Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 July 19, 2016 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES July 19, 2016 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Donna Lohry, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: David Borsuk, Thomas Fojtik, Robert Vajgrt STAFF: David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Alexa Naudziunas, Assistant Planner; Darlene Brandt, Grants Coordinator; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Propp called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of July 5, 2016 were approved as presented. (Nollenberger/Lohry) I. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW RELOCATION OF A DRIVEWAY TO ACCESS A MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 9TH AVENUE AND SOUTH WESTHAVEN DRIVE The petitioner is requesting a Planned Development (PD) amendment for the relocation of a driveway to access a medical office building (Eye Care Clinic) and accessory parking lot on a previously created 0.694 acre lot. 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 explained the reason for the planned development amendment and discussed the original approval by the Common Council on April 26, 2016, which included conditions relating to the placement of the driveway on W. 9th Avenue that involved the relocation of utilities located within the right-of-way. She further explained that the relocation of the utilities was an issue and reviewed the site plan which was essentially the same as the original proposal other than moving the driveway access from W. 9th Avenue to S. Westhaven Drive. She displayed the location of the new driveway and described the access control variances necessary which would be in the form of base standard modifications to the Planned Development. She reviewed each access control variance necessary which was for 158 foot separation of the driveway from the intersection where 175 feet is required for corner clearance; 35 foot spacing between the driveway access for this site and the driveway serving the property to the north where 105 foot spacing is required for driveway separation; and 40 feet from the edge of the right of way by the internal parking access aisle where 75 feet is required for lateral clearance. She discussed the reasons that staff was in support of these variances as the uses do not have high volumes of traffic movements and the proposed driveway is more suitable on S. Westhaven Drive due to its lower level of traffic compared to W. 9th Avenue. She also reviewed the revised conditions for this request which will retain the original conditions #1, 4 and 5 with the additional conditions for the base standard modifications for the access control variances. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 July 19, 2016 Mr. Thoms commented that the property to the north of the site is a funeral home and questioned if this was the only driveway accessing this site. Mr. Buck responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms then questioned if the funeral home only had a single two lane driveway. Mr. Buck again responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms stated that there was the potential for traffic issues if clients do not utilize the other driveway access to the site from W. 9th Avenue. Mr. Buck responded that staff felt that the uses of the dental office and eye care clinic were complimentary to each other with both uses operating in daytime hours whereas the funeral home use to the north will be more utilized during evening and weekend hours. Mr. Thoms inquired if adding a third lane to the driveway was necessary. Mr. Buck replied that this addition would place the driveway closer to the intersection than it currently exists and the volume of traffic anticipated for the site did not warrant a three lane driveway access. Tim Carlson, Martenson & Eisele, 1377 Midway Road, Menasha, stated that he felt the placement of the driveway at this location was a much better solution than the last proposal that had the driveway access on W. 9th Avenue. Motion by Thoms to approve a planned development amendment to allow relocation of a driveway to access a medical office building at the northwest corner of W. 9th Avenue and S. Westhaven Drive with the following conditions: 1. Conditions 1, 4 and 5 of Resolution 16-195 remain in effect; 2. Base standard modification of South Westhaven driveway approach spacing from driveway to the north of 35 feet; 3. Base standard modification of driveway approach corner clearance to allow 158 feet in distance from driveway to the South Westhaven/West 9th corner; and 4. Base standard modification of driveway approach lateral clearance of 40 feet for the South Westhaven Drive driveway. Seconded by Nollenberger. Mr. Thoms commented that he felt this was a preferred solution than the driveway access on W. 9th Avenue as originally proposed. Motion carried 7-0. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 July 19, 2016 II. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW FOR THE CHANGE OF USE AT 135 JACKSON STREET (FORMERLY MORTON PHARMACY) The petitioner requests approval of an amendment to a previously issued Planned Development for the change of use of the property and building from retail/pharmacy to professional office/medical clinic. Mr. Buck presented the item and explained that the amendment was for the change in use only and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. He reviewed the site plan from 2009 for the pharmacy development and the overall planned development site plan for the redevelopment area. He discussed the former use of the site and that it has been vacant for the past five years and reviewed the site amenities such as parking facilities and drive accesses to the site. He also discussed the proposed use of the property as a medical office and the services offered and that a clinic was a permitted use in the underlying C-3 zoning district. He stated that the use was appropriate for the structure as well as beneficial to the immediate vicinity and the downtown area in general by offering a necessary and desirable service. Mr. Hinz questioned if the current monument signage will remain the same. Mr. Buck responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms inquired if the petitioner would have to come back to the Plan Commission for approval of the existing signage. Mr. Buck responded negatively and stated that no further approvals for the signage would be necessary if just the face of the sign was changed as long as alterations to the size and location of the existing sign are not proposed. John Newman, 1013 Washington Avenue, representing Aurora Medical Center, discussed the proposed use at this site of a medical clinic and its benefits to the community. He further discussed the adjacent property use which he felt would be compatible with this proposed use and that health care services in the downtown area are a needed amenity. Ms. Propp questioned if the establishment of a medical clinic at this location would have an impact on the facilities at Doctors Court. Mr. Newman responded negatively and discussed the patient’s use of the current facility as well as the proposed new facility and that the establishment of this additional location would not impact the Doctors Court operations. Motion by Nollenberger to approve a planned development amendment for the change of use at 135 Jackson Street. Seconded by Cummings. