Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 February 16, 2016 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 16, 2016 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, Steve Cummings, Gary Gray, Donna Lohry, EXCUSED: John Hinz, Kathleen Propp, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Brian Slusarek, Zoning Code Enforcement Inspector; Alexa Naudziunas, Assistant Planner; 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 January 19, 2016 were approved as presented. (Bowen/Thoms) I. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR INSTALLATION OF AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER SIGN WITHIN THE UNIVERSAL BUSINESS PARK AT 2340 STATE ROAD 44 (TACO JOHN’S RESTAURANT) The petitioner requests approval of a Planned Development amendment to allow the installation of an electronic message center (EMC) within the frame of an existing monument sign located within the Universal Business Park. It should be noted that the EMC has been installed. 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 discussed that the amendment to the planned development to allow for the installation of an EMC sign that has already been installed on the site. He reviewed the layout of the subject site and explained that the EMC was not allowed due to the private covenants enforced in the Universal Business Park. He explained that the owner had received approval for the land use compatibility to allow the construction of the restaurant use in the Universal Business Park and the planned development approval. He discussed the other uses along State Road 44 and reviewed the signage that was approved for the site when the planned development was approved and the sign that was installed. The sign that was approved contained changeable copy only and met the size requirements of the zoning code however the EMC portion of the sign was not approved. He reviewed other signs in the area for consistency with this sign and photos of these signs however they were not located within the business park other than the Verve Credit Union sign. He stated that the sign was appropriate for the use and meets zoning code standards and matches the building’s exterior. He further stated that GO-EDC staff reviewed and recommended approval of the EMC sign and reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Borsuk questioned what the purpose of the business park covenants were, if Verve Credit Union had permission to install their EMC sign, and if Taco John’s was aware of the conditions for putting up the sign or the business park covenants. Mr. Buck explained that the purpose of the covenants was to create street presence and curb appeal and consistency with site development throughout the business park. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 February 16, 2016 Mr. Burich added that developments within the park were to create a certain feel or appearance and protect the investment of other property owners similar to covenants created within new subdivisions. Mr. Buck stated that he assumed that Taco John’s was not aware of the covenants that would not allow the EMC sign to be installed. Mr. Burich stated that he was not sure how the EMC sign was approved at the Verve Credit Union site however a building permit was issued but it was not clear how the EMC was overlooked. He explained how the enforcement of the business park covenants used to be enforced by OCDC or Chamco and there apparently was some confusion regarding this when the permit was issued. The City has since taken responsibility for enforcing the covenants however the Verve sign did meet the zoning ordinance standards and whomever issued the permit was most likely not aware of the business park covenants which are separate and distinct from the zoning ordinance. Mr. Thoms questioned where the breakdown happened and that the sign definition was in the original planned development and the sign approved was not an EMC. He inquired if Taco John’s was not aware of the fact that the EMC portion of the sign was not included as part of the approval. Mr. Buck stated that the building permit issued did not have the EMC portion of the sign included and it was apparently changed after the permit was issued but may not have been intentional. Mr. Thoms felt that the business park covenants should have been made clear to the Commission when the planned development was approved and it should have been discussed. Mr. Burich added that the sign was compliant with the business park covenants when reviewed by the Plan Commission and approved by the Common Council and nothing included in the planned development to allow for the EMC signage. He further discussed the wall sign that was denied by the Council which was included in the original planned development but not allowed by the business park covenants. Mr. Gray commented that Taco John’s disregarded the covenants when the sign was installed and what would prevent other developers from doing the same thing as far as receiving approval for a planned development and proceeding without adhering to the conditions and asking for approval of the alternate plans at a later date. He felt there was no accountability in this process if the sign is approved at this point. Mr. Burich discussed that this has happened in the past and covenant issues have come up before as well and GO-EDC has been dealing with the covenants most recently. It has been a struggle to decide how to deal with the covenant issues and if GO-EDC or the city should deal with it and how it should be handled for future requests. Mr. Buck commented that the Commission should consider whether this is a reasonable request to have the EMC and not the fact that it was already installed. Mr. Gray stated that the Common Council recently approved a triple permit fee for work completed without a permit and questioned if this would apply in this case as he felt there should be some type of penalty for not completing the project as approved. