the Anthem apartment building were market rate. He further explained the differences between the two types of housing and how the income restricted units help with the tax credit application process. Mr. Burich questioned how many years the income restrictions would last. Mr. Dumke further explained the number of years that the restrictions may apply however he stated that these restrictions were meant more for larger cities who could obtain higher rental rates on market rate apartments. In this community, the difference between market rate and income restricted units was very minimal. Mr. Burich commented that a lot of developers utilize the tax credit program to assist in financing their apartment developments that could eventually transition to market rate when that changes. Mr. Thoms inquired if this facility would be similar to the original Rivers Senior Living apartments. Mr. Dumke responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms questioned if Mr. Dumke would have any issues with coming back to the Plan Commission with a formal landscape plan at a later date. Mr. Dumke responded negatively and stated that he is trying to do a better job of landscaping his developments than just meeting the code standards. Mr. Davis added that the City of Oshkosh Redevelopment Authority, (RDA), is currently working on landscape plans for the park area adjacent to this site. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the planned development for a multiple family apartment development on property located in the Marion Road redevelopment area (east of 475 Marion Road) with the following revised conditions including an additional condition to approve the landscape plan at a later date: 1) Base standard modification to allow substandard parking count of 1.4-stalls per unit; 2) Base standard modification to density regulations allowing 34 units per acre; 3) Base standard modification to setbacks: a. Front yard (Marion Road) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet for the parking lot and from 25 feet to 4 feet for the identification sign. b. Western side yard setback from 16 feet to 10 feet. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 December 2, 2014 c. Eastern side yard setback from 16 feet to 5 feet for parking and refuse enclosure. d. Southern rear yard (riverfront) setback from 35 feet to 25 feet for the building and from 35 feet to 2 feet for the refuse enclosure. 4) Cross access easements/agreements are provided between the subject property and the property to the west for both the driveways and drive aisle; 5) Proposed ground sign be a monument style sign consistent in design with the other apartment develop signs to the west and east, as approved by the Department of Community Development; 6) Base standard modification for the exclusion of the parking row island on the northernmost row of parking stalls; 7) Base standard modification to allow the elimination of islands at the ends of the vehicle circulation drop-off area with the condition that the striped handicap access areas are protected from vehicles with a physical barrier as approved by the Department of Community Development; 8) Landscaping is positioned with the intent to soften and screen the refuse enclosure from the future public walkway and park space, as approved by the Department of Community Development; 9) Pedestrian lighting is included at the apartments riverside patio and along the private sidewalk, stairwell and handicap ramp connection to the riverwalk as approved by the Department of Community Development; 10) Base standard modification to allow building height of 56 feet 6 inches; 11) Materials used for the refuse enclosure match or compliment the main building’s materials, as approved by the Department of Community Development. 12) The landscape plan be brought back to Plan Commission for comment. Seconded by Cummings. Ms. Propp commented that the Commission has never required a developer to come back for approval of a landscape plan in the past and that it seemed like micro-managing. Mr. Burich indicated that the developer could come back to the Commission for comments and suggestions once a formal landscape plan is developed which could then leave the final approval for the plans under the scrutiny of the Department of Community Development. Mr. Bowen suggested that the review of the landscape plan be handled in the form of a workshop rather than an action item. He felt that requiring the approval of the Plan Commission for this aspect of the development was undermining the discretion of City staff that has always done a very good job of ensuring that developments are constructed as approved. He felt that thoughts and comments could be obtained in a workshop only and staff could follow through with approval of the plans from that point. Mr. Cummings commented that there are all types of landscaping features to be considered and he felt that since the park area would be installed and maintained by the City, that the RDA could work with Mr. Dumke on putting together a landscape plan that would be more consistent with the adjacent sites. Mr. Thoms stated that he was making a point of where the landscaping should be located and discussed his reasoning for his feelings regarding the landscape plans for this area as it is adjacent to the riverwalk. He further stated that this was a responsible developer who he felt would follow through with appropriate plans and doing it in a workshop format would be fine and working with the RDA in conjunction with their park plans would create a more harmonious look for the area. