Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 April 19, 2016 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES April 19, 2016 PRESENT: Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Gary Gray, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Donna Lohry STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate 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 April 5, 2016 were approved as presented. (Nollenberger/Cummings) I. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT AT 3735 S. WASHBURN STREET (BIG RIG CHROME) The applicant is requesting a Planned Development (PD) Amendment to Resolution 12-414 to allow expansion of the previously approved Planned Development authorizing construction of an 11,875 square foot retail chroming facility for semi-tractors/trailers and personal trucks. The applicant is proposing a 15,109 square foot addition to the existing building as well as expansion of the existing off-street parking area, modification of the western detention basin and relocation of the trash enclosure. Mr. Nau presented the item and discussed the previously approved planned development and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. He discussed the current use of the property and stated that the original planned development was approved in 2012 and a planned development amendment relating to the detention basin was approved in 2014. He reviewed the site plan for the building addition and parking lot expansion and discussed the drive accesses for the site and reviewed the pedestrian accesses as well. He discussed the parking stalls which meet code requirements and the curbing requirements and the base standard modification recommended for this request to allow parking lot curbing only up to the rear façade line of the proposed building addition. He stated that the dumpster enclosure was to be relocated and that the gates to enter the screened area were proposed to open to the south and staff was recommending the enclosure be rotated to allow the gates to open to the east. Landscaping plans were reviewed depicting additional trees along the perimeter of the site on the north and south property lines which will be required to meet code requirements. He discussed the existing storm water detention basin in the northwest corner of the site that would be relocated to the rear portion of the property to accommodate this expansion. He reviewed the building elevations and discussed the condition recommending that the enhancement/continuation of the colored banding that is on the existing structure be continued to encompass the entire length of the new addition on both sides. He distributed revised copies of the building elevations depicting the addition of a vertical column where the yellow banding is discontinued which staff felt was satisfactory to address the architectural concerns relating to the façade. He also reviewed the conditions recommended for this request of which the third condition has already been met with the revised building elevations. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 April 19, 2016 Mr. Thoms questioned if the petitioner had agreed to address the building elevation concerns, if the condition relating to that item should be removed. Mr. Buck responded that the condition should remain in place as this feature was not included on the original submission. Mr. Gray inquired why there was a condition relating to the trash enclosure and not one pertaining to the storm water management plans as he felt this issue was more important and should be addressed. Mr. Nau replied that the storm water management plans are required as part of the City’s Municipal Code and therefore adding a condition relating to this aspect of the development was not necessary. Mr. Gray then questioned why there was a condition for the gates of the trash enclosure and which direction they opened. Mr. Nau responded that staff had concerns with the gates opening to the south as there may be potential conflicts with trash collection vehicles accessing the dumpsters if the parking stalls to the south are occupied. Mr. Gray commented that the amount of green space was indicated to be only 19% of the site and he felt that it was a very low percentage. Mr. Nau indicated that this aspect of the development met the Highway 41 standards of 15 percent. Ms. Propp questioned the parking lot stalls in the rear of the facility for semi trucks in regard to if trucks could be parked there all of the time. Mr. Nau responded that this would be allowed as it was not located in a setback area and is part of the business use for this development. Ms. Propp also questioned if the front detention basin would remain intact with the modifications being made to the rear detention facility and if the rear facility was constructed with natural plantings or riprap. Mr. Nau responded that the front basin would remain as it currently exists and he was not sure about the materials used on the rear basin currently. Ms. Propp requested that a condition be added to this request relating to the detention basin being modified to be designed with natural plantings rather than the use of riprap when complete. Tony Welnicke, petitioner for this request, 3735 S. Washburn Street, stated that they were in agreement with condition #1 relating to the parking lot curbing and condition #2 to rotate the dumpster enclosure gates, and condition #3 had already been addressed with the revised building elevations submitted. He further commented that they desired to have gates on both the south and east sides of the enclosure as they would like to make this enclosure slightly larger. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 April 19, 2016 Mr. Thoms questioned if it should be documented that gates for the enclosure would also be located on the east side in addition to the gates on the south side. Ms. Propp questioned if the detention basin in the rear of the facility is constructed with natural materials. Mr. Welnicke responded affirmatively. Motion by Vajgrt to approve a planned development amendment to allow a building addition, parking lot expansion, detention basin modification and other site improvements at 3735 S. Washburn Street with the following revised conditions: 1. Base standard modification to allow parking lot curbing only up to the rear façade line of the proposed building addition. 2. Proposed trash enclosure has additional gates opening to the east. 3. Final north and south elevations include enhancement/continuation of the colored banding within the proposed building addition as approved by the Department of Community Development. 