Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 June 7, 2016 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES June 7, 2016 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Benjamin Krumenauer, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: Ed Bowen, John Hinz, Donna Lohry STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate 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 May 17, 2016 were approved as presented. (Vajgrt/Thoms) I. RELEASE OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AT 1000 CUMBERLAND TRAIL (CUMBERLAND COURT APARTMENTS) The City of Oshkosh requests the release of a public utility easement as a cleanup effort brought to the City’s attention during review and approval of a Certified Survey Map request for Cumberland Court Apartments, 1000 Cumberland Trail. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the subject site and surrounding area. He discussed the history of the site and the original reason for the placement of the easement in 1968 and that it was proposed to be released as it is no longer necessary. He also reviewed the exhibit map depicting the location of the easement which has a structure constructed over the easement area. Mr. Borsuk questioned how the building was constructed over the easement area. Mr. Slusarek responded that the apartment building constructed over the area was built when the apartment complex was constructed in the 1970’s. Mr. Borsuk then questioned if there were measurements currently in place to prevent this from happening in the future. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively and stated that the current Geographical Information System maps that are utilized by City staff depict all easement locations and would prevent this from reoccurring in the future. Mr. Thoms inquired if we were premature in releasing the easement as it was also for private utility companies and he questioned if they had been contacted and agreed to the release of the easement. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, responded that he did not recall which entities had easement rights in this area. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 June 7, 2016 Mr. Burich stated that the City needed to release the easement regardless and it would be the responsibility of the property owner to work with the private utility companies to release their rights and that this action was to release City rights to this easement area only. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the release of an easement at 1000 Cumberland Trail. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8-0. II. EXTRATERRITORIAL THREE-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 4226 FISK AVENUE IN THE TOWN OF NEKIMI The petitioner is requesting approval of a three-lot land division/certified survey map from one existing parcel containing a total of 60.831 acres. Sizes of the proposed lots are as follows: Lot 1 = 19.698 Acres Lot 2 = 19.698 Acres Lot 3 = 18.936 Acres Right-of-Way = 2.499 Acres Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and the sizes of the proposed lots and current use of the property which is mainly for agricultural purposes. He discussed the reason for the land division request which is to allow for the development of single family lots as well as the continued agricultural use. He further stated that the proposed land division would not alter the land use pattern in the area and the land would remain in agricultural use for the foreseeable future. Mr. Thoms questioned if a wetland delineation should be depicted on the certified survey map. Mr. Nau responded that this is usually completed at such a time when the lots are proposed to be developed. Mr. Thoms also questioned if the Town of Nekimi supports the land division request. Mr. Nau replied that he was not aware as he has not had any contact with the Town regarding this matter. Motion by Nollenberger to approve an extraterritorial three-lot land division/certified survey map at 4226 Fisk Avenue in the Town of Nekimi. Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion carried 8-0. III. ACCESS CONTROL VARIANCE TO REDUCE LATERAL CLEARANCE OF A DRIVEWAY AT 505 WEST MURDOCK AVENUE The petitioner is requesting an access control variance to permit reduced lateral clearance from West Murdock Avenue to 11 feet, 8 inches where code requires a minimum of 75 feet. 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 reviewed the site plan for the new building construction proposed for the property and explained the purpose for the __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 June 7, 2016 access control variance to permit reduced lateral clearance. He discussed the front yard setback variance which was granted by the Board of Appeals in May of 2016 and that the reduced lateral clearance would be consistent with other properties in this vicinity. He also discussed the petitioner was requesting reduced lateral clearance of 11’8” which staff was recommending to be increased to 20 feet for safety concerns which would result in the removal of two parking stalls. He also reviewed the condition recommended for this request. Mr. Thoms inquired with the removal of two parking stalls, how many parking stalls will be allowed and if there would be sufficient stalls to meet code requirements. Mr. Slusarek responded that they are required to have nine parking stalls and they would still meet code requirements. Mr. Thoms then inquired if the petitioner was agreeable to the removal of the two parking stalls. Andy Dumke, 230 Ohio Street, petitioner for the request, stated that he was agreeable to this revision. Motion by Vajgrt to approve an access control variance to reduce lateral clearance of a driveway at 505 W. Murdock Avenue with the following condition: 1. The two northern-most stalls be removed to provide for the recommended 20 foot lateral clearance. