Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 December 16, 2014 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES December 16, 2014 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Gary Gray, Donna Lohry EXCUSED: Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Brian Slusarek, Planning Technician; 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 December 2, 2014 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Propp) I. PRESENTATION-OSHKOSH RIVERFRONT VISIONING PROJECT “LET’S BE PIONEERS” BY EAST CENTRAL WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Eric Fowle, Executive Director, and Benjamin Krumenauer, Associate Planner, both from East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, were present to discuss the results of the visioning workshops that were held last summer to obtain public input on what citizens wanted to see developed in the riverfront area. Ms. Lohry arrived at 4:02 pm. Mr. Fowle discussed the old industrial sites that remain in the city and the blight and other conditions associated with these previous uses on the riverfront and how some of the redevelopment sites may be looking a little piece meal as new uses are developed. He discussed the three workshops that were established to obtain public input on what they would like to see in this area of which 72 registered persons attended with about 90-100 persons in total attendance. He reviewed a map of the geographic area of the attendees and stated the results are subject to interpretation. Mr. Fowle and Mr. Krumenauer conducted a presentation regarding the exercises that were held at the three workshops, as follows: 1. Who/What is Oshkosh 2. Influence and Confluence 3. Connect the Dots 4. Places and Spaces 5. Fix This! 6. How Intense!/Big Ideas! They discussed the results from each of the exercises and the amount of responses for each and the most common themes established. Mr. Fowle stated that the results are subject to interpretation and will provide a good guide for master planning for the riverfront areas and discussed how the plan should be used. He discussed the maps included in the report that was distributed and the patterns that __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 December 16, 2014 were reflected from citizens responses on different issues. He felt there was enough information gathered to form a place-making concept and think about the details included in the report. He felt the consensus boundary and the connectivity should be considered and that the places and spaces section should be reviewed to create a more vibrant riverfront. He also stated that the city should look at short-term fixes to address residents concerns as well as long-term issues. He discussed reviewing the variety of land use performances and felt the “big ideas” should be reviewed and considered. He thanked the Planning Services staff for their assistance with conducting the workshops. Mr. Burich stated that staff would need to review the report and figure out how to use it as we start to look at desired development in this area to create a master plan. The report could also be useful in updating the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Borsuk questioned if there were any big surprises obtained by conducting these workshops. Mr. Fowle responded that he was impressed with people’s ability to think outside the box and that the mixed-use development concept was more desired than he anticipated it would be. The petitioner for the telecommunications tower extension requested that his item be moved up on the agenda from Item III to Item II. The Commission agreed to grant his request. III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER LOCATED AT 1821 JACKSON STREET (DOLLAR TREE) The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 35-foot extension on an existing 45-foot telecommunications tower located at 1821 Jackson Street. 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 existing conditions of the subject site, the land uses in the general vicinity, and the past history of the existing telecommunication tower placement. He reviewed the site plan and the request to extend the height of the tower from 45 feet to 80 feet and the necessity for it due to the need to meet greater demand for cellular services. He displayed renderings of how the new tower would look and various versions of both the existing tower and the proposed tower and discussed the questionnaires that were sent to neighboring property owners which mainly received favorable responses. He also reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Ms. Propp stated that there was some state legislation in place that bars municipalities from denying telecommunication towers however she was not certain of the specific details. Mr. Burich responded that he was not sure about the statutory requirements but he was aware that there were restrictions on what can be denied however he was not sure of the specific requirements. The municipality may have some jurisdiction when it comes to the increase in height. Mr. Gray questioned if there were safety issues related to these towers and how many in our community extended to this height. Mr. Nau replied that there are several towers that he is aware of however the County maintains this information as well as the FCC and he did not have a specific number available. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 December 16, 2014 Mr. Gray then questioned how the tower is anchored. Mr. Nau responded that it is constructed in a fashion that would not allow it to tip over. Ms. Lohry stated that she would not be supporting this request although there is no substantiated proof of these towers causing health issues; she feels they could have potential negative health impacts and she was opposed to its approval. Mr. Thoms commented that he would like to know the answer to the legislative restrictions and felt the Common Council should be made aware of it prior to voting on this request. He was not aware of any scientific proof of health issues from these structures but did not understand why this would be supported by staff now when it was not approved for this height 15 years ago when the original tower was erected. Mr. Nau indicated that staff felt that there was some visual difference but not large enough of an impact to effect aesthetics of the area and that technology demands had changed dramatically over the years and the increased demand for services was necessitating the need for more and higher structures that could provide the ability for these services to be available. Mr. Buck added that he reviewed the minutes from the last request and found there was more opposition to it at that time however people are more comfortable with these issues now. The existing tower has been at this location for 15 years with the same amount of capacity and there has not been any complaints regarding this structure. Mr. Thoms questioned if other cell tower sites were going to be eliminated if this height extension is approved. Mr. Buck responded that he did not believe so but it could absorb some capacity from other sites that may be over utilized. Mr. Burich commented that from a brief inquiry online he was able to find that local governments can no longer deny telecommunication towers for aesthetic reasons alone and that the League of Wisconsin has more information that can be researched regarding other restrictions. Jim Weinmann, Nsighttel Wireless, stated that to his knowledge municipalities are prohibited from denying cell towers due to health concerns as there is no basis for it and further explained the exposure issues in relation to health problems. The only health concern that is credible is working very close on a rooftop (within 2 to 3 feet) for 6 to 8 hours at a time and this information can be researched online. He further stated that state law limits authorities to deny a request for a tower due to setback limitations and this request could possibly be denied under this portion of the law. He explained that the amount of capacity being used has exploded in past years and the increased demand for services requires an increase in capacity for facilities that provide it. The height extension would cover a larger area and make for a more efficient use of the existing site. Mr. Bowen questioned if the existing tower has other companies utilizing it. Mr. Weinmann responded that the current height limits other users on it now, but if approved, the increase in height would allow other users to co-habitat on this tower. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 December 16, 2014 Mr. Hinz inquired what a ballpark figure would be for the amount of change in coverage that would result from the tower extension. Mr. Weinmann replied that it would be 4 to 8 blocks or possibly up to a quarter of a mile or more. Mr. Gray questioned how the city would monitor if other users were utilizing the tower. Mr. Nau responded that the city is aware of any additions to these structures as a building permit has to be obtained. Ms. Lohry requested the petitioner to explain the differences between ionized and non-ionized emissions from these facilities. Mr. Weinmann replied that ionized emissions are more likely to alter human cells where non-ionized emissions do not have this aspect. John Jansen, owner of 1845 and 1847 Wisconsin Street, stated that he was opposed to the height extension as he did not feel that, as an adjacent property owner, there were any benefits for him. He felt that it will affect property values in the area and the tower would be unsightly and have potential health risks. A realtor he contacted indicated that property values will decrease by 10% due to placement of a cell tower in the vicinity and he questioned if the application substantiates that a gap in coverage currently exists and what evidence do they have to support this claim. He stated that he understood that the request could not be denied due to health concerns but it sounded like the setback provisions would allow the ability to block the approval of this request. It was denied 15 years ago and he felt it should be again. Mr. Thoms inquired when this request was initially approved if there was a setback issue and if so, was an exemption or exception granted at that time. Mr. Nau responded that no exception was given for the previous request and the 45 foot height of the tower met the City’s requirements. Motion by Borsuk to approve the conditional use permit for an extension of an existing telecommunications tower located at 1821 Jackson Street with the following conditions: 1. The proposed tower and tower site shall be designed to accommodate collocation of at least two additional users per Section 30-35(J)(2)(c)(i) of the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. 2. The permit holder for the tower shall allow collocation of at least two additional users per Section 30-35(J)(2)(c)(ii) of the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. Seconded by Thoms. Ms. Lohry discussed her allergy issues and that she felt her immune system was compromised due to workplace conditions and still had concerns about health impacts from this use and would not support this request. Ms. Propp commented that the 80 feet in height sounds like it falls within the parameters and although the existing tower is not noticeable now it will be more visible when it is extended to 80 feet. However, she would support this request as the service is necessary. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 December 16, 2014 Mr. Bowen stated that he would be more comfortable with laying this request over until the next meeting as the Commission is not sure what is allowed to be approved and he felt more information was necessary for them to make a decision on this request. Mr. Burich indicated that staff could do more research on the flexibility that would be allowed when considering this request and questioned if the petitioner had any issues with delaying voting on this request until the next meeting. Mr. Weinmann responded that he had no problem with this delay. Mr. Borsuk withdrew his motion for approval. Motion by Bowen to lay over the conditional use permit for an extension of an existing telecommunications tower located at 1821 Jackson Street until the next meeting. Seconded by Hinz. Motion carried 9-0. II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE (SNELL WEST SANITARY PUMP STATION) LOCATED AT 1975 WEST SNELL ROAD The applicant is requesting two actions within this petition: A. Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development approval for removal of an existing public utility structure and construction of a new public utility structure on a parcel located at 1975 West Snell Road; and B. Architectural Review of the proposed building. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the zoning classifications and land use in the area. He discussed the history of the existing pump station and reviewed the site plan, landscaping plan, and elevations for the proposed structure. He also discussed the mechanical equipment to be placed on the rooftop and ground and reviewed the conditions recommended. Mr. Cummings questioned if the structure would look like the existing pump station located across from Webster Stanley School. Mr. Slusarek responded affirmatively. Mr. Cummings commented that the architectural features could be improved upon as he felt the structure across from the school was not up to the standards of the community. Mr. Thoms questioned the meaning of “peak flows” that was referenced in the staff report. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, explained the sanitary sewer system and how it functions and that the pump station is in need of replacement for the development in the Eichstadt Road area, which is over capacity. Mr. Thoms then questioned what equipment would be placed on the pads and why it could not be located within the structure. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 December 16, 2014 Mr. Gohde responded that the equipment to be placed outside on the pads was due to the fact that it cannot be placed inside of the structure. Mr. Gray questioned what the reason was for the increased capacity. Mr. Gohde explained how the city was re-routing flows in the existing system which was necessary due to current and additional future developments anticipated in this area. Mr. Thoms inquired if staff felt that the architectural design was satisfactory. Mr. Buck responded that staff had requested some changes to the structure from what was originally proposed and that landscaping features were placed in front of it and horizontal banding was added to the façade. He also commented that it was a utility structure and as an accessory structure, costly architectural features were not considered to be required. Mr. Thoms commented that he felt this building should not be any different than other proposals and should be held to the same standards as any other development. Mr. Buck indicated that the building’s materials were of decent quality and possessed color variations and was not located in an industrial area. Ms. Propp stated that it looks identical to the Menominee Park structure and, although she realized the need for the pump station, it did not blend well in the area. She felt this pump station needed to have more landscaping surrounding it as the structure in the park is an embarrassment. She questioned what could be done to increase the landscaping conditions on this request. Mr. Thoms commented that he felt the building needed a more contrasting color scheme. Mr. Buck responded that the Commission could add conditions to the request to address these concerns. Mr. Hinz stated that he agrees with the other Commission members as to the aesthetics as the structure in the park looks like a big brick and a differentiation in colors and additional landscaping could improve its appearance. Mr. Gohde explained that the color is the same as the Melvin Street pump station as the city has to maintain a paint stock to periodically re-paint these structures due to graffiti and it is less costly when they do not have to maintain several different colors for different buildings. He further stated that the landscaping could be increased on this site and that the landscaping installed at the Melvin Street station has not grown as planned and could be enhanced. Mr. Gray commented that he felt that the building being multi-colored was more important for aesthetics than additional landscaping as it was more costly to maintain the landscaping features. Motion by Propp to approve the conditional use permit/planned development and architectural review for a public utility structure (Snell West Sanitary Pump Station) located at 1975 West Snell Road with the following conditions including revising condition #1 to include a major increase of additional trees and vegetation to improve its appearance: __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 December 16, 2014 1. Significant increase in additional trees and other vegetation is added or relocated to provide screening along the west and north lot lines to improve the aesthetic appearance, as approved by the Department of Community Development. 2. Ground mechanical equipment shall be screened by landscaping or solid fencing. Seconded by Cummings. Mr. Thoms questioned if the brick architecture was acceptable with the additional landscaping requirements. Ms. Lohry stated that she felt that the explanation of why the colors are similar was satisfactory. Motion carried 9-0. IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR A COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU EAST OF 1090 NORTH WASHBURN STREET The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Planned Development (PD) approval for the development of a commercial restaurant with a drive-thru. