Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 October 6, 2015 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES October 6, 2015 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, Steve Cummings, Gary Gray, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: David Borsuk, John Hinz, Kathleen Propp, Donna Lohry, Robert Vajgrt STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Elizabeth Williams, Assistant Planner; Brian Slusarek, Planning Technician; James Rabe, 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 15, 2015 were approved as presented. (Nollenberger/Cummings) I. ACCESS CONTROL VARIANCE TO PERMIT THREE DRIVEWAY OPENINGS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 450 WEST 33RD AVENUE The petitioner is requesting an Access Control Variance to permit three driveway openings for property located at 450 West 33rd Avenue. Mr. Bowen arrived at 4:02 pm. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the zoning classifications in this area. He explained the reason for the request is to accommodate a building expansion project that includes the consolidation of three lots and the reconfiguration of the on-site parking and drives to W. 33rd Avenue. He reviewed the location of the existing driveway and the proposed site plan as well as the location of the building addition and the new parking lot area which will require the proposed new driveway access. He further stated that the access control variance is warranted and will not have a negative impact on traffic movements or neighboring properties. Mr. Thoms stated that driveway #1 was currently used for truck traffic and questioned if the loading bays would still be located on that side of the site and the truck traffic would continue to use that driveway access. Mr. Nau responded affirmatively. Mr. Gray questioned if manufacturing uses have requirements for the number of parking stalls required. Mr. Nau responded that manufacturing uses are required to have adequate parking stalls for the maximum number of employees on any given shift. Mr. Gray then questioned if the storm water detention basin would be a dry basin. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 October 6, 2015 James Rabe, Director of Public Works, responded that the detention basin would be a wet basin as it would provide for peak flow and water quality and it would be constructed with the building expansion project. Curtis Schroeder, representing Consolidated Construction Company, 4300 N. Richmond Street, Appleton, explained that they would be creating an additional 53 parking stalls on site as part of the expansion project and that the existing parking stalls will remain providing an adequate number of parking stalls for the use. He further explained the layout of the parking areas for the visitors and employee parking uses. Motion by Nollenberger to approve an access control variance to permit three driveway openings at 450 W. 33rd Avenue. Seconded by Cummings. Motion carried 6-0. II. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE PARTIAL CLOSURE OF ONE WINDOW ON THE EAST ELEVATION OF THE PROPETY LOCATED AT 1902 WEST LINWOOD AVENUE The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to permit partial closure of one window located on the east elevation of the single-family home at 1902 West Linwood Avenue. Mr. Slusarek 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 criteria to be considered when granting a variance to the design standards and reviewed photos of the home and the proposed window to be replaced. He gave further explanation of the size of the proposed replacement window which will be 66 percent smaller than the existing window and reviewed the other existing windows on the home which would not be consistent with the replacement window. He reviewed the property owner’s reason to reduce this window size which was to better utilize the interior of the home and to add privacy. He also reviewed a rendering of the home with the smaller proposed window which is not consistent with neighboring houses. He further stated that staff did not believe there was an unnecessary hardship in this case and reviewed the findings supporting denial of this request. Mr. Gray questioned what criteria was used to determine staff’s recommendation of denial as to if it was that the window would not be consistent with the other windows on this home or that it would not be consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Slusarek responded that the proposed replacement window would not be consistent with other windows in the neighborhood. Mr. Thoms questioned if the smaller window on the second structure was the garage. Mr. Slusarek responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms commented that there appeared to be a vertical window on the home. Mr. Slusarek stated that there was however there were no slider style windows on this home or on neighboring properties. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 October 6, 2015 Darius Howard, representing Lowe’s Home Improvements, explained that they have been contracted to do the renovations to this home and explained that the existing window is a fixed picture window with no ventilation. He further explained that they are proposing to install a twin double hung window of a smaller size but would be installing siding around the window that would be an exact match to the siding that is on the house now. He stated that the window is a new construction style of window but it would provide for a better utilization of the interior of the home and the owner’s biggest concern was with the location of the home on a corner lot. The smaller window would provide for more privacy and although there were other options such as blinds, reducing the size of the window was a more ideal solution and the work would be performed by licensed contractors. Karen Reiter, 1902 W. Linwood Avenue, stated that she was the property owner and explained that due to the location of the existing window that she does not have any space on that wall other than for her television and that she has to keep her blinds closed all the time due to the traffic and lights shining in her window. She further explained that the large picture window in this location does not allow for any privacy and she also discussed the additional insulation that would be installed around this window which would benefit the home. She distributed photos of the home and lot displaying her reasons for wanting to reduce the window size and discussed the location of some of the other elements of the structure on the interior of the home. She also commented that the proposed replacement window would match the window on the garage. Mr. Thoms questioned if she considered changing the orientation of the window. Mr. Howard responded that the main reason to reduce the size of this window was to gain privacy and changing