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 July 19, 2016 Mr. Thoms commented that he fully supported this request and discussed the apartment buildings near this facility as well as the University campus area and commended Aurora Medical Center for their planning ability as this location makes sense and will provide easy access for citizens in the vicinity to health care services. Mr. Nollenberger questioned what transpired with the hot dog vending development that was approved previously in this vicinity. Mr. Buck responded that the development was no longer moving forward. Motion carried 7-0. III. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE CLOSURE OF ONE WINDOW AND THE REDUCTION OF THREE WINDOWS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 402 WEST 14TH AVENUE The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to permit the closure of one window on the west side elevation and the reduction of one window located on the east side elevation and reduction of two windows on the north side elevation of the two-family home at 402 West 14th Avenue. 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 stated that the variance request was an “after the fact” request as the work has already been partially completed without obtaining the necessary building permits. He reviewed photos of the subject home and the windows involved in the request and discussed the City’s Residential Design Standards requirements and standards and the criteria to be considered when granting a variance. He reviewed each window to be reduced in size and the percentage of reduction and location of these windows on the home’s façade as well as the closure of one window and its location. He reviewed the first variance request to close one window and explained the reason that staff is supporting this request as it is a privacy issue and that the room has two windows and this window is different in size than the other windows on this façade. He then discussed the second story window to be reduced which was due to privacy concerns and safety issues as the window is placed too close to the floor. He reviewed the remaining two window reductions which are located in the kitchen and are necessary for remodeling purposes which will enable the owner to update the kitchen and make it more functional with cabinetry. He further stated that the window closure and reductions will not adversely affect the structure’s architectural design, the neighborhood character, or curb appearance of the block. He reviewed staff’s recommendations to approve the variance requests and the condition placed on each variance request addressing the need to obtain the necessary permits, complete exterior restorations, and the time frame of six months allowed if approved by the Plan Commission. Mr. Buck stated that the Plan Commission needed to determine if the design standards do not apply to the window modifications and closure, that they must make a finding to that affect or if __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 July 19, 2016 the Commission determines that the standards do apply, that they must make a finding to that affect with specific reasoning to deny the variance requests. Mr. Thoms questioned the portion of the conditions relative to the six month time frame for compliance and why staff was recommending this long of a period. Mr. Nau responded that the time frame is consistent with the amount of time allowed for granted Board of Appeals variances. Mr. Thoms commented that it appeared that 90% of the work has already been completed and he did not feel that an additional six months was necessary for compliance. Mr. Buck indicated that the six month time frame was placed as part of the conditions to ensure that the property owner completes the renovations and is in compliance and it is consistent with the time allowed to complete work related to a Board of Appeals variance, when granted. Mr. Bowen questioned if staff reviewed the building permit history for this property. Mr. Nau responded that the current owner purchased the property last summer and that building permits have been obtained historically prior to the change in ownership. Mr. Bowen commented that the windows and other features of the structure did not match prior to the recent renovations made without a building permit. Mr. Nollenberger questioned if the adjacent property owner who submitted the letter of opposition was made aware of the recommendation to approve the variances. Mr. Nau replied that he spoke with Ms. Kepplinger regarding the matter and she was unable to attend the meeting. Frank Heisler, 1443 W. 3rd Avenue, owner of the property, stated that he realizes that the home currently looks inappropriate however he does have the necessary siding and trim purchased to complete the exterior renovations but was unable to continue work due to the necessity to first obtain the variances. He discussed the bathroom window and the issue that it was situated too close to the floor which posed a safety concern for children. He also discussed the issue with replacing the kitchen windows as there was not adequate room to replace them at the current size and still be able to renovate the kitchen appropriately. He explained that the home was in very poor condition when he purchased it and he did not desire to replace the windows but it was necessary to enable him to renovate the interior. He also discussed the window that was closed in the bathroom which was a privacy issue due to its location and close proximity to the neighboring home. He also referenced the letter of opposition from Susan Kepplinger which stated that plumbing, electrical, and HVAC work had been performed without the required building permits and that she has never been in the home to substantiate those allegations. He stated that no HVAC or electrical work had been done and the plumbing renovations were just replacement of vanities and sinks. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 July 19, 2016 Mr. Buck questioned if he would need six months to comply with the conditions to complete the exterior restorations. Mr. Heisler responded that he would need two months providing the weather cooperates to complete the work as the materials have all already been purchased. Mr. Hinz discussed the difficulties converting a single family home to a two family residence and that the owner appears to be making up for previously constructed poor renovations. Ms. Propp commented the Commission does not like to see work proceed without the necessary building permits however granting the variances appeared to be the right thing to do in this case. Mr. Thoms commented that he agreed with the owner that a window that extends down to the floor is not appropriate and a safety concern and that the window on the side in the bathroom was a privacy issue. He further commented that the windows on the front façade are consistent in size with the other windows on the home. Motion by Thoms to approve a residential design standard variance to permit closure of a side window on the west elevation (bathroom) at 402 West 14th Ave. with the following finding and condition: The standards do not apply to this particular project because the proposed window closure will not adversely affect the structure’s architectural design, the neighborhood character, or curb appearance of the block. Condition: The applicant obtains pertinent building permits and complete exterior restorations within six (6) months after Plan Commission approval. And to approve a residential design standard variance to permit reduction of a second story side window (bathroom) from 34”x17” to a 21”x17”at 402 West 14th Ave. with the following finding and condition: The standards do not apply to this particular project because the proposed window reduction will not adversely affect the structure’s architectural design, the neighborhood character, or curb appearance of the block. Condition: The applicant obtains pertinent building permits and complete exterior restorations including replacing the window trim to match the other windows within six (6) months after Plan Commission approval. And to approve residential design standard variances to permit reduction of two first story windows (kitchen) from 32”x21” to 21”x21” at 402 West 14th Ave. with the following finding and condition: __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 July 19, 2016 The standards do not apply to this particular project because the proposed window reduction will not adversely affect the structure’s architectural design, the neighborhood character, or curb appearance of the block. Condition: The applicant obtains pertinent building permits and complete exterior restorations including replacing the window trim to match the other windows within six (6) months after Plan Commission approval. Seconded by Hinz. Motion carried 7-0 IV. REVIEW OF 2015 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Due annually 90 days after the end of the Program Year (which is April 30), the City is required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to prepare an annual Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). Ms. Brandt presented the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report for the period of May 1, 2015 through April 30, 2016 summarizing accomplishments and detailing how funds received from HUD were expended. Funding is received annually from HUD based on census data and is required to be utilized on programs benefiting low to moderate income objectives such as housing, public services/facilities, acquisition and demolition, neighborhood initiatives, and planning/administration. Available funding for 2015 was $990,084 comprised of $725,849 of grant funding and $264,235 of program income with expenditures totaling $945,494 with a percentage of 90.58% of current funding expended to benefit low and moderate income. Ms. Brandt explained some of the projects these funds were utilized for such as housing rehabilitation projects, homebuyer assistance program, lead abatement grants, rental rehabilitation, and neighborhood initiatives/services. She also summarized the amounts granted to local public service sub- recipients, funding spent on demolition of slum and blight properties in the central city, neighborhood projects, acquisition of two properties in neighborhood areas to be demolished, oversight of programs involving Fair Housing issues, and total planning and administration expenditures. She discussed the carryover of funds from last year and why this occurs. Ms. Brandt stated that the full CAPER report has been prepared and will be submitted to HUD, who will perform a comprehensive review of the program activity. A copy of this report is available in the Planning office, library or online for anyone who wishes to review it. Ms. Lohry discussed her work with disabled citizens and the Friendship Place facility that was closed due to a lack of funding and the need for this type of facility in the community. Ms. Brandt indicated that the City works in conjunction with the Housing Coalition to address needs of this type. Ms. Lohry discussed a property on Jefferson Street behind the Housing Authority property on N. Main Street that she felt could potentially be renovated into this type of facility. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 July 19, 2016 Mr. Bowen questioned the new reporting method and how the plan year corresponds to the program year. Ms. Brandt gave an explanation of the program year funds spent during 2015 and how they are allocated and how the carry over funds are included in these expenditures although they are not reflected as such on this form. She gave further explanation of the new report format. Mr. Bowen then questioned projects that were funded in 2014 and spent in 2015 and why this occurs. Ms. Brandt explained how projects involving exterior work may not get completed in the year they were funded due to inclement weather and are therefore finished the following year. Mr. Buck explained the voucher process involved with drawing down funds for this program and how these amounts are reflected in this reporting system. Ms. Brandt gave further explanation of the use of program income that needs to be spent and the IDIS program that is currently utilized to report these expenditures and how this program format has changed the appearance of this report. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:56 pm. (Bowen/Hinz) Respectfully submitted, David Buck Principal Planner