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 February 16, 2016 Mr. Burich responded that the triple fee for work being completed without a building permit which is similar to the Inspection Services fee schedule was approved and it was aimed at dealing with situations where people have done work without obtaining the appropriate building permits. Ms. Lohry commented that Taco John’s was not allowed to have the EMC due to the business park covenants and that the restaurant establishment was also not allowed in this area without approval of land use compatibility and the regular signage used by this franchise was also not allowed. However she did feel that the EMC sign was appropriate for the use and she would support this request. Mr. Burich reviewed the Universal Business Park area on the map and the covenants in place that cover these areas and that the uses need to be determined to be harmonious and compatible. He discussed the history of the business park status and standards in this area as well as in the Southwest Industrial Park and Northwest Industrial Park and how these parks have differing standards in different areas of the park and the difficulty with dealing with these factors. Mr. Bowen discussed that the owner had applied for a sign permit and also went through the process of the approval of the planned development and appeared to have applied for one thing and built another. He felt although the sign may be appropriate for the use it is a sign permit violation and a violation of the approved planned development and not just a violation of the business park covenants. Tom Scharpf, 1621 Maricopa Drive, stated that he sold the property to the current owner and that the owner was unable to attend the meeting today. Mr. Borsuk inquired why the sign was installed without the authority to do so. Mr. Scharpf responded that he was not involved with the building permit process but that he owns three office buildings to the west of the subject site and from an aesthetic stand point; he did not see an issue with the EMC sign. Mr. Borsuk commented that he appreciated what the city is trying to do in this case and that the adjacent property owner does not have issues with the request, however the real issue is with this use and this property owner and that it was not a good project from the beginning. He felt the owner had a total disregard for the rules and regulations and that the City would be setting a precedent by allowing developers to do things other than what was approved and that he would not support this request. Mr. Thoms agreed that it was a violation of the permit and planned development approval and that he did not agree with what was done as it appeared that the owner felt it was easier to ask for forgiveness rather than permission as he constructed something that was not what was approved. However he did not see any major issue with the change as it is aesthetically appealing and discussed the holes in the process when it came to understanding and enforcing the private covenants in the business park and he did not feel it was that it was that egregious. Mr. Bowen commented that he did not see the EMC as an overly objectionable request as it seemed appropriate for the area however he felt there should be consequences for constructing the sign other than as it was approved. He further discussed the approval process and the developer’s need to follow it and felt the City had to have teeth in what they approve and would like to see the City find a way to fine the property owner for what has occurred as some type of consequence for not constructing the sign as approved. Mr. Borsuk questioned if it would make any difference if the property owner was present. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 February 16, 2016 Mr. Thoms commented that he would like to hear what the owner had to say regarding the matter and would like some clarity on why this occurred. He further commented that it would have probably been approved as part of the planned development if requested and discussed if the request should be laid over until the owner could be present which he did not feel was necessary. Ms. Lohry stated she would support the request to allow the EMC sign because she felt the sign was attractive and seemed appropriate in the area. Mr. Gray stated that he did not feel that it was necessary to lay the item over for the property owner to be present as he did not feel that the owner would admit if it was an error or if it was done intentionally. Mr. Cummings commented that this is not the first time that this type of situation has occurred as far as a developer doing something other than what received approval and we should not make exceptions for this type of action. He stated he would not support this request. Mr. Thoms inquired if the triple permit fee would apply in this case. Mr. Burich responded that the triple permit fee is not effective until March 1st. Motion by Thoms to approve the development plan amendment for installation of an electronic message center sign within the Universal Business Park for property located at 2340 State Road 44 with the following conditions: 1. No off-premise advertising messages permitted; 2. No flashing, scrolling or animated messages. Messages and non-text images shall not change appearance more than once every 60 seconds and transitions messages shall be instantaneous; 3. Signage includes photosensitive equipment which automatically adjusts the brightness and contrast in direct relation to ambient outdoor illumination; and 4. Colors and images must not imitate or be able to be confused as a traffic control device. Seconded by Bowen. Motion denied 3-4. (Ayes-Bowen/Thoms/Lohry. Nays-Borsuk/Fojtik/ Cummings/Gray.) Mr. Scharpf questioned since this request was denied if Verve Credit Union would have to take down their EMC as well. Mr. Fojtik explained that the Commission is making a recommendation to the Common Council only and that the Verve sign is not an issue in this discussion. The Council would review this request at their meeting next week and make the final decision. II. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE CLOSURE OF ONE WINDOW AND THE REDUCTION OF ONE WINDOW ON THE WEST SIDE ELEVATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 402 WEST 10TH AVENUE The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to permit the closure of one window and the reduction of one window located on the west side elevation of the single-family home at 402 West 10th Avenue. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 February 16, 2016 Ms. Naudziunas presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. She discussed the history of the site and reviewed the criteria to be considered when granting a variance from the design standards. She also reviewed photos of the window proposed to be removed which was due to a previous bathroom remodeling project that closed off the window on the interior of the home. She stated that staff was in support of the closure of this window as it will not adversely affect the structure’s architectural design, the neighborhood character, or curb appearance of the block. She then discussed the second request to reduce the size of the window in the kitchen area which had already been installed as the applicant completed the work without obtaining the necessary building permit during a kitchen remodeling project. She discussed alternative methods to retain the existing window or not to reduce it beyond the 10 percent threshold however these processes would come with an unknown cost to the property owner as the kitchen remodeling had already been completed. She stated that staff was recommending denial of this request