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8-0. IV. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT A REAR ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE THAT IS GREATER THAN 50% OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1339 WINNEBAGO AVENUE The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to permit a rear addition to the principal structure that is greater than 50% of the principal structure of the single-family home at 1339 Winnebago Avenue. 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 also reviewed the subject site as it currently exists and described the request to construct an addition to the home that would be greater than 50% of the principal structure. She reviewed the site plan for the proposed addition and explained the depth of the lot which makes the request appropriate for approval of a variance. She reviewed photos of the existing home and explained the reasons that staff felt it was a supportable request as the visibility of the addition would be minimal, the depth of the lot is appropriate to accommodate it, and the addition would approve the functionality of the property and would not adversely affect the structure’s architectural design. Mr. Burich added that the proposed structure’s addition will be mainly on the rear portion of the home and will not have a negative effect on the curb appearance of the block. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 June 7, 2016 Mr. Thoms questioned if staff anticipates any negative impact to adjacent properties. Mr. Burich responded that staff did not anticipate any however as this was a public hearing, any neighbors that had concerns would have an opportunity to speak regarding this matter. Motion by Vajgrt to approve a residential design standards variance to permit a rear addition and future covered porch to the principal structure that is greater than 50% of the principal structure of the single-family home at 1339 Winnebago Avenue with the following findings: 1. The standards do not apply to this particular project because the proposed addition will not adversely affect the structure’s architectural design, the neighborhood character, or curb appearance of the block. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8-0. V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A NEW AUTOMOBILE TOWING AND LIGHT AUTOMOBILE SERVICE USE AT 139 EAST PACKER AVENUE The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an automobile towing and recovery business as well as light automobile service business in conjunction with the existing general contractor business. 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 the existing structures on the site and its current use as well as the City’s Comprehensive Plan which recommends industrial use for this area of the city. He reviewed the site plan and explained that the conditional use permit was necessary for the towing and automobile service that was proposed to be added to the site in addition to the existing general contractor use that already exists on the parcel. He reviewed photos of the subject site and discussed the paving area that is currently located within the E. Packer Avenue right-of-way which is recommended for removal in the conditions recommended for this request. He also reviewed the drive aisle which is necessary for emergency service access and the cross access easement required for the parking stalls which are partially located on the neighboring property. He further discussed the multiple uses on the site and reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Borsuk questioned if there was not any required side yard setback for the property. Mr. Buck responded that there were not any code requirements for a side yard setback in the M-2 zoning district. Ms. Propp stated that she visited the site and that there was a lot going on at this property and she did not see the outdoor storage area depicted on the site plan and questioned its location. Mr. Buck displayed on the site plan the location of the outdoor storage area. Mr. Borsuk questioned the maintenance of the drive aisle and the parking stalls at the north side of the structure and questioned if there were any conditions that could address the poor condition of this area of the site or if there were any landscaping requirements for the front of the property. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 June 7, 2016 Mr. Buck replied that removal of the paved parking area within the right-of-way was a condition of approval on this request however the site is nonconforming in some respects as pre-existing conditions. The addition of landscaping and reconstruction of the parking lot is not addressed as these items do not relate to the conditional use permit request. Mr. Burich added that the site does not comply with current zoning ordinance standards and in regard to questions relating to the condition of the parking lot, if stalls are being added, that area would have to comply with current standards. He further discussed that any work that had been recently done on the site would have to be reviewed to evaluate the situation more closely. Mr. Borsuk again questioned if there were any landscaping requirements for the property. Mr. Buck responded that any landscaping requirements would have to be for buffering purposes that would have to be related to the conditional use permit request. Mr. Burich added that if this request was for a planned development, these requirements are more definitive for aesthetic purposes. Jack Soper, 2225 Burnwood Drive, petitioner for the request, provided a letter from Witzke Electric, stating that they were in agreement with allowing the parking for this site to be partially on their property as it exceeds the property lines. He discussed the asphalt paving currently on the site which he stated has always been there and has existed for many years. Mr. Buck commented that the City would require a legal easement document for the cross access and parking easement noted in the conditions and not just a letter from the property owner. Paul Lonning, 139 E. Packer Avenue, an employee of the towing and auto service business, discussed some of the trailers and other equipment parked on the site and stated that this equipment is out during the day on work sites. He discussed the towing and contractors business use in greater detail and stated that the service vehicles and equipment related to these uses are typically out all day and just stored at the site during evening hours. The parking stalls in front of the parcel are for customer use and vehicles that have been towed will be stored inside the building or in the screened outdoor storage area. Motion by Nollenberger to approve a conditional use permit for the establishment of an automobile towing and light automobile service use at 139 E. Packer Avenue with the following conditions: 1) Paved parking area located within the East Packer Avenue right-of-way is removed and reestablished with vegetative ground cover, as approved by the Department of Public Works. 2) A minimum of a 24 foot wide clear drive aisle from East Packer Avenue to the rear of the property be maintained at all times. 3) Cross access and parking easement is established for use of the drive aisle and parking with the property owner at 155 East Packer Avenue, adjacent to the east. 4) Vehicles parked within any parking stalls be in a condition for safe legal operation on the public roadway at all times. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 June 7, 2016 5) Storage of towed vehicles awaiting pick-up or disposition, parts or miscellaneous construction equipment is limited to the screened outdoor storage area or inside the principal building. Seconded by Vajgrt. Mr. Borsuk stated that staff should figure out a way to add landscaping to the south side of Packer Avenue as it is currently a mass of asphalt with all the various industrial uses in that area. Mr. Burich indicated that there was not a way that it could be addressed with this site under the requirements for a conditional use permit however it will be discussed further to see if there were any opportunities that may arise with the new zoning ordinance update for landscaping to mitigate uses. Motion carried 8-0. VIA. ZONE CHANGE FROM C-3 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, R- 2PD TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY, R-5 MULTIPLE DWELLING DISTRICT AND R-5PD MULTIPLE DWELLING DISTRICT WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY TO C-3PD CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 324 WASHINGTON AVENUE (DOWNTOWN OSHKOSH YMCA) The applicant requests a zone change from the existing C-3 Central Commercial District, R-2PD Two Family Residence District with Planned Development Overlay, R-5 Multiple Dwelling District and R-5PD Multiple Dwelling District with Planned Development Overlay to C-3PD Central Commercial District with Planned Development Overlay District. The purpose of this request is to make the entire parcel one zone district and allow the owner to move forward with the redevelopment and expansion of the YMCA. Mr. Buck presented the item and discussed the multiple zoning categories on the parcel and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. He discussed that adjacent lots have been acquired and consolidated with the YMCA property and those parcels still have their original zoning designation intact. He explained that the purpose of the zone change was to bring the entire site into one zoning classification and discussed the advantages of the planned development overlay. He further stated that the zoning classification of C-3PD was consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fojtik inquired as to how there were this many different zoning classifications on one parcel. Mr. Burich responded that the adjacent parcels were acquired and incorporated into the YMCA site and the surrounding parcels all had different zoning designations. Motion by Nollenberger to approve a zone change from C-3 Central Commercial District, R-2PD Two-Family Residence District with Planned Development Overlay, R-5 Multiple Dwelling District and R-5PD Multiple Dwelling District with Planned Development Overlay __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 June 7, 2016 to C-3PD Central Commercial District with Planned Development Overlay for property located at 324 Washington Avenue. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8-0. VIB. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMUNITY FITNESS CENTER AT 324 WASHINGTON AVENUE (YMCA- DOWNTOWN CENTER) The petitioner requests approval of a Planned Development for the existing YMCA development as well as the redevelopment and expansion of the principal structure to include a new fitness center and child care facility retaining only a small portion of the original building. 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 the redevelopment and expansion of the site and the previous history of the existing development. He reviewed the vehicular accesses and discussed the various uses provided at the YMCA facility and reviewed the site plan which addressed redevelopment of the structure with less improvements proposed to the existing parking lot. He reviewed the area of the parking lot to receive maintenance as part of this redevelopment request and discussed the features and amenities that would be added to the YMCA facility as part of this redevelopment project. He discussed the hours of operation, number of employees and anticipated number of visitors to the site per day. He reviewed the portion of the structure proposed for demolition and the area where the redevelopment of the structure will occur. He also discussed the building orientation, improvements to the parking lot, the driveway accesses, the childcare play area, pedestrian walkways, and new refuse enclosure. He stated that all proposed improvements meet the setback requirements and discussed the areas that do not meet the current standards as they are pre-existing conditions relating to the parking lot that is not being reconstructed at this time. He further stated that no base standard modifications are being requested for the current redevelopment and that when the parking lot is completely redeveloped, those areas that do not meet the current setback requirements would have to be addressed. He reviewed the driveway accesses to the site and discussed the number of parking stalls which will be reduced due to the addition of the childcare area and the placement of the new structure. Lighting plans have not yet been submitted and will be reviewed at the site plan review level and he also reviewed the landscape plans which exceed code requirements. Storm water management plans will be required to meet code requirements and will need to be approved by the Department of Public Works however the amount of impervious surface would be reduced by 15% from the site’s current conditions. He reviewed a rendering of the site and discussed the building’s exterior materials and reviewed the building’s elevations. He also discussed the signage for the site which will be mainly wall signage and one ground sign that was going to be retained. He further discussed the building’s architectural features and discussed the benefits of the redevelopment of this site in the downtown area and reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Nollenberger commented that the narrative in the application makes reference to the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. Mr. Buck responded that this was a misprint and the item had no affiliation with the University. Mr. Thoms questioned how closely the parking lot comes to meeting city standards in regard to landscape islands and if there were any other significant elements missing. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 June 7, 2016 Mr. Buck responded that the parking lot would be required to have 4-6 more islands to meet the current standards and it would result in the loss of approximately 12 parking stalls. He further stated that the parking lot would eventually come into compliance with the current code standards as it would be reconstructed at the end of its useful lifespan. Mr. Thoms discussed how long the lifespan of the parking lot could potentially last if regular maintenance is performed and if the requirements should be required to be addressed now as this was a planned development. He also discussed the storm water management plans as they may meet code requirements however since it is a planned development, additional requirements could be requested to address storm water detention and questioned if this particular area is a flooding concern in the city. Mr. Gohde responded that the development was adjacent to Mount Vernon Street which was recently reconstructed and the piping enlarged to handle additional amounts of storm water therefore additional storm water management other than the required code standards should not be necessary for this development. He also discussed the small areas of permeable pavement that is going to be added to the site which offers additional storm water management benefits. Mr. Thoms again questioned if there were any benefit to additional storm water detention in this area that could be addressed with the approval of the planned development. Mr. Gohde replied that he did not recall all the specifics related to this particular watershed but the City was able to meet the storm water management goals in this area and he did not recall flooding issues in this vicinity. Mr. Borsuk requested to review what is being reconstructed in the parking lot. Mr. Buck indicated that they were adding some parking stalls and referenced the area depicted on the site plan where portions of the parking lot were proposed to be reconstructed. Mr. Borsuk questioned if this area is re-milled will it be addressed by maintenance and