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in said area. He discussed other uses in this vicinity and that the proposed use was consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He also discussed the hours of operation and staffing for the restaurant and reviewed the site plan, landscape plan, building design, site layout, and access and parking for the site. He reviewed the base standard modifications necessary due to the small site with three street frontages and the adjacent Kwik Trip site. He also discussed the traffic circulation which would include cross access between this site and the Kwik Trip site and reviewed the proposed pedestrian accesses. He discussed the signage and the analysis he completed on other signs in the frontage road area and the necessity to have a tall pylon sign due to elevated roadways. He discussed the landscape plans, which staff is recommending additional plantings and reviewed the storm water management plans, the building elevations, refuse enclosure, and the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Hinz commented that the three-lane driveway is located across from the exit to the Lowe’s facility and questioned if a traffic study was completed to determine its feasibility or safety. Mr. Buck responded that a traffic study was done at the time of the Lowe’s development and the driveway for any future development at this location was determined to be across from the Lowe’s site drive access as it allowed for safer, more efficient turning movements. Mr. Hinz commented that he felt that it was a great design layout with the drive-thru at its proposed location. Mr. Gray commented on the reference in the staff report to some shrubs needing to be substituted with tree plantings in some locations as the ratio was too unbalanced and that he did not feel that was necessary. He also stated that he felt it was very interesting that the restaurant would have 30-35 seats however there would be 46-49 parking stalls. Mr. Buck clarified that the 30-35 seats referenced in the report was for the outside patio area only. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 December 16, 2014 Patrick Bennett, Civil Engineer for Core States Group, stated that the restaurant would have seating for 100 inside the restaurant in addition to the patio seating so the parking stalls designated for the development would not be excessive. He also noted that the staff report referenced that the establishment would be open Monday through Saturday and it should be Monday through Sunday. He also commented that he appreciated all the assistance he received from staff during the development of this project. Motion by Hinz to approve the conditional use permit/planned development for a commercial restaurant with drive-thru east of 1090 North Washburn Street with the following conditions: 1) Base standard modification for the north front yard setback, east front yard setback and west side yard setback, as proposed. 2) Base standard modification to allow the refuse enclosure in the north front yard, as proposed. 3) Base standard modification to allow the drive-thru in the south front yard, as proposed. 4) Base Standard modification to allow light levels in excess of code along the west side yard property line. 5) Subject site (Panera) to provide cross access agreement to adjacent property to the west (Kwik Trip) and be recorded with the Register of Deeds. 6) Additional trees to be added to the landscape islands and in the open area of the north front yard setback (State Highway 21), per approval by the Department of Community Development. 7) Refuse enclosure materials match or compliment the primary building, per approval by the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Cummings. Motion carried 8-0-1. (Bowen abstained) V. DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR A BANK DEVELOPMENT WITH DRIVE- THRU ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PEARL AVENUE AND JACKSON STREET IN THE MARION ROAD REDEVELOPMENT AREA Hoffman Planning, Design and Construction have submitted site plans and concept elevation renderings for Development Plan Review for an in-fill project proposed in the Phase II Marion Road Redevelopment Area. The project includes the development of an 8,000 square foot bank building with drive-thru at the southwest corner of Pearl Avenue and Jackson Street. Mr. Buck presented the item and stated that this item includes not only a review of the planned development but also a review of its consistency with the Marion Road/Pearl Avenue Redevelopment Area Phase II Development Guidelines, which were created in 2003. He reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in said area. He discussed the history of the redevelopment area including the Accu-Com building, Morton Pharmacy development, and the mixed use development that was approved but never constructed. He reviewed the conceptual site plan, pedestrian accesses, refuse enclosure, patio/sitting area, landscape plan, and fencing for the proposed development. He discussed the building’s location and drive thru location on the site and the base standard modifications necessary. He also reviewed the internal circulation on the site and discussed the concerns with stacking issues resulting from the location of the drive thru and the base standard modification necessary for the lateral clearance on Jackson Street. He noted that signage was not included with the application but would be brought back to the Plan Commission for approval at a later date. He discussed the landscaping features in greater detail and stated that lighting plans had not been included but would be required to meet code requirements. He also discussed storm water __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 December 16, 2014 management which was already in place as part of the overall area’s detention plans and elevations of the structure which were also not included but reviewed the examples provided of other banks in other communities that