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 December 2, 2014 Mr. Cummings commented that he has seen extensive landscaping done in other communities on riverfront areas and some of it had to be removed because it was creating negative issues. Mr. Hinz stated that this was the same developer who constructed the Fair Acres project several years ago and he worked well with staff and the Plan Commission on that project and he felt that reviewing the landscape plan in a workshop would be sufficient. Ms. Propp commented that she was frustrated about the lack of plans for the project and would like to have an overall development plan for this area as well. Mr. Burich indicated that Marion Road redevelopment plans were created years ago however all of the current Plan Commission members were not on the board at that time. He thought the redevelopment plans were created in 2005 or possibly earlier and these developments agree with the redevelopment plans for this area. Mr. Gray asked to clarify if the landscape plan review would be part of the Plan Commission meeting as an action item or as a workshop. Mr. Bowen reiterated that the landscape plan review should be handled as a workshop. Motion by Vajgrt to amend his previous motion to approve the planned development for a multiple family apartment development on property located in the Marion Road redevelopment area (east of 475 Marion Road) with the following revised conditions including an additional condition to review the landscape plan at a later date during a workshop: 1) Base standard modification to allow substandard parking count of 1.4-stalls per unit; 2) Base standard modification to density regulations allowing 34 units per acre; 3) Base standard modification to setbacks: a. Front yard (Marion Road) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet for the parking lot and from 25 feet to 4 feet for the identification sign. b. Western side yard setback from 16 feet to 10 feet. c. Eastern side yard setback from 16 feet to 5 feet for parking and refuse enclosure. d. Southern rear yard (riverfront) setback from 35 feet to 25 feet for the building and from 35 feet to 2 feet for the refuse enclosure. 4) Cross access easements/agreements are provided between the subject property and the property to the west for both the driveways and drive aisle; 5) Proposed ground sign be a monument style sign consistent in design with the other apartment develop signs to the west and east, as approved by the Department of Community Development; 6) Base standard modification for the exclusion of the parking row island on the northernmost row of parking stalls; 7) Base standard modification to allow the elimination of islands at the ends of the vehicle circulation drop-off area with the condition that the striped handicap access areas are protected from vehicles with a physical barrier as approved by the Department of Community Development; 8) Landscaping is positioned with the intent to soften and screen the refuse enclosure from the future public walkway and park space, as approved by the Department of Community Development; __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 December 2, 2014 9) Pedestrian lighting is included at the apartments riverside patio and along the private sidewalk, stairwell and handicap ramp connection to the riverwalk as approved by the Department of Community Development; 10) Base standard modification to allow building height of 56 feet 6 inches; 11) Materials used for the refuse enclosure match or compliment the main building’s materials, as approved by the Department of Community Development. 12) The landscape plan be brought back to Plan Commission for comment. Seconded by Cummings. Motion carried 8-1. (Ayes-Bowen/Thoms/Fojtik/Hinz/Cummings/ Propp/Vajgrt/Nollenberger. Nays-Gray.) II. STORM SEWER EASEMENT ACQUISITION LOCATED AT 1382 AND 1390 MARICOPA DRIVE The City of Oshkosh Department of Public Works is requesting a 40-foot wide by approximately 200- foot deep storm sewer easement to the City of Oshkosh to install a new five-foot by eight-foot storm sewer through the subject properties to connect from a proposed storm water detention basin to the north to storm water facilities located in Maricopa Drive. Mr. Buck 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 land acquisition for a future storm water detention basin that took place in 2010 and reviewed the detention basin area. He explained that the existing easement was not adequate to allow the construction of the new larger storm sewer pipe required and that the new easement acquisition area was the most viable location. The subject site is not centered on the common property line as noted in the staff report and is actually 15 feet on 1382 Maricopa Drive and 25 feet on 1390 Maricopa Drive. He stated that once construction is complete, the property would be restored to its previous state and would not have a negative impact on the subject properties and is necessary to alleviate storm water flooding issues in the area. Mr. Thoms questioned if this storm sewer easement was to allow water to flow into or out of the detention basin. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, responded that it was to allow water to flow into the basin. Mr. Thoms then questioned if it was planned to be a dry or wet detention basin. Mr. Gohde indicated that the basin would have wet components. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the easement acquisition located at 1382 and 1390 Maricopa Drive. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 9-0. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Burich stated that the riverfront visioning report would be reviewed at the next Plan Commission meeting on December 16th to finalize the plan from the visioning sessions that were held in spring. Mr. Burich reported that the zoning ordinance update process was continuing and a meeting with the stakeholders group would be scheduled in the near future. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 December 2, 2014 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:10 pm. (Vajgrt/Bowen) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services