Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWeekly Newsletter (4) PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES March 3, 2015 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Gary Gray, EXCUSED: Ed Bowen, Donna Lohry, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger STAFF: David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; Steve Brand, Public Works Utility Manager; 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 February 17, 2015 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Gray) I. STORM WATER UTILITY ANNEXATION #1 The petitioner is proposing direct annexation (by unanimous approval) of approximately 4.836 acres of land currently located in the Town of Oshkosh. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. He explained the reasoning for the annexation requests which would be for storm water detention purposes. He reviewed both sites proposed to be annexed and stated that the detention basins are to be engineered/designed in 2015 and constructed in 2016 and will require a conditional use permit approval. The Oshkosh Police Department and Fire Department have reviewed these proposed annexations and do not have any concerns with providing services to this area. Mr. Borsuk questioned what zoning designations were on the adjacent properties. Mr. Nau responded that there were C-1 Neighborhood Business District, R-2 Two Family Residence District, and R-1 Single Family Residence District zoning to the south of this parcel, R-3 Multiple Dwelling District to the north, M-2 Central Industrial District to the east, and R-1 and C-2 General Commercial District to the west. He explained that the City’s Comprehensive Plan was used to determine the zoning designation for this parcel and it is anticipated that when the new Zoning Ordinance was adopted, this zoning classification would change to institutional. Mr. Thoms inquired about the status of the buildings on the site. Mr. Nau responded that the buildings had already been removed. Mr. Gray questioned how big the proposed detention basin would be on this site and if the existing large trees would be removed or retained. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, responded that these details have not yet been considered but that they would have to remove most of the trees to create the necessary channel for the basin although they may maintain some of the trees along the street for screening purposes. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 March 3, 2015 Mr. Gray commented that he would like to see landscaping on the site. Mr. Gohde replied that they cannot screen the site completely as this would not be practical as the detention areas need to function properly. Mr. Nau commented that the detention basins are not part of the review at this time as the requests are for the annexation of the land only. Mr. Borsuk stated that he would like to discuss the proposed zoning classification of R-1 Single Family Residence District for this site as he did not agree that it was the appropriate designation. He felt it should be zoned R-3 Multiple Dwelling District rather than the R-1 classification. Mr. Buck indicated that the R-3 zoning classification would still require a conditional use permit as would the R-1 designation and the R-1 designation was consistent with the zoning classification of the adjacent property to the south. Mr. Thoms commented that the parcel was abutting other R-1 zoned parcels to the south so the zoning designation of R-1 seemed correct as it would be transitioning from south to north. Mr. Borsuk stated that he had concerns with the transitional yard setbacks burden which may become an issue with the R-1 zoning designation. Mr. Buck responded that even if this property possessed the R-1 zoning classification, the property to the north is R-3 and already developed or under development at the current time and as far as function, there would be no difference between the R-1 and R-3 zoning classifications for this site. Peggy Rand, 210 Bacon Avenue, questioned how close the detention basin would be located to the property line. Mr. Gohde replied that they do not have final designs completed for the basins at this time however this site would be a dry detention basin. Motion by Gray to approve the Storm Water Utility Annexation #1 located between the 2400 blocks of Jackson Street and N. Main Street from the Town of Oshkosh. Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 6-1. (Ayes-Thoms/Fojtik/Hinz/Cummings/Propp/Gray. Nays-Borsuk.) II. STORM WATER UTILITY ANNEXATION #2 The petitioner is proposing direct annexation (by unanimous approval) of approximately 6.733 acres of land currently located in the Town of Oshkosh. Mr. Nau presented the item and stated that the land was purchased in 2012 and the Comprehensive Plan has industrial as the recommended land use for this area therefore the M-1 Light Industrial District zoning classification for this site is being requested as such. He reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. Mr. Thoms questioned if the M-1 zoning classification would require a conditional use permit for the approval of the detention basin plans for this site. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 March 3, 2015 Mr. Buck responded that the M-1 zoning designation will require a conditional use permit approval for this use. Mr. Gray inquired if this detention basin was planned to be a wet or dry basin. Mr. Nau responded that it was planned to be a wet detention basin. Mr. Cummings questioned if any of the trees on the site from the previous nursery use would be able to be relocated. Mr. Gohde responded that this has not been researched at this time but he could have the City Forester review the situation to see if it would be feasible. Mr. Hinz inquired if it is anticipated that the new Zoning Ordinance would also change this site to an institutional zoning designation as well. Mr. Nau responded affirmatively. Mr. Borsuk commented that any municipal projects were subject to review by the Plan Commission regardless of the zoning classification. Mr. Buck indicated that the State Statutes that require Plan Commission review are not for all municipal projects but for construction of new municipal buildings only. Mr. Borsuk stated that this should be taken into consideration with the Zoning Ordinance update. Motion by Propp to approve the Storm Water Utility Annexation #2 located in the 2500 block of N. Main Street, south of W. Packer Avenue and east of Jackson Street from the Town of Oshkosh. Seconded by Cummings. Motion carried 7-0. III. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A TWO TENANT RETAIL BUILDING LOCATED EAST OF 1075 NORTH WASHBURN STREET The petitioner requests development plan approval for establishment of a two tenant retail building and accessory parking lot located east of 1075 North Washburn Street. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. He reviewed the site plan which he noted was updated after the staff reports and Commission packets had been prepared to address many of the conditions recommended for this request. He reviewed the original and revised site plans and reviewed the changes made to address staff’s concerns regarding the setbacks, pedestrian walkways, building elevations, and other features covered in the conditions recommended. He discussed in further detail the base standard modifications for the reduced setbacks on the north and south side which the petitioner had increased the south side yard setback to 12.5 - 15 feet with some adjustments to the site plan layout. He also discussed staff recommendation for additional landscaping to be installed for screening purposes and the access drives which will require base standard modifications for two accesses and for the distance between the driveways. He reviewed the internal circulation on the site and discussed the relocation of __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 March 3, 2015 the entrances to the site from the northern drive access off of N. Washburn Street to improve safety. He also discussed the pedestrian access to the site which had been addressed with the addition of pedestrian walkways in the internal parking lot area. He discussed the number of parking stalls proposed which meet code requirements and the lighting and signage for the development which had not been submitted but will have to meet code requirements at the site plan review. He reviewed the landscape plan which is detailed but conceptual only and discussed the increase in landscaping being recommended along the southern lot line and on the east side of the development on N. Washburn Street. Storm water management plans have not yet been submitted but plans would utilize the detention basin on the Lowe’s site and would require review and approval by the Department of Public Works. He also reviewed the building elevations which the petitioner had enhanced with additional architectural features on the west and south facades and stated that these enhancements to the large expanse of wall areas addressed staff’s concerns regarding the lack of architectural articulation. He also reviewed the conditions recommended for this request and noted that condition #3 should be adjusted and conditions #6, 8, 9, and 10 had been met with the submittal of the revised site plan however the conditions should remain as recommendations for this request. Mr. Borsuk voiced his concern with three items that he felt required further review. He stated he would like to further review the east elevation as he did not feel that there were enough architectural enhancements on the east and south side of the structure. He felt that the landscaping on the south side of the property should be intensive and act as a buffer as it is adjacent to a residential use. He also had concerns with the south access drive being utilized by customers and felt that it should be closed off from access to the parking lot on the west side of the building. Mr. Buck indicated that the Fire Department would have issues with closing off this access drive as it is needed for appropriate circulation around the building. Mr. Gray questioned if the item was to be voted on with the original conditions remaining. Mr. Buck responded affirmatively and stated that although most of the conditions had been addressed with the revised site plan, the conditions should remain as the original submittal is still standing with the application. Mr. Thoms commented that condition #3 will have to be adjusted to 12.5 - 15 feet. Mr. Buck confirmed this adjustment. Grant Schwab, 601 Oregon Street, stated he was the developer and present to answer any questions. Ms. Propp stated that she had concerns with the lack of architectural features on the east and south facades and felt that something more than the proposed banding needed to be added to enhance its appearance. Mr. Schwab suggested that they could add more landscaping to these areas. Ms. Propp indicated that she was suggesting features be added to the building itself as she did not feel that it meets the City’s standards for a new development within the highly visible and important commercial corridor. Mr. Schwab responded that he would have to receive approval from the tenants of the retail structure as they have standard corporate designs for their structures. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 March 3, 2015 Mr. Buck added that staff felt that the additional banding and knee wall as well as the differing façade articulation on these walls addressed the issue appropriately as they will break up the façade with shadow lines. Mr. Thoms questioned if the addition of speed bumps on the service and delivery drive on the south side of the development would inhibit truck traffic. Mr. Schwab responded that it could and that they did not want this traffic to circulate back through the parking lot and the Fire Department would have issues with closing off this drive on the west side of the development. Mr. Buck added that the addition of speed bumps would not prevent use of this drive by trucks but would discourage customer car traffic from utilizing this drive access. Mr. Cummings discussed the east side of the building elevation as he also felt it could be enhanced better due to its important and highly visible location. Mr. Borsuk discussed the history of development of this area and stated that the tenants may have corporate designs for their structures but they can be altered to suit the community’s requirements. He further stated that Highway 41 traffic would make the east façade very visible and there were a multitude of architectural features available to further enhance this side of the development. Mr. Schwab responded that this was not a blank wall and the architectural features had been enhanced and he felt it represents the building well and the Commission would need to be more specific as to want they want to see. Mr. Borsuk questioned how intensive the landscaping would be on the east side of the development. Mr. Schwab replied that they are maintaining a larger buffer area on the N. Washburn Street side of the development for the purpose of landscaping features and that they are not taking advantage of utilizing all the area for the development itself for that reason. Mr. Fojtik commented that it was a difficult site to work with from a development standpoint. Ms. Propp inquired if there would be trees or shrubs on the east side as large trees would address the issue. Mr. Schwab stated that they would work with City staff on this issue to ensure that the landscaping used would be appropriate. Mr. Borsuk questioned what the condition relating to the landscaping addressed. Mr. Buck responded that condition #7 addressed landscaping as a screen and buffer but it related to the south lot line of the development but that the east side was not included in the conditions. Mr. Borsuk stated that more landscaping was required on the east side or more vertical architectural features added to the building façade and he was willing to leave that up to staff to determine how it would best be addressed. He felt that condition #10 addressing the enhancement of the east and south facades should be altered to include either more architectural features or additional landscaping. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 March 3, 2015 Motion by Gray to approve the planned development of a two tenant retail building located east of 1075 North Washburn Street with the following conditions which include altering condition #3 from 15 feet to 12.5 - 15 feet and the addition of condition #11 to increase vertical landscaping and/or vertical architectural features on the east facade: 1.Lot 1 is acquired and combined with Lot 2 or a cross access agreement is instituted between both property owners for installation and use of the proposed southern Washburn Street access drive. 2.Base standard modification for the north side yard setback, as proposed. 3.Base standard modification for the reduction in the south side yard setback from 19’ 2” to 12.5 feet - 15 feet. 4.Base standard modification to allow two street access drives to the site, as proposed. 5.Base standard modification for the reduction in separation between the southernmost drive and the driveway on the neighboring property to the south from 125 foot to 90 feet. 6.Base standard modification for the elimination of the landscape island along the westernmost row of parking adjacent to the west property line to allow for a pedestrian sidewalk connection to the building entrance walks. 7.Installation of landscaping buffer and/or other screening along the south lot line to be approved by the Department of Community Development. 8.Westernmost entrance to the parking lot be shifted east to line up with the next parking stall drive aisle. 9.Extend the pedestrian walkways from the north building facades to connect with the public sidewalk on Washburn Street and connect with the internal campus drive four-way intersection to the west. 10.The building design is enhanced on the east and south facades with elements that provide articulation and/or breaks in the wall plane, per approval by the Department of Community Development. 11.Increase vertical landscaping or addition of vertical architectural features on the east façade per approval by the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Thoms. Mr. Cummings commented that he felt the east façade required more than just landscape buffering such as something with architectural integrity that would be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with the structure as it was a highly visible side of the development. Mr. Fojtik stated that he felt staff understands what the Commission desires to see and the additional condition addresses it adequately. Motion carried 7-0. OTHER BUSINESS WATER TOWER RECONSTRUCTION Mr. Gohde inquired as to what information the Plan Commission desired to discuss regarding the Marion Road water tower reconstruction. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 March 3, 2015 Mr. Borsuk stated that he wanted to discuss the proposed location as he had concerns with the decision to move the water tower to another site in the general area and what would be done with the former site. Steve Brand, Public Works Utility Manager, passed out photos to the Commission members of various color schemes that were not included with the information distributed with their board packets. Mr. Gohde reviewed the site plan depicting the location of the current water tower and the proposed new location when reconstructed. He discussed the adjacent sites and uses and stated that relocation of the tower is being considered to avoid having the water tower out of commission until the new one is constructed. He displayed on the map the proposed new location which would be south of the Accu- Com facility site which would be in close proximity to the original water tower location. Mr. Thoms questioned if there was any reason why the water tower has to be located near the riverwalk. Mr. Gohde explained that the City’s water system has been in place since 1936 and is designed around its current location and further explained how the system functions and the additional costs to the overall system that would be needed related to moving it to another site. Mr. Gray inquired if the design would be a Stakeholder Committee decision. Mr. Gohde responded that there was a stakeholder meeting held last month and another one scheduled this month. He reviewed the four types of water tower styles available and stated that the Committee has settled on two designs to consider. He also discussed the features and advantages and disadvantages of each choice. Mr. Brand discussed the many architectural features available as well as the color schemes or other features that could enhance the site. Commission members were welcome to join the stakeholder meeting if so desired. Mr. Borsuk stated that there was some merit to moving it from its current location and his concern with what we do with the existing water tower site once the new tower is constructed. Mr. Buck commented that both the current location and the proposed new location are located in a Planned Development district therefore they would require Plan Commission review. Mr. Borsuk stated that he wanted to make sure that the new location is the best choice and that it would not limit the development of other properties in the vicinity. Mr. Thoms commented that it was a practical matter and that the water tower could be relocated but it would be very costly. Commission members discussed the example provided of the Greendale site where the new water tower was constructed in the near vicinity of the original structure. Mr. Thoms questioned what was involved with the cell antenna issues on the water tower. Mr. Brand responded that the City received $50,000 a year from cell tower providers that utilize the water tower for placement of antennas and that the City would like to continue this arrangement __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 March 3, 2015 however they do not want them to detract from the aesthetic appearance of the new water tower. He provided examples of stealthing mechanisms screening for the antennas that would be considered and a building on the site would also be under consideration. Mr. Gray questioned when the proposed construction was scheduled to begin. Mr. Brand indicated that they hope to start the project next year and it would take 12 to 16 months to complete. Mr. Gray stated that he appreciated the information and requested that they keep the Plan Commission informed on this matter. th Mr. Brand commented that the next Stakeholder Committee meeting was scheduled for March 5 at 6:00 pm. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:28 pm. (Hinz/Cummings) Respectfully submitted, David L. Buck Principal Planner __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 March 3, 2015