were previously developed. He reviewed the renderings of the bank in Sheboygan that were provided by the petitioner which possessed similar architectural features and discussed the refuse enclosure requirements which were also not included with this submission. He reviewed the 2003 design guidelines for the Marion Road/Pearl Avenue redevelopment area to set recommendations for the redevelopment criteria for this area. He reviewed the parameters for this site and the recommended location of the parking areas, density / floor area ratio as well as the requirement for street edge presence and the overall analysis relative to the Marion Road/Pearl Avenue (MRPA) design guidelines, of which this development meets 5 of the 9 MRPA standards. He also discussed alternatives for the development that would help the project meet more of the design standard guidelines such as rotating the building 90 degrees and moving the parking area off the street edge. He stated that the Plan Commission was to make a recommendation on both the consistency with the MRPA design guidelines as well as the approval of the planned development. He also reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Borsuk stated that the Plan Commission previously held a workshop session on this proposed development to obtain general comments and questioned what the applicant was told. He also commented on the photos of the bank in Sheboygan as it did not show a rendering of what the site looked like from a head-on view which would give the Commission a better idea of what the development would look like from the Jackson Street view. He was also interested in what the entryway would look like. Mr. Buck responded that there were examples of the entryways on both the west and east side of the Sheboygan development and that the elevations would be required to come back to the Plan Commission at a later date for final approval. He also discussed the drive thru entrance which the petitioner did not provide renderings of from the Sheboygan development. He further stated that the workshop held was on the concept of a bank on this site however he was not sure about exactly what the petitioner took away from this session as far as Commission members’ comments about their plans. Mr. Gray questioned if the development improvements referenced in the staff report were construction values or assessed values. Mr. Buck responded that they were assessed values. Mr. Gray also commented on the number of employees at this facility and questioned if the current bank facility at City Center would be closing and moving those employees to this new site. He also commented about the recommendation necessary that it is consistent with the guidelines and although he did not feel that it was, he did not feel it was necessary as these were only guidelines and not policy. He felt it could be said that the guidelines did not apply in this circumstance. Mr. Bowen commented that the 2003 design guidelines were not only developed to offer standards for this area but were also incorporated into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He questioned when this development goes before the RDA, will they be reviewing it in context of the design standards. Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, responded that the RDA looks at multiple things and they would be reviewing the concept, which they did support initially. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 December 16, 2014 Mr. Thoms inquired if we adhered to the 2003 design guidelines when we allowed the development of the Morton Pharmacy site as he wished to determine if it was consistent with what is being done with this development. Mr. Burich responded that the Morton Pharmacy development was part of a package that included the mixed use development along Jackson Street which served as to offset the approval of the pharmacy site, which did not adhere to the 2003 design guidelines. Mr. Thoms stated that it did not appear that the Accu-Com development met the design guidelines requirements either. Mr. Burich indicated that the Accu-Com development did meet those requirements as the building is up against the street with the parking behind the structure as specified in the design standards. Mr. Thoms commented that we changed some of the design to make the Morton development work and he would need to know some other details. This development meets a piece of the guidelines and details such as extending the fence may help this project meet some of the standards required. Mr. Borsuk stated that some significant details are missing in the presentation such as elevations and the ability to rotate the building and suggested that this item be laid over until additional materials could be submitted. Bob Gredorski, representing Bank First National, discussed entering into their option to purchase the property this past summer and that he had met with staff at that time and went through several conceptual plans. He explained that they were looking to see if this development would receive approval from the Plan Commission prior to incurring the expense of creating full blown plans for the project. He stated that if the development received a favorable recommendation, they would come back to the Plan Commission at a later date with full elevations and design plans, however at this point they need to know if this development would be found suitable for the site. Ms. Lohry commented that she liked the concept and felt that the Morton’s development came out very nice. Mr. Thoms stated that rotating the building so the drive thru aisle does not face Jackson Street was suggested by staff and questioned if that was something that they would consider altering. Mr. Gredorski replied that the site was difficult to develop with the biofilters and easements and other limiting features and that only half of the property was available for the development. He also stated that the improved value quoted in the staff report was