4. Natural style of detention basin be utilized involving planting of emergent plants in the safety shelf area and native plants on the side slopes for the rear detention basin. Seconded by Cummings. Motion carried 8-0. II. TWO-LOT LAND DIVISION AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 9TH AVENUE AND SOUTH WESTHAVEN DRIVE The petitioner is requesting two actions at the northwest corner of West 9th Avenue and South Westhaven Drive within this petition: A. Two-lot land division/certified survey map from an existing 1.77 acre parcel. Sizes of the two proposed lots are 0.694 acres and 1.077 acres. B. Planned Development (PD) approval for the development of a professional office building (Eye Care Clinic) and accessory parking lot on a newly created 0.694 acre lot. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area and discussed the history of the site. He reviewed the planned development that was approved for the dental office on the west side of the site in 2012 and reviewed the planned development concept plan that was approved at that time. He reviewed the certified survey map, (CSM), and stated that the site improvements shown on the map were required to be removed before the document is signed. He stated that the development is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and discussed the proposed use as an eye clinic, the hours of operation, and the number of employees. He also reviewed the parking stalls and driveway location proposed for the development and the dumpster enclosure which would be relocated to an area that meets code requirements. The development meets all setback requirements and he discussed the cross access agreements necessary between the two properties and reviewed the site plan. He discussed the driveway placement which would require an access control variance and discussed the utility __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 April 19, 2016 boxes and power pole in the area of the proposed drive access which poses a safety hazard in regard to visibility and limitations for driveway placement. He discussed the various alternatives for the driveway placement and recommended relocating the utilities so an access control variance would not be necessary. He further discussed that the driveway would still require a base standard modification for 40 feet of lateral clearance as the code requires 75 feet and staff supports this modification for an access control variance. He discussed the parking stalls for the development which meets code requirements and discussed the landscape plans which will also be required to meet code requirements. He reviewed the signage for the site which renderings have not yet been submitted as yet and that staff was recommending that the signage be consistent with the adjacent property’s signage and with the building’s materials. He discussed the wall signage which was proposed in three locations and the storm water management plans which will be addressed by the existing detention basin which was constructed to handle both sites and storm water management plans will be required to be approved during the site plan review process. He reviewed the building elevations and passed out samples of the building materials to be utilized which were compatible with adjacent properties. He also reviewed the conditions recommended for the land division and planned development. Mr. Thoms inquired if the area for the relocation of the utilities was discussed and if the owner of these utilities had been notified of this action. Mr. Buck responded that the original plans depicted the driveway located on Westhaven Drive and the petitioner decided to alter the plans as he desired the driveway on 9th Avenue. Due to the change in plans after the original submission, staff did not have adequate time to review and research this alteration and discussed the various options for the driveway placement which moving the utilities appeared to be the best solution. He discussed other alternatives such as the installation of lower utility boxes or shifting the driveway to the east or shifting it to be located on Lot 2 where the dental office is located. Mr. Thoms commented that he does not have any issue with moving the driveway over however he did have concerns with where the utility boxes will be relocated to if that aspect has not yet been determined. He also discussed the landscaping and signage placement on the site which could also create visibility issues if the placement of the driveway is changed. He questioned if these issues would be addressed during the site plan review process or if the Plan Commission needed to address this before making a recommendation on the request. Mr. Buck responded that the final placement of the driveway would be discussed during the site plan review process and the owner of the utilities proposed to be relocated would be contacted and City staff can further coordinate matters as the utilities are located in the right-of-way to determine the best possible solution for the driveway placement. He also discussed the vision triangle limitations that would address any concerns regarding placement of landscaping and signage. Mr. Thoms commented that if the driveway will still maintain 120 feet from the intersection, the developer, the utility company, and the Department of Public Works will come up with a solution of how to address the issue however he did not want to create any problems for the existing dental office on the other lot. Mr. Buck indicated that the driveway placement is addressed in the conditions of approval at this time with the relocation of the utilities and the item would have to come back before the Plan __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 April 19, 2016 Commission and Common Council if the petitioner decided to alter the plans at a later date. He further explained that the City did not want to delay the entire development for the placement of the driveway only and that the utilities must be relocated for the drive access at this location. Mr. Gray questioned if there was no driveway access onto Westhaven Drive, if there was pedestrian access to the public sidewalk. Mr. Buck responded that there was appropriate pedestrian access both to 9th Avenue and Westhaven Drive. Mr. Gray commented about the amount of stone and siding utilized on the various elevations that did not seem to be consistent and questioned if the building’s elevation was consistent with other buildings in the vicinity. Mr. Buck indicated that the west and north façade were not visible from the street and that the developer was focused more on the elevations that are facing the street for which the aesthetics would be more relevant. Mr. Gray then commented