will this count toward the total reconstruction area which would then eventually require current code compliance for city standards for parking lots. Mr. Buck explained the requirements which entail that maintenance can be done as long as the parking lot is not removed down to the base and just a mill and overlay does not count as reconstruction. He further explained that when a percentage of 50% or more of the lot is reconstructed, the entire lot needs to come into compliance with current code standards. Mr. Borsuk discussed the two separate parts of storm water management which is the speed of runoff and the removal of solids and questioned if swales or biofiltration would be added to the site. Mr. Gohde stated that permeable pavement would be added to the site to reduce solids and it will meet the TSS reduction requirements. He also discussed the rooftop runoff from the site which is different than pavement runoff from the parking lot as it is cleaner. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 June 7, 2016 Mr. Borsuk inquired if there would be something incrementally done before the parking lot reconstruction to come closer to meeting the current code standards. Mr. Buck responded that the Commission could require the parking lot islands be installed now as it is a planned development and a condition could be added to address this concern. Mr. Krumenauer stated that he felt some effort should be focused on breaking up the east façade of the structure as it does not have much architectural articulation and the building to the east currently blocks its view but that structure may not always be there. Mr. Buck indicated that the wall does possess vertical breaks and staff did not address enhancing the east façade with the petitioner. Mr. Krumenauer commented that a change in color or other vertical enhancements could be considered. Kendra Hansen, 1428 S. Clay, Green Bay, representing the architects for this project, discussed the gray areas on the site plan that represented the reconstructed pavement portions of the parking lot which she indicated would count towards the 50% cumulative site disturbance and that their intent was to take the pavement down to the base. She also discussed the majority of the mechanical equipment on site which will be located on the roof of the structure and displayed the area on the plans where it would be located. She further stated that storm water management improvements were going to maximize what could be done on the site and the permeable pavement that would be added and the TSS percents that would be obtained and that they would be achieving 60% removal of solids. She continued with discussion on budget restraints that would prevent the parking lot upgrades to be completed at the same time as the redevelopment of the site and that the project did not alter the grading of the site and more could be done at a later date. She also explained that several of the large trees along the park area will be retained. Mr. Thoms discussed the mechanical equipment screening and if staff reviewed it to ensure that it would be adequate. Mr. Buck responded that the requirements for screening of mechanical equipment on rooftops was part of the City’s code requirements and would be reviewed at the site plan review level for compliance and that the transformer on the ground was reviewed with the landscape plan and was appropriately screened. Mr. Thoms commented that it was mentioned that the parking lot is being taken down to the base and what does this mean in relation to city ordinance requirements for parking lot reconstruction. Mr. Buck indicated that he would have to review the square footage of the parking lot to determine if they have met the 50% threshold for reconstruction which would require that the entire lot be brought into compliance with current code standards. Mr. Thoms discussed the Commission’s concern with the east façade and questioned if the architects had given any thought to adding architectural features on that side of the structure. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 June 7, 2016 Ms. Hansen responded that she was not involved with the plans for the architectural portion of the project and did not know if this had been discussed. Lester Millette, 1960 Lennox Street, representing the YMCA, stated that the major portion of the east side of the structure is devoted to pool construction and he feels that if the adjacent building which is owned by Clarity Care is removed, it could be addressed at that time. He further stated that he can discuss this concern with the architect. Paul Riederer, Miron Construction, stated that the panels that are proposed to be utilized on the exterior are colored with articulation and different finishes and not just pre-cast panels. He further discussed the features of the proposed panels as he felt they would be adequate. Mr. Borsuk stated that the renderings depict the signage as “Oshkosh Family YMCA” on the façade and questioned if they would be changed to reflect “Oshkosh Community YMCA” instead. Mr. Millette responded affirmatively. Todd Schultz, 316 Merritt Avenue, questioned if the vacant lot near Northwestern Avenue, was going to be part of the driveway access to Merritt Avenue. Mr. Buck replied that this area would be part of the parking lot but it would have a large setback from adjacent properties. Mr. Schultz stated that his house is right across the street and that it sounds like this new