Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 November 15, 2016 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 15, 2016 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, John Kiefer, Robert Vajgrt EXCUSED: Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Donna Lohry, Karl Nollenberger STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Elizabeth Williams, 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 October 18, 2016 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Kiefer) I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A NEW AUTO BODY REPAIR AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE AND SALES USE AT 1901 SOUTH WASHBURN STREET The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the operation of an auto body repair and automotive service and sales use at 1901 South Washburn Street. Ms. Williams presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. She stated that there was an error in the staff report where it referenced that the railroad tracks in the rear of the property were no longer being used and that the tracks were still currently being utilized but were to be relocated in 2017. She discussed the current use of the site and the access to it as well as the need for the petitioner to expand their business which was located adjacent to the subject site. She reviewed the site plan and passed out photos of the site and discussed the use of the site for auto services and the hours of operation. She stated that the use was consistent with other uses in the area and the only proposed modification is for an overhead door on the rear façade. She discussed the existing parking stalls of which 13 will be utilized by the petitioner and displayed on the site plan the areas for parking for customers, employees, and vehicles for sale. She also reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Borsuk questioned who owned the existing parcel for the business and the parcel adjacent to it where the proposed expansion would be established. Ms. Williams responded that the petitioner owns the parcel where the business is currently located and that DLB Development, LLC owns the adjacent site. Ms. Propp questioned if there was adequate room inside the structure for the storage of vehicles. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 November 15, 2016 Tony Combs, petitioner for the request, responded that there was an outside enclosed area that is utilized for the storage of vehicles. Motion by Vajgrt to approve a conditional use permit to establish a new auto body repair and automotive service and sales use located at 1901 S. Washburn Street with the following conditions: 1) Vehicles parked within any parking stalls be in a condition for safe legal operation on the public roadway at all times. 2) Storage of towing equipment, towed vehicles awaiting pick-up or disposition, parts or miscellaneous construction equipment is limited to inside the principal building or enclosed storage areas. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 7-0. II. UPDATE TO CITY OF OSHKOSH ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 30 AND ZONING MAP (MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES) On October 4, 2016, the City of Oshkosh Plan Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a new draft zoning map coinciding with the update/rewrite of the 1997 Zoning Ordinance. Since that time staff has identified additional mapping and/or ordinance language changes based on feedback it has heard from the public or in the course of additional staff reviews prior to adoption. Staff recommended that Council direct the changes back to the Plan Commission for review prior to final adoption of the Ordinance and Map. Mr. Burich stated that the new zoning map has not yet been adopted and that staff was proposing to make some changes to it and was seeking comment and input from the Commission. He further stated that there were some text changes in addition to the map revisions and that the boundaries of the University Transition Overlay District (UTO) have some concerns raised by the Historic Jackson Drive Neighborhood Association. Due to these concerns staff has developed 8 to 9 different alternatives for the boundaries for the Commission to consider. Mr. Nau presented the map revisions which were as follows: A. Poberezny Rd. & W. Ripple Av.-change from SMU-PD to UI-PD to better reflect the City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. B. Algoma Blvd. & Wisconsin St.-change from TR-10 to MR-36 to better reflect the current zoning and land use. C. New Water Tower Site-change from UMU-PD to I-PD which is the correct zoning designation for government structures. D. N. Main St. Storm Sewer Basin Area-change from MR-20 to I which is the correct zoning designation for government structures. E. UWO Parking Lot-Scott Av.-change from C Campus to I as this classification better fits the campus area where it is located. F. Vacated Knapp St.-change from C Campus to I as it is owned by the EAA and this would be a more appropriate zoning designation. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 November 15, 2016 G. 225 Idaho St.-change from NMU to SR-5 as this request was made by the property owner who had concerns with a potential buyer for the single family home on the site having difficulty securing financing due to its zoning designation. Ms. Propp questioned what the adjacent property is zoned. Mr. Nau responded that it was SR-9 which allows for more density and this is a larger parcel in size and the proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Borsuk inquired what the current use was of the site. Mr. Nau indicated that it was a single family home and adjacent to the Parks Department. H. Buckstaff Site-1212 S. Main St.-change from HI to UMU-PD as the site is in the process of being demolished and adding the planned development overlay to the site would be beneficial for future development purposes. Mr. Borsuk questioned how this zone change would affect adjacent sites and if it would create any liability on these properties. Mr. Burich discussed the front yard setback and that there was no transitional yard setback with the placement of the street between the parcels. He further explained that the site was not adjacent to residential sites and would not result in any higher level of setback and was addressed within the code. He further discussed the conforming structures that were adjacent to the site. Mr. Borsuk stated that there was vacant land near this site and he does not want to impede the viability of operations for the businesses adjacent to this site and questioned if there was some urgency to change the zoning classification of the Buckstaff property. Mr. Burich stated that the city was working towards preparing the site for future development and the proposed zoning would be appropriate for this site as community plans do not include industrial use of this property. Mr. Borsuk reiterated that he did not want to negatively impact the use of the parcels adjacent to this site by the proposed zone change. Mr. Burich responded that staff can further research this change and bring it back to the Commission at the next meeting. I. E. Packer Av. & Harrison St.