the orientation of the window was not an option that was considered. This replacement window would also allow the owner to open both sides to provide better ventilation for the home. Mr. Fojtik commented that he felt the owner was in a tough situation considering the small size of the home and its location on a corner lot. Motion by Gray to approve a residential design standard variance for the partial closure of one window on the east elevation of the property located at 1902 W. Linwood Avenue with the following findings: 1. The standards do not apply to this particular project. Seconded by Bowen. Mr. Thoms asked Mr. Gray to explain why he did not feel that the standards do not apply in this case. Mr. Gray responded that he felt it was a small house and that the reduced window would not have any material impact on the home or the neighborhood and that he felt the property owner should be able to do what they want with their home. Mr. Thoms stated that this would override the design standards zoning ordinance put in place by the Common Council as the intent was to protect the existing characteristics of residential properties from inappropriate alterations. Mr. Gray commented that this property owner does not want the protection of the design standards zoning ordinance and should not have to adhere to it. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 October 6, 2015 Mr. Fojtik suggested that the variance could be considered under the criteria that enforcement of the design standards causes unnecessary hardship rather than the element that it does not apply as the privacy issue is a big concern in this case. Mr. Thoms stated that he agrees with Mr. Fojtik and that the additional privacy and ventilation would make more usable space in the home. Mr. Burich added that the location of the home on a corner lot is another issue to be considered as it creates a unique circumstance in this case. Mr. Gray agreed to amend his motion to apply the element that enforcement of the standards causes unnecessary hardship rather than that the standards do not apply to this project. Motion by Gray to approve a residential design standard variance for the partial closure of one window on the east elevation of the property located at 1902 W. Linwood Avenue with the following findings: 1. Enforcement of the standards causes unnecessary hardship. Seconded by Bowen. Mr. Nollenberger commented that he believes in the design standards ordinance however he would support a variance in this case given the facts presented. Motion carried 6-0. III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW A SECONDARY MINI- WAREHOUSE USE TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT USE AT 1414 W. 20TH AVENUE (WEST END PIZZA) The applicant is requesting approval to introduce a secondary “mini-warehouse” use to an existing restaurant use in the rear yard of 1414 W. 20th Avenue. As proposed, the mini-warehouse consists of a single eight-unit warehouse building behind an existing accessory building utilized by the restaurant. Warehouse uses are allowed via Conditional Use Permit within the C-2 General Commercial District. 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 reviewed the current conditions of the site which contain the restaurant structure and accessory structure with associated parking facilities and the proposed site plan containing the additional warehouse structure. He reviewed the access drive proposed for the additional structure and reviewed the traffic pattern for entering and exiting the warehouse structure. He discussed the existing parking stalls on the site which meets code requirements and discussed the need to remove three stalls located south of the existing accessory structure due to the new drive access or the possibility of restriping the stalls to be at a 90 degree angle resulting in the loss of only one stall. He further stated that the traffic from this warehouse use should not cause any negative impacts as the traffic generated from this type of use would be minimal. Signage and lighting have not yet been submitted but will be required to meet code standards. He also discussed the existing landscaping on the east side of the site which was extensive and that staff was recommending additional landscaping be included on this side to screen the use from the mobile home park to the east. He also discussed the detention basin on site which will be adequate with slight modifications to accommodate the increased __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 October 6, 2015 impervious surface and reviewed the building elevations which will be constructed with materials that will match the other accessory structure on site. He also reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Thoms questioned if there was sufficient room on the east side of the property to allow for additional landscaping without interfering with the functions of the existing detention basin. Mr. Rabe responded that there was adequate room on the back side of the berm to allow for the installation of additional landscaping and that the slope of 8 to 10 feet for the basin would not be impeded. Mr. Thoms then questioned if any particular types of landscaping should not be installed in this area due to the close proximity of the detention basin. Mr. Rabe replied that there was not any specific vegetation that would provide a negative impact on the detention basin and that there would not be any detriment to the basin by most landscaping features placed in this area. Motion by Bowen to approve a conditional use permit to allow a secondary mini-warehouse use to an existing restaurant use at 1414 W. 20th Avenue with the following conditions: 1) Install one-way signage and pavement markings for vehicular access to the proposed “mini- warehouse” per submitted plan. 2) Provide vegetative screen along east façade of proposed “mini-warehouse” as approved by the Department of Community Development 3) The three westernmost parking stalls on the south side of the existing accessory building shall be removed. Seconded by Cummings. Mr. Fojtik commented that it was a unique way to utilize the undeveloped portion of this site. Motion carried 6-0. IV. APPROVE THE MILLERS BAY NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN Staff requests approval of the Millers Bay Neighborhood Plan, which focuses on the neighborhood bounded by East New York Avenue (north side) on the south, Hazel Street (east side) on the west, East Murdock Avenue (south side) on the north and Menominee Drive (both sides) on the east. The purpose of this review is for the Plan Commission to make a determination that the proposed goals and objectives in the Millers Bay Neighborhood Plan are consistent with the City’s 2005-2025 Comprehensive Plan, official maps, or other planning objectives of the City. Ms. Williams presented the item and reviewed