that the structure appeared to possess very few windows and questioned why there was so little area dedicated to windows. Mr. Buck responded that the office was to be used for an eye clinic and that those types of structures typically do not contain a lot of windows for functional purposes. Fred Ruppel, 4507 Stonefield, stated that the stone and siding elements for the facades were designed to have the same appearance as the funeral home which is adjacent to this site and it blends well in the vicinity. Mr. Hinz commented that there were large circles on the site plan in the landscaping areas and questioned if these were representing that some of the mature trees existing on the site would be maintained. Mr. Ruppel replied that he was trying to maintain as many of the mature trees as possible on the property. Mr. Fojtik stated that the entrance off of the corner of the intersection is unique and gives the development more of a residential appearance. Mr. Cummings expressed his appreciation for the building material samples that were provided for review. Motion by Vajgrt to approve a two-lot division and planned development to allow development of a professional office building at the northwest corner of W. 9th Avenue and S. Westhaven Drive with the following condition for the land division: (a) Future improvements shown on the CSM are removed. And the following conditions for the planned development: __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 April 19, 2016 (a) Cross access and parking agreements between proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 is executed prior to occupancy, as approved by the Department of Community Development; (b) Utilities located within the West 9th Avenue right-of-way are relocated, as approved by the Department of Public Works and the proposed driveway is shifted west to meet Access Control Ordinance regulations; (c) Base standard modification to allow 40 feet of lateral clearance for the West 9th Avenue driveway; (d) The ground sign is consistent with heights and area of the monument style signs present at the dental clinic to the west and funeral home to the north and that it is consistent with the materials and architecture of the building, as approved by the Department of Community Development; and (e) Stormwater management and maintenance agreements between proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 is executed prior to occupancy, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Seconded by Nollenberger. Motion carried 8-0. III. APPOINT MEMBERS TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE The City is moving forward with an update to its 2005 Comprehensive Plan and has contracted with the East Central Wisconsin Regional Plan Commission (ECWRPC) to assist in the update process. As what was done for development of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan, a Comprehensive Plan Update Committee (CPUC) will be formed to work as the steering committee to guide development of the updated plan. The core membership of the CPUC is the members of the Plan Commission that totals 11 members (9 regular and 2 alternates). The CPUC has been expanded by two voting members because the alternates have been given full voting privileges through the recently adopted Citizen Participation Plan. In addition to the Plan Commission, staff is recommending the following persons be appointed as representatives to the CPUC to assist in creating a good updated plan. Lurton Blassingame UWO Tom Sonnleitner OASD Stan Mack Ruth McGinley, Millers Bay Neighborhood Association Mr. Burich discussed the Comprehensive Plan update process and the recently approved Public Participation Plan. He stated that during the last update of the plan, there were 19 members appointed to the committee and he reviewed the parties included on this committee. He explained that the last process was for a major update and further discussed the elements involved with it and the utilization of working groups for each section which comprised a very large committee with both the working groups and the CPUC members combined. This update will be a less intense Comprehensive Plan process and he was proposing to use just the CPUC members at this time with the Plan Commission members making up the core group of the CPUC and that additional members could be added at any time if necessary. Currently he was proposing to add the above four individuals as members of the CPUC and reviewed each person recommended and their qualifications, background, and reasons for their appointment. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 April 19, 2016 Mr. Nollenberger questioned if the representatives suggested for appointment had already been contacted to confirm that they would be willing to serve on the committee. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively. Mr. Gray commented that he had no objections to the four individuals suggested and inquired if they were temporary or permanent appointments. Mr. Burich responded that the appointments would be temporary for the duration of the committee’s completion of the task. Mr. Thoms questioned if there were still plans to use subcommittees and bring on ADHOC members to add to the committee if necessary. Mr. Burich indicated that this would be discussed with Eric Fowle of the ECWRPC who was assisting with the update and that subcommittees can be utilized if necessary. Further discussion ensued regarding the updated Zoning Ordinance and land use maps and land use recommendations and if these elements would be considered during the process and if ADHOC subcommittees would be needed. Mr. Burich stated that the Public Participation Plan has been established which determines that the Plan Commission will appoint members to the CPUC as needed and that no Common Council action was necessary. Motion by Nollenberger to appoint Lurton Blassingame, Ruth McGinley, Tom Sonnleitner and Stan Mack as members of the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee. Seconded by Thoms. Motion carried 8-0. Mr. Burich stated that the kick-off meeting was tentatively scheduled for Monday, May 9th and that the time had not yet been determined but would be possibly 5:00 or 6:00 pm and that he would send out a poll to see who could attend when a definite time was ascertained. Mr. Gray inquired how the kick off meeting would be advertised. Mr. Burich responded that there would not be an advertisement for this meeting as it was not for public participation at this point but for the committee members only. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:08 pm. (Vajgrt/Gray) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services