the value of assessed costs not construction costs. He also discussed the numerous designs created with changing the layout of the site and that the drive thru would not work on the back side of the development. He further explained the reasons why the various other designs they conceived did not work due to safety concerns and traffic movement concerns. He stated that the proposed site plan functions well and discussed the other buildings in the redevelopment area. He reiterated that the site was difficult to develop and that access was also challenging. He discussed that the options on the site for the mixed use development approved never came to fruition and discussed the difficulties working with the site layout and being able to meet the design guidelines. He described the drive thru proposed on the other building and the architectural features included on their drive thru and the impact of the building. He explained that there were ten employees currently at the City Center bank facility and that facility would close when this development was constructed. The new facility would employ 16 to 18 persons and they are trying to __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 December 16, 2014 both meet the design standard guidelines as well as creating a bank that meets their prototypical design and is customer friendly. He felt this development meets the design guidelines better than the Accu- Com or Morton Pharmacy developments and they need to move forward with their option to purchase but they need to be confident about the building design before doing so. He requested confirmation from the Plan Commission that the development would receive a positive recommendation before they proceed. Ms. Propp stated that she would support the bank development and that she does not agree with staff’s characterization on some of the details. She further stated that the architectural compatibility seems out of place with other buildings in the area as it looks too modern in style. Mr. Gredorski indicated that he felt the proposed building looks better than other structure in the area and is an expensive bank development. Mr. Fojtik commented that the architectural style was more like a Frank Lloyd Wright quality and the city may not do much better in finding more appropriate development for this site. He did agree that it was not like the other structures in the vicinity. Mr. Gray again questioned if the value of improvement was assessed value or construction costs. Mr. Gredorski responded that it was assessed value. Mr. Thoms inquired about how much leeway there would be regarding the strong street edge portion of the design guidelines. He felt that the sitting area was a nice enhancement and questioned if fencing could be added or other features to satisfy that requirement of the design standards. He felt with some alterations it should be enough to meet the necessary criteria. Mr. Burich explained that the guidelines were meant to set a guide as a starting point to evaluate development proposals and that we can waiver from them. This proposal would still have to go to the RDA and Common Council for approval and if the Commission members have suggestions, we need to hear about them. He further discussed references in the 2003 development guidelines. Mr. Thoms commented that he did not see where this development would be inconsistent with the development guidelines set forth. Mr. Gredorski stated that the building was 24 feet tall at its highest point as proposed and they could add a foot to it to meet the height aspect of the design guidelines. He did not see how rotating the building would resolve the issue of the location of the on-site parking as it would flip the area of the parking stalls however it would still be located near the road. Mr. Bowen commented about meeting the density requirement of the guidelines as that point really is far off of the expectations as far as .01 compared to .65 floor area ratio. He felt the only way to resolve this would be to make the parcel smaller or add a second floor to the structure. Mr. Gredorski responded that it was an 8000 square foot bank building which is a very large facility and that the site could not be divided to accommodate two users as the two biofilters and the easement area takes up too much space. He further stated that the mixed use development concept does not work for them as the banking facility does not want residents living above it. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 December 16, 2014 Mr. Cummings commented that the architectural features of this development raises the bar and he thought it fits well with the Welcome Center of the University. He did have concerns that the city spent a lot of time and money on these redevelopment guidelines in 2003 and questioned how far we should deviate from this plan after the expense that went into creating it. He felt the bank would be a good fit at this location however we have to address how it meets the redevelopment guidelines. Mr. Gray felt this was a good development and he would be in support of it. Mr. Borsuk questioned if this was the only site layout that the bank felt would work for their development. Mr. Gredorski responded affirmatively and explained their reasoning for the location of the drive thru and that to place the parking stalls behind the drive thru would result in pedestrians needing to cross over the drive lanes which he did not feel would work. Mr. Borsuk commented that Chase Bank in Fond du Lac has a similar situation with their layout and it seems to work well for them. Mr. Gredorski disagreed and offered to demonstrate his philosophy with site plans. Mr. Borsuk stated that he was not sure about this development and was uncomfortable with approving it as presented. He felt that the city had ideas for this area however they are trying to make something else work there instead. The development program of this area seems to be driven by acquiring the necessary tax