as it would adversely affect the structure’s architectural design, the neighborhood character, or curb appearance of the block. Mr. Gray noted that on page 7 of the staff report the window that is proposed to be reduced is not abutting the siding and questioned if the window is even with the rest of the structure. Ms. Naudziunas responded that it appeared that the window area was slighting indented. Mr. Thoms questioned if the window proposed to be reduced would be the same size or comparable to the existing window toward the rear of the home. Ms. Naudziunas replied that she did not know as the applicant did not provide that information. Mr. Burich added that from looking at the views of the window from the interior of the home, it appeared that there would be some room to increase its size but not to the extent of the original window as the cabinets were already in place and it could create a hardship for the owner. He further explained that staff could not support this request due to the design standards criteria and that the owner did not approach staff to discuss the matter prior to the work being completed. Mr. Bowen questioned if the work was done without a building permit. Ms. Naudziunas responded affirmatively. Danene Kimmel, 402 W. 10th Avenue, stated that the original process began with a building permit to change the home from a duplex to a single-family home and that some of the kitchen cabinets were pre-existing however some were from another area of the house. The replacement of the window was not part of the original permit as she was not aware that it would require one. Mr. Bowen questioned if she did the work herself or if she hired a contractor. Ms. Kimmel explained that a friend framed out the window area and she helped installed the window herself and a contractor did the cabinet and counter installation. Mr. Thoms inquired if the reduced sized window is the same as the window in the rear of the structure. Ms. Kimmel responded that it was close but not exactly the same size and that the window appeared to be indented however it was because the siding has not yet been installed or the trim surrounding the __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 February 16, 2016 window replaced. She further stated that it would be more of a hardship to redesign everything in the kitchen to retain the existing window opening than to remove the bathroom window. Motion by Lohry to approve a residential design standard variance for the closure of a side window on the west elevation of the property located at 410 W. 10th Avenue with the following findings: 1. The standards do not apply to this particular project. And to deny a residential design standard variance for the reduction of a side window on the west elevation of the property located at 410 W. 10th Avenue with the following findings: 1. The standards apply to this particular project because the proposed window reduction will adversely affect the structure’s architectural design, the neighborhood character, or curb appearance of the block. Seconded by Borsuk. Mr. Burich suggested that the two requests be voted on separately as one recommendation was to approve the request and one was to deny. Mr. Borsuk stated that he would like to see something resolved by the property owner working with staff on this request. Mr. Burich discussed the situation of the interior kitchen area and reviewed the photo showing the reduced size window that had been installed. He explained that the window could potentially be made longer however other changes could be problematic due to the placement of the kitchen cabinets adjacent to the window. Mr. Bowen commented that the property owner seemed to have a willingness to make alterations and he felt the request should be laid over until other alternatives could be researched. The motion and second for this request was withdrawn. Mr. Thoms agreed with Mr. Bowen that the item should be laid over to give the applicant time to work with staff on alternative options. Mr. Burich commented that the architectural design standards do not allow the variance request for the kitchen window to be approved unless the Commission determines that it will create an unnecessary hardship to the property owner. Mr. Thoms commented that this circumstance was created by commencing work without the building permit and rather than deny the request, he felt it would be beneficial to the property owner to lay the request over and allow the owner to work with staff on the details to come up with a solution that would allow the request to be approved as there were other options to be explored. Mr. Bowen agreed and stated that these were the issues that arose when doing work without a permit and he felt with all the methods of construction available, staff and the property owner could come to some alternative that would be acceptable. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 February 16, 2016 Board members discussed some of the options available that could still meet the code requirements of retaining the window opening and felt that other options were present. Motion by Bowen to lay the request over to research alternative methods. Seconded by Thoms. Motion carried 7-0. Mr. Cummings left at 5:00 pm. III. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE CLOSURE OF ONE WINDOW ON THE SOUTH SIDE ELEVATION AT 919 POWERS STREET Property owner requests approval for the closure of one window on the south side elevation of the single-family home at 919 Powers Street. 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 discussed the history of the site and the request to remove a window as part of a remodeling project to a portion of the home that was an addition to the structure. He explained that the owner would install landscaping along the south side of the addition that would screen the window closure from the street. Staff was recommending approval of the variance request as the window closure will not detract from the architectural integrity of the building, will not adversely affect the neighborhood character or curb appeal of the block. He also reviewed the condition recommended for this request. Mr. Borsuk questioned if the landscape plan will be approved by staff. Mr. Slusarek responded that the landscaping was meant to screen the window removal from street view and staff would work with the property owner on this matter. Mr. Buck added that when the permit is issued, the owner would have to supply a site plan showing what landscaping would be installed and this would be approved as part of the building permit issuance. A fence may also potentially be installed in this area. Mr. Thoms stated that it appeared that the window was already removed. Mr. Slusarek replied that some of the work had begun as a patio door was added to the addition but the window removal had not yet been approved and is just temporarily boarded over at this time. Once the variance was reviewed, and if approved, work would proceed with the siding being replaced after the removal of the window. Mr. Thoms questioned that the petitioner stated that the standards should not apply to this particular project as the area of the home was an addition. Mr. Buck responded that the window closure will not detract from the architectural integrity of the building as it was not part of the original design of the structure. Mr. Thoms commented that is was a part of the architectural features now that the addition was completed and he felt the standards should still apply. Mr. Burich stated that the window location is towards the rear plain of the house and not very visible from the street view. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 February 16, 2016 Mr. Gray questioned the condition relating to the installation of landscaping and if fencing would be considering a form of landscaping. Mr. Buck responded that a fence would not be considered landscaping and plantings would be required to meet this condition however the property owner could do both if desired. Mr. Gray then commented on the architectural integrity and stated that was a rather subjective review. Mr. Buck indicated that some homes have specific design styles and discussed some of the specific styles in existence such as a Queen Anne or Victorian but that others just possess basic design elements. The addition on this home makes it more subjective to review as it has altered the homes original elements. Motion by Thoms to approve a residential design standard variance for the closure of one window on the south side elevation of the property located at 919 Powers Street with the following findings: 1. The standards do not apply to this particular project. and the following conditions: 1. Landscaping be installed along the south side of the rear addition that screens the area of window closure from the street. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 7-0. IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PRESENTATION-EAST CENTRAL WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Eric Fowle, Executive Director of East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, stated that the City has contracted with them to update the Comprehensive Plan which is done about every ten years. He discussed that their organization has a lot of familiarity with the community and are engaged in arenas in the planning processes and discussed the City’s borrowing, economic development, and changes to the community. He discussed their knowledge of the area and that he felt they would bring a more realistic and visionary approach and broader context of the region as a whole. He also discussed the current public participation plan which they have edited and copies were distributed to the Plan Commission for review. He explained that the Plan Commission would act on this at the next meeting and that there were statutory requirements to have a plan in place. This process will assist in gathering input and feedback from the public. He discussed that they are aware of the various planning processes under way with the City and recent things that have happened in these processes and that they will take information from current plans underway. He discussed focus groups that would participate. He explained that they are looking at working with the Plan Commission and a few ADHOC members with the development of the update. Mr. Burich added that the City is already operating under a public participation plan and that this is just enhancing the plan and making the process a little clearer. Mr. Thoms inquired how this would add up with legislative changes that are pending that could affect these plans. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 February 16, 2016 Mr. Burich responded that the City can still work on plans however some things may not be able to be implemented if legislation is changed. Mr. Fowle commented that legislation can be trying with some things but they could address drastic changes. They would not be getting into that much detail and will be building the plan under nine Smart Growth elements. They would be packaging some issues and recommendations that are easier to understand by the public and discussed portions of these elements that could affect the future of our community. They will collect feedback and do analysis on the results as well as getting rid of outdated information and complete the update by leveraging City assets and drawing from existing City plans to address land use changes. He reviewed some of the geographical elements of the area that could affect the plan. He discussed some of the plans in process and how they could be enhanced. Mr. Thoms questioned if we would address the outskirts of the City and look outside of City boundaries and how this could be incorporated. Ms. Lohry stated that she has attended many Transportation Department meetings as she advocates for the elderly and disabled and the current bus routes do not address issues and she felt this should be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan update. She further discussed work sites and disabled citizens that have difficulty getting from one location to another via the bus system. Mr. Fowle responded that efficiency in transportation will be considered and they would be creating a building block or base to help push things in the right direction. Ms. Lohry continued to discuss her concerns with the bus routes and points of destination which she felt did not include areas such as the downtown and were more geared toward destinations on the frontage road. Mr. Gray suggested that ADHOC members should be an uneven number of members and that the Comprehensive Plan should be focused on the local community as there are issues that other communities may not experience although he understood the relationship to surrounding communities as well. Mr. Borsuk inquired about the timeline for the project from beginning to end. Mr. Fowle responded that they were planning on completing the process by mid 2017 and would be working with the Plan Commission, staff and surrounding communities and should not be controversial. Intergovernmental relations would be part of the process and surrounding towns will be notified and there will be intergovernmental meetings with these organizations. He continued to discuss some of the parties that would be notified to involve their participation with the process and that statutory requirements would be met. A new land use map will be developed as it would be changing and they would deal more on a broader scale and more conceptual in nature. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:28 pm. (Borsuk/Thoms) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services