facility will see more activity once redeveloped and he had concerns with being able to get out of his driveway as it is adjacent to the YMCA’s driveway. He continued to discuss his concerns with parking issues as the YMCA is reducing the number of total parking stalls in their lot and it will potentially increase the amount of on street parking in this area. He also voiced his concerns with if this will be aesthetically pleasing for neighboring properties as he does not want have a view of a large parking lot from his home. Ms. Hansen commented that the driveway that is being closed off is located on Washington Avenue and should not create any negative impact as it is not a driveway access that is currently utilized and therefore there would not be any less access to the site than currently exists. She further commented that they would be adding ten parking stalls on the north side of the site. Mr. Thoms questioned if there was landscaping features planned for the Merritt Avenue driveway entrance. Ms. Hansen responded that there would be turf grass in that area. Mr. Thoms then questioned if landscaping features could be added to that entrance to lessen any impacts on the neighboring residential properties. Ms. Hansen replied that the driveway entrance was not proposed to be widened from the existing conditions and should not negatively affect the adjacent properties. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 June 7, 2016 Mr. Borsuk summarized that it appeared that the Commission needed to address concerns regarding the storm water management for the site, parking lot islands, the east façade of the structure, and landscaping on the Merritt Avenue side of the development. Specifically landscaping near the driveway entrance on Merritt Avenue and some type of architectural detail or enhancements on the east façade. Mr. Thoms discussed enhancements to the driveway entrances and questioned how many accesses there would be to the site and if all of them should be required to add landscaping features to these areas. Mr. Buck responded that there would be four entrances total however both the entrances on Northwestern Avenue and Broad Street already have existing trees in that area. Mr. Thoms then discussed that if the parking lot was going to be reconstructed should the Commission be reviewing the addition of the necessary landscape islands. Mr. Buck replied that either the areas to be reconstructed could be conditioned to require the addition of the landscape islands or it could be conditioned to require that the addition of landscape islands be staged to coincide with the parking lot reconstruction in phases which would allow up to the 50% threshold before the entire lot would be required to come into compliance with current code standards. Mr. Cummings suggested that the Commission should have the opportunity to review samples of the exterior wall materials for the east façade to ensure that it would meet the requirements of architectural enhancement. Mr. Buck indicated that the Commission could approve the planned development with a condition to address the east façade with review by the Plan Commission at a later date which would allow the development to proceed without delaying the entire project from moving forward. Mr. Thoms commented that he would support having the petitioner work with staff on the necessary enhancements to the east façade and bring back the materials agreed upon to the Commission for review and approval at a later date. He was also satisfied with the concept of bringing portions of the parking lot up to code as it is reconstructed and doing it in a staged process rather than requiring it all to be done at this time. He further discussed the storm water management concerns and as staff has determined that the flooding issues have been addressed with the recent road reconstruction, he was not as concerned about storm water management issues as before. Motion by Borsuk to approve a planned development for the development of a community fitness center at 324 Washington Avenue with the following revised conditions: 1. Any future signage for the planned development be brought back for approval as an amendment to the Planned Development. 2. Landscaping at the Merritt Avenue vehicular entrance is increased to enhance the frontage and help screen the parking lot as approved by the Department of Community Development. 3. The parking lot areas being reconstructed are designed to meet minimum zoning code requirements including but not limited to landscaped islands and curbing. When other __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 June 7, 2016 areas of the parking lot are reconstructed in the future, they will also be brought up to zoning code requirements. 4. East façade wall(s) be enhanced to provide architectural interest and be brought back to the Plan Commission for final approval. Seconded by Thoms. It was determined that the petitioner could provide either renderings and/or material samples to satisfy condition #4. Ms. Propp commented that she felt this was an excellent project. Motion carried 8-0. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Burich reminded the Commission that there will be a joint meeting of the Plan Commission and members of the working group for the Zoning Ordinance Update on Monday, June 13th. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:40 pm. (Vajgrt/Cummings) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services