a map depicting the boundaries of the Millers Bay neighborhood and discussed the zoning classification for this area which is R-1 Single Family Residence District. She discussed the planning process for the development of this plan which started in 2014 including resident surveys and responses and resulted in staff presenting a draft plan to the neighborhood association in May of 2015. She also discussed how the plan was noticed and the public comment received and that in August of 2015 the final plan was reviewed and approved by the neighborhood association. She reviewed the eight elements of the plan which are community building, __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 October 6, 2015 housing, land use, transportation, economic development, utilities, natural and cultural resources, and intergovernmental cooperation and gave a brief explanation of each element. Mr. Fojtik commented about flooding issues being a concern in this area and the proposal several years ago to remove a few homes to allow for the creation of a detention basin to serve this area and how these decisions by the city would affect the neighborhood plan. Ms. Williams responded that the purpose of the plan is to engage residents of the area when potential decisions are being made by the city and that the members of the neighborhood association would be notified when potential activities are planned giving them the opportunity to offer input. Mr. Gray questioned how the boundaries of the neighborhood were determined. Ms. Williams responded that the boundaries were determined by the residents of the neighborhood association and were voted on by the association at a meeting. Mr. Gray then questioned if the City was still working with NeighborWorks on neighborhood projects. Mr. Burich indicated that the local NeighborWorks office is currently not staffed so the City was not working with them at this time. Mr. Gray commented that he was confused about the section of the plan relating to utilities. Ms. Williams explained that the residents have a strong desire to have the overhead utility wires placed underground at some point and would advocate to have this done when replacement was appropriate. Mr. Gray also noted that on page 17 of the plan that Action 1 & 2 listed was relating to interaction with the Police and Fire Departments and questioned how this would be addressed. Ms. Williams explained the formation of the association and its various committees and how they would address taking up action on items within the plan with these departments when necessary. She also explained the Board of Directors governing the association and how they intend to keep track of activities and accomplishments of the neighborhood association. Mr. Gray commented that he would like a description of what is considered a gateway to the city as it has been referenced a number of times in the past however he does not know what designates a gateway area. He also questioned Objective 1B on page 9 of the plan relating to the committee structure. Ms. Williams gave further explanation of how committees are formed and the process the neighborhood association utilizes in making decisions on behalf of the neighborhood residents. Mr. Gray stated that on page 11 of the plan that some of the actions look similar and that he would discuss this further with Ms. Williams after the meeting. Mr. Fojtik inquired if the City had developed a template for the neighborhood plans as the document appears to be very labor intensive. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 October 6, 2015 Ms. Williams responded that the City was attempting to streamline the process and the Plan Commission needed to make the determination if the elements contained in this plan as far as the goals and objectives were consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the Millers Bay Neighborhood Plan with a finding that the proposed goals and objectives are not in conflict with the City of Oshkosh’s Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 6-0. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT Zoning Ordinance Update- Mr. Burich stated that a stakeholders meeting was held today to review completed sections of the Zoning Ordinance and discussed the remaining sections yet to be reviewed. Mural Permit- Mr. Burich reported that a new mural has been installed at 103 High Avenue to replace the original mural that was deteriorating due to the weather and that a different type of paint was used that will hopefully be more conducive to our climate. Central City Investment Strategy Project- Mr. Burich reported that the contract had been awarded to Houseal Lavigne Associates for this project which will focus on a comprehensive update of the Downtown Action Plan that will include a broader area of study. Communities at Oshkosh North Neighborhood Project- Ms. Williams discussed the purpose of the project which was to identify for students the process related to forming neighborhood organizations. She explained that the students participated in tours of the City’s neighborhoods and then initiated a social media campaign to promote the neighborhood associations. There were close to 200 attendees at the event which was held at The Waters and it resulted in 36 students who volunteered to continue to work with the city on neighborhood initiatives. She further stated that she was hoping that the Plan Commission and Common Council will hold a workshop with the participating students in the future to assist in making better planning decisions. Mr. Burich added that it was encouraging to see how passionate and engaged the students were about this project and their community. Mr. Cummings commented that the students were not only very articulate but had a great deal of pride in their community and learned a lot about other neighborhoods in the city. Mr. Burich stated that he hoped to continue with the collaboration with the students on this project. Mr. Gray agreed with both Mr. Burich and Mr. Cummings and added that the students he spoke to were very friendly. He questioned what the issue was with the previous mural as to why it did not last and had to be replaced. Mr. Burich responded that it appeared that the issue was the attachment between the mural and it’s framing that caused some of the deterioration. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 October 6, 2015 Mr. Gray then questioned if the mural was painted on wood rather than directly on the wall of the structure. Mr. Burich indicated that other materials may hold up better than what was used however we would have to wait and see how it endures the elements and that painting the mural directly on the building can be an issue with old historical structures. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:10 pm. (Cummings/ Thoms) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services