-change from HI to UI which better suits the smaller parcels and less intensive uses. Mr. Borsuk stated that there were heavy industrial uses on this site and adjacent properties and he would not support this revision. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 November 15, 2016 Mr. Burich indicated that there is auto sales proposed for this site which would not be permitted in a HI zoning district and the other uses were not that intense to require that classification. Mr. Borsuk stated that Oshkosh Corporation is located in this area. Mr. Burich responded that the city is responding to a request by a party to establish auto sales in this area and is trying to avoid spot zoning a property to allow this use as it would not be allowed in the HI zoning district. He further stated that there were no heavy industrial uses on any of those parcels. Ms. Propp stated that the UI zoning designation would affect the old Metzler Auto building which was being utilized by Oshkosh Corporation and storage unit facilities which both should not require a heavy industrial zoning designation. Mr. Burich indicated that the HI zoning district has more setback requirements and discussed the UI zoning district and it requirements. He further discussed that the HI zoning district was for the purpose of manufacturing and industrial uses which are not compatible with the commercial and other less intense uses as well as the fact that this area is adjacent to residential uses to the south. Mr. Nau presented a few additional map revisions that were added after the preparation of staff reports. The first was 2508 Shorewood Drive which was the recently approved Olsen annexation which was annexed with a zoning designation of R-1 and was proposed to be changed to SR-5- LRO which is just a cleanup revision to make the property compatible with the adjacent uses. The next revision was for the Mercury Marine site which is proposed to be changed from UMU to UI as well as the Lamico site as both properties were previously zoned M-2 and this revised zoning designation would be more appropriate to fit the land use. Mr. Burich added that the draft map was compared to the Comprehensive Plan and several of the proposed revisions were to adjust the zoning designation to match the current land use of the property. Mr. Nau continued with the Axletech property which is proposed to be revised from RFMU to UI to reflect its current use. Mr. Fojtik questioned how this would affect the property if it changed hands in the future. Mr. Burich responded this zoning designation would allow for setbacks and other issues if the site was redeveloped. Mr. Nau then discussed a revision for Oaklawn School which is to change the two additional lots acquired by the school from SMU to I-PD to make it consistent with the rest of the adjacent parcel. He then presented the next revision which was for the Zink delayed attachment which will be effective in December of 2016 and was proposed to be changed from R-1 to SR-5. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 November 15, 2016 Mr. Fojtik commented that it appeared that at least one Commission member desired to pull out a few of these proposed revisions for further consideration. Mr. Borsuk responded affirmatively. It was determined that revisions A through G were acceptable to the Commission and that Mr. Borsuk would like to further examine revisions H and I. Ms. Propp questioned if the remaining map revisions were acceptable. Bernard Pitz, 617 W. Irving Avenue, discussed his parcels on Church Avenue and Wisconsin Street and that they were down zoned previously and he has buildings with 2, 3 and 4 units along with a carpenter shop and he wants them all zoned multi-family. Mr. Burich responded that this issue was discussed previously and his request makes sense in this case and was addressed in the map revisions. Mr. Pitz stated that he has other parcels that he would like to see changed. Mr. Fojtik left at 4:42 pm. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the miscellaneous changes to the update to the City of Oshkosh Zoning Map with the exception of revisions H & I. Seconded by Cummings. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Burich discussed the University Transition Overlay boundaries (UTO) and its purpose which was to promote density within this area and prevent its extension out further from the University than it is already. He explained that staff set the boundaries based on the number of owner occupied properties and rental units in the area. He reviewed the original proposed boundaries and the nine alternative options created for consideration due to concerns raised as there is a historic district in this area. He explained each alternative option and the theory behind it. Mr. Borsuk questioned how removing the historic district would affect the boundaries and what protection there would be for this area if removed. Mr. Burich explained that there was concern with the district being within the UTO although the density bonus is the only difference. The requirements within the UTO are for five parking stalls being provided if necessary and other requirements pertaining to the rental housing. Mr. Borsuk inquired where the real protection was for the district. Mr. Burich responded that the city has a weaker historic preservation ordinance but does have a Neo Traditional Development Overlay District that could address such issues. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 November 15, 2016 Mr. Borsuk commented that the historic district could be changed to this district to provide more protection to the historic homes without changing the UTO boundaries. Mr. Burich replied that this would be an alternative or to back off the boundaries of the UTO to not include this area. If the boundaries would be moved back we would need to look at the creation of a new zoning designation to have a hybrid area in between as a transition area. Ms. Propp requested that the impact of the UTO be summarized to make it clearer. Mr. Burich explained that the properties within the UTO area could potentially have up to 5 unrelated individuals with appropriate parking facilities. In other areas, 3 unrelated individuals are allowed per household in single family districts and also discussed functional families and how they are accounted for in the new ordinance. Ms. Propp questioned if 4 unrelated individuals are allowed with the UTO without the parking provisions or other standards. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively and stated that this condition is going to be difficult to verify. Ms. Propp then questioned if large apartment buildings were allowed in the UTO. Mr. Burich replied that they should be conforming uses but they must provide adequate parking to serve the units. Mr. Hinz stated that the historic district option (#9) excluded some parcels that were included on most of the rest of the options (#2, 5, 6 & 7) and questioned why it was not included on this one as there is only one owner occupied parcel. Mr. Burich indicated that staff was trying to place the overlay down the middle of streets rather than placing it in the middle of a block. Shirley Mattox, 1313 Jackson Street, stated that Jackson Street neighbors formed the Historic Jackson Drive Neighborhood Association recently and that she has lived at her residence for 30 years. She discussed the quality of homes in their neighborhood and that the association brought a petition to the Common Council three weeks ago regarding the placement of the UTO boundary on Jackson Street. She felt this area should be preserved as it was a gateway to the city and discussed the historic history of the area. She also discussed the historic district which contains 147 homes and the architectural styles of the structures. She further discussed the purpose of the neighborhood association and the importance of homeownership as well as the importance of park space in neighborhoods. She felt that option #9 would maintain most of the area and continued to discuss the importance of historic homes in the community. She also discussed the young professionals who like to live in the downtown area and their potential to move into these homes in the future. She continued discussion with the number of students attending UW-O and that the guidance which she felt was better when students live within the dormitory facilities. She discussed the number of rental properties in the city and felt that we should be conservative with __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 November 15, 2016 the boundaries of the UTO. She talked about the homeowners who still lived in the area and felt that this portion of the city should be reclaimed as owner occupied homes rather than rental properties. She discussed studies she had worked on in other communities with student housing and how some of these communities have cut back on student housing. She stated that she placed the maps on the neighborhood’s website and would like to see the boundary for the UTO pulled back to Wisconsin Street. Ms. Propp inquired what alternative options for the UTO were acceptable to her and the neighborhood association. Ms. Mattox responded that either #8 or #9 or possibly a combination of #7 & #8. Mr. Burich indicated that #9 was the one that she had indicated was favored which brought the boundary back to Wisconsin Street. Ms. Mattox stated that she was concerned with the single family homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Cummings left at 5:15 pm. Ms. Propp stated that there were too many alternatives to choose from. Mr. Hinz commented that he feels that Ms. Mattox has a point and that the city should try to contain this area and was in favor of alternative #9. Mr. Borsuk stated that this option would remove the historic district and east of Wisconsin there are only five owner occupied homes. Ms. Propp asked to clarify that the overlay offers four unrelated individuals by right and the rest of the city would be three unrelated individuals per unit. Mr. Burich responded that the provision for the roommate living arrangement could provide up to four unrelated individuals with a conditional use permit where the UTO would allow for five unrelated individuals if meeting the required standards without a CUP. Three unrelated individuals would be allowed in other districts throughout the city and four with a conditional use permit or within the UTO without a CUP. Ms. Propp then questioned what the advantage or disadvantage would be of starting out small with the UTO boundary. Mr. Burich indicated that there was no disadvantage to it as it can be changed and discussed the reasoning for using a major collector street to establish the boundary. He further explained that between Wright Street and Jackson Street four unrelated individuals would be allowed by nonconforming provisions and the purpose of the UTO boundary was to promote density in this area near campus to prevent the spread of rental housing further into other community areas. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 November 15, 2016 Mr. Kiefer questioned if the historic district would be restricted to three individuals. Mr. Burich responded that it would be three except for the existing uses that already have four individuals. Promoting the density in this area would hopefully reduce this trend in other areas. Ms. Propp discussed the conforming and nonconforming issues and that this concept will be hard to deal with and enforce and questioned if the new landlord ordinance recently adopted would tell the city how many individuals are in rental housing units. Mr. Burich responded negatively and agreed that it was a difficult situation as far as enforcement however all communities with a University campus have to deal with this issue. Mr. Hinz discussed the option of keeping the UTO boundary smaller to start with as it could be expanded at a later date. Mr. Burich stated that the UTO district could be scrapped completely and it could just be established city wide that three individuals only would be allowed if the Commission desired. Mr. Borsuk commented that Jackson Street and New York Avenue would serve as a fire wall and questioned how we could make the fire wall as strong as possible and questioned if the Commission needed to make this decision