increment and we need to consider if this development is what should go on this parcel. Mr. Bowen commented that if this development was proposed for a location on Highway 21, Witzel Avenue or Koeller Street, there would be no question about its approval however he felt the density factor was still an issue. The design guidelines were for an urban dense downtown development and this proposal does not fit with the Comprehensive Plan and the tax increment is not something that is within the Plan Commission’s prevue. He further stated that he could not accept a floor area ratio of .01 for this development and although he would like to see something developed on this site, he would not support the project as presented. Mr. Cummings stated that Common Council decisions really have a long term impact on the city and the strategic planning sessions that were held all dealt with long term issues. He felt the Commission needed to look at the design guidelines, the Comprehensive Plan and the long term impact of this development and not consider the short term benefits alone. Mr. Thoms commented that he did not feel that this development was contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and was not consistent with the redevelopment guidelines only. He felt we need to consider functionality and in most large cities banks are located in the downtown area. This facility would be able to service both the residential needs of the apartment developments in this area as well as the University and he did not feel it was necessary to meet certain density requirements laid out in the design guidelines. This facility would provide services for this area and the Commission should be looking at more than just a density ratio. The architectural differences make sense in his opinion and the guidelines are not set in concrete and he felt it was a good development proposal. He also had concerns that waiting for the next development that would meet more of the design guidelines may not work out. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 December 16, 2014 Ms. Lohry agreed with Mr. Thoms and stated that she did not feel bound by the design guidelines as she was not a member of the Plan Commission at the time they were developed. She further stated she was pleased with the architectural features and landscaping plans and felt it was a good addition to the downtown area which was more important than the density ratio. Mr. Hinz stated that he agreed that the proposed bank is larger than most bank facilities and would have more employees than the existing facility and he felt it was the type of long term development that the city was looking for. Mr. Gray stated that he was very conservative and these guidelines were developed in 2003. He commented about why we were updating the zoning ordinance or why we have building standards and that he felt this was a good plan and may be the best we will ever see for the site. Ms. Propp commented that she was willing to waive the strong street edge objective of the design guidelines however she could not say that it is consistent with the design guidelines. Mr. Gredorski stated that the staff report refers to the floor area ratio as .01 and that was a typo and it should be .10. Mr. Gray suggested that the Commission could approve the development plan with the caveat that it is not consistent with the design guidelines. Motion by Bowen to vote on the consistency with the Phase II Development Guidelines and the planned development review as two separate votes. Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 7-2. (Ayes-Borsuk/Bowen/Fojtik/Cummings/Propp/ Gray/Lohry. Nays-Thoms/Hinz) Motion by Borsuk that the proposed development is consistent with the Marion Road/Pearl Avenue Redevelopment Area Phase II Development Guidelines. Seconded by Bowen. Motion denied 6-3. (Ayes-Thoms/Fojtik/Hinz. Nays-Borsuk/Bowen/ Cummings/Propp/Gray/Lohry) Motion by Gray to approve a planned development for a bank development with drive-thru on property located at the southwest corner of Pearl Avenue and Jackson Street with the following conditions: 1) Base standard modification to allow 0 side yard setbacks at the south and west lot lines; 2) Final sign package be brought back to the Plan Commission for final approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Final building elevations be brought back to the Plan Commission for design review and final approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 4) On site lighting to be pedestrian scale and approved by the Department of Community Development. 5) Final approval of dumpster enclosure be consistent with the principal building and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to permit issuance. 6) Cross access easements/agreements between the multiple properties within the redevelopment area are established; 7) Base standard modification to allow nine feet of lateral clearance from the Jackson Street Property line to the drive-through lane exit; __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 14 December 16, 2014 8) Walkways are delineated with pavement markings or alternate paving material where they cross vehicular drive aisles; 9) Proposed ground identity sign be monument style consistent with other signs in the redevelopment area and receive final approval by the Department of Community Development; 10) Low level pedestrian lighting be included at the Pearl Avenue patio/sitting area; 11) Landscaping be positioned in the setback area along Jackson Street in front of the drive- through with the intent to soften and buffer the pavement area and the headlights associated with drive-through traffic from Jackson Street; 12) Materials used for the refuse enclosure match or compliment the main building’s materials, as approved by the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 9-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 7:25 pm. (Cummings/Hinz) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services