tonight. Mr. Burich reiterated that the UTO boundary did not need to be mapped at all or it could be brought back to the next meeting. Ms. Propp stated that she felt the number of options should be reduced. Mr. Burich again stated that we can create the district without mapping it at this time if no consensus could be reached on the appropriate area for the boundary. Mr. Borsuk commented that what happens east of the dividing line is most important and that he felt we should look at Wisconsin Street. Mr. Burich stated that he needed to know if more information was needed if the Commission wanted to delay the decision until the next meeting. Mr. Vajgrt commented that he preferred option #9 although there are other options to be considered. Mr. Kiefer suggested that we could come back to it with Wisconsin Street being included in the UTO and include the parcels by the Jackson Field area and discussed the number of nonconforming properties that would exist if the boundary was moved to Wisconsin Street. He felt we need to look at the number of owner occupied units on Wisconsin Street and need to know more about owner occupied parcels both east and west of Wisconsin Street. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 November 15, 2016 Motion by Vajgrt to consider two options for moving the boundary to Wisconsin Street and Wright Street as depicted on option #9 with further review at the next meeting. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 5-0. The Commission requested that the options be summarized regarding the UTO for the next meeting and some information regarding the Neo Traditional Development Overlay District and if it should be applied to the historic district. Mr. Burich stated that he would want further input from the neighborhood regarding applying the overlay district to the historic district as it is very intense as far as architectural standards. Mr. Burich explained the text changes relating to the R-2 districts being replaced with the SR districts and that these areas contain a large number of two family dwellings and we do not want to create a lot of nonconforming uses as such dwellings as duplexes would become nonconforming uses if the zoning district changed under the new ordinance. He displayed maps showing the existing nonconforming uses and explained that two family uses on lots with under 60 feet in width and 7,200 square feet in area are nonconforming uses. The addition of a text change to add that existing conforming two family uses on existing lots with 60 feet or more of lot width and 7,200 square feet of lot area would be permitted by right in the SR-5 and SR-9 zoning districts would not create a number of new nonconforming uses. To address existing nonconforming uses on lots that do not meet the necessary size requirements, language is proposed to be added to allow two family uses on these lots with approval of a conditional use permit. As these existing nonconforming uses already exist it would give the city the ability to permit the use through the conditional use process as they are nonconforming under the current ordinance and the provisions will allow a path for it to become a conforming use with a conditional use permit. Mr. Kiefer asked if this issue would only come into play if the property owner would sell the property or do other improvements and then would be required to file for a conditional use permit. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively. Mr. Kiefer then inquired if the property owner left the use as is they would not have to do anything. Mr. Burich again responded affirmatively and stated that the big issue with nonconforming uses is when the property owner would sell the property or have to rebuild the structure. Mr. Borsuk commented that with the conditional use process some uses that are not appropriate would no longer be allowed to continue. Mr. Burich indicated that it would depend on the results of the conditional use permit review. He further explained that the remaining text changes relate to some items ending at the Plan Commission level and that the Common Council had concerns with items not moving forward for __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 November 15, 2016 their review. The proposed text changes would revert back to the Plan Commission making a recommendation and the Common Council having final approval. Bernard Pitz stated that he has rental property located at the corner of Parkway Avenue and Monroe Street that is a nonconforming use as it is a smaller lot and that the building will be worthless if these text changes are approved. He felt that by making the building a conforming use would help his situation. Mr. Burich responded that it is currently an existing and nonconforming use and that Mr. Pitz would need to obtain a conditional use permit for that property as it would not fall into any allowed nonconforming use as it currently exists. Ms. Propp stated that if the property would require a conditional use permit, what would be the result if the permit was denied. Mr. Burich responded that the structure would only be allowed to be used for a single family unit. Mr. Pitz stated that it currently has three units and that there was no sense to him paying his property taxes and street reconstruction bills for this lot if he was only going to be allowed one unit as it had no value as a single family home. Mr. Burich reiterated that it is currently a nonconforming use. Mr. Pitz continued his discussion regarding the city making changes to ordinances that affect property owners without informing people of their consequences. He also discussed a number of other properties he owns in the city and how they will be affected by the change in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Burich indicated that the city provided for a blanket conforming status to all nonconforming lots and structures for setbacks and Mr. Pitz could take some of his requests to the Board of Appeals and request a variance to resolve issues such as reduced setbacks on smaller lots. Motion by Borsuk to approve the miscellaneous text changes to the update to the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance Chapter 30. Seconded by Vajgrt. Mr. Borsuk commented that he was comfortable with the conditional use permit approval process to allow people to use their property as they see fit. Motion carried 5-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:52 pm. (Vajgrt/Kiefer) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services