Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 February 21, 2017 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 21, 2017 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, John Kiefer, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: John Hinz, Robert Vajgrt STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; Elizabeth Williams, Planner; Brian Slusarek, Assistant Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; James Rabe, Director of Public Works; 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 February 7, 2017 were approved as presented. (Nollenberger/Kiefer) I. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONE CHANGE FROM SMU SUBURBAN MIXED-USE DISTRICT TO SMU-PD SUBURBAN MIXED-USE DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 900 N. KOELLER STREET The petitioner requests a zone change from the existing SMU Suburban Mixed-Use District to SMU-PD Suburban Mixed-Use District with inclusion of the Planned Development Overlay District (PD). Mr. Burich discussed the changes to the Zoning Ordinance that became effective January 1st that now stipulates that the public hearing for zone changes will be held at the Plan Commission level instead of before the Common Council as was done previously. Mr. Bowen arrived at 4:02 pm. 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 discussed the purpose for the zone change request and the benefits of the planned development overlay and that the zoning designation was consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Motion by Nollenberger to approve a zone change from SMU Suburban Mixed-Use District to SMU-PD Suburban Mixed-Use District with a Planned Development Overlay for property located at 900 N. Koeller Street. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8-0. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 February 21, 2017 II. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN INDOOR STORAGE FACILITY, A MULTI-TENANT COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE, AND TWO SINGLE-TENANT COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF N. KOELLER STREET AND ROBIN AVENUE The petitioner requests approval of a General Development Plan for redevelopment of four parcels located at the southeast corner of N. Koeller Street and Robin Avenue for:  for an indoor self-storage facility; a multi-tenant commercial use; and two single tenant commercial uses. Ms. Williams presented the item the reviewed the subject site again as well as the area of the flood plain and floodway in this vicinity. She discussed the site plan, drive aisles, and storm water management plans and the potential uses for Lots 1, 2, and 3. She also discussed the redevelopment plans for Lot 4 for indoor climate controlled storage units and the addition of other structures to the site for storage purposes. She reviewed accesses to the site for vehicles and pedestrians and the cross access agreements that would be required between all four lots. She also reviewed conceptual parking plans and stated that the site exceeded code requirements for the number of parking stalls which will be addressed at the time of Specific Implementation Plan approval. She reviewed the conceptual storm water management plans and displayed on the site plan the locations depicted for detention ponds on the subject site and the utility service issues for Lot 2 and 3 that could not be served as proposed but could be revised to address this issue. She also discussed the landscaping plans which would be required to meet code standards as well as the proposed signage. She explained that the existing sign on the site was proposed to be reused however the petitioner has now indicated that they were going to relocate the existing sign on the site and would like to also have pylon signs for each of the four lots. Staff was recommending the use of code compliant monument signage instead of the pylon signs on Lots 1, 2, and 3. She reviewed the building elevations and discussed the architectural tower sign on the structure that would require a base standard modification for the height of 43 feet and further discussed the monument signs as well as the possibility to utilize wall signage. These details would also have to be submitted with the Specific Implementation Plan however the Commission is asked to provide a recommendation for what they would find acceptable for signage for the site. She reviewed fencing around the storage facility for screening purposes and further discussed that this submittal was a General Development Plan only and reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Burich explained the new terms that have been incorporated into the new Zoning Ordinance and explained that the General Development Plan was similar to a preliminary plat in that the petitioner is looking for how the City would feel about their proposed plans before the costs are incurred to prepare detailed final plans. The petitioner will then come back to the Commission at a later date with a Specific Implementation Plan that would address the rest of the details of the proposed development. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 February 21, 2017 Ms. Propp commented that the petitioner is removing a bay to remove the existing structure from the floodway and questioned why they were then proposing to construct new storage units in the same area. Ms. Williams indicated that the petitioner would need to obtain approvals from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, (DNR), for the construction of these storage units and will also need to have the proper approvals for the removal of this area from the flood plain and permits allowing them to build on this portion of the site. Mr. Burich added that some portion of the site could be removed from the flood plain after the land is surveyed and would be phased in over time after things get worked out related to these details. Mr. Borsuk stated that he was not comfortable with changing the flood plain as this is a process that requires approval from the Corps of Engineers who makes this determination not just the DNR. He also voiced his concerns on how you can have storm water treatment in a floodway as this issue complicates the matter. Mr. Gohde commented that it would depend on how the area gets mapped out and elevations as you cannot have storm water management addressed by floodways and not addressing the storm water generated from the site. Mr. Borsuk reiterated that storm water management issues are a concern and need to be addressed and he had concerns with changing the elevations. Mr. Gohde responded that during the review of the General Development Plan is not the time to address these concerns and that those issues should be addressed with the submittal of the Specific Implementation Plan. Mr. Cummings left at 4:50 pm. Mr. Borsuk stated that he did not want to see new storage units constructed in the floodway or floodplain and is uncomfortable with the development on this site. Mr. Burich indicated that this construction would not take place if the floodway is an issue on the site and appropriate permits would have to be approved. Ms. Propp commented that she had concerns with the aesthetics of the out buildings for the other storage units as they were located within the Highway 41 Corridor and although she would like to see this site redeveloped, the smaller storage units to be constructed around the existing facility were her concern. Mr. Burich discussed the landscaping and fencing along the storage units that would provide screening for this use from the roadway. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 February 21, 2017 Ms. Williams added that the storage units facing Koeller Street will have end caps of brick or stone veneer to improve the aesthetic qualities of the structure. Mr. Thoms discussed the concept of not having as much parking within the Highway 41 Corridor in front of the structures and that the buildings should be shifted closer to the road and have the parking areas placed behind the structures. He further discussed that the General Development Plan will come back to the Commission at a later time as a Specific Implementation Plan and that with the Planned Development Overlay requirements could be placed on the request other than just what meets code requirements. He felt the setback from the Highway 41 Corridor and the amount of signage proposed for the site was a concern. He continued to discuss the size of the proposed signs and the desire to have one monument sign for all four lots as well as the 60 foot tall pylon sign and the architectural tower sign. He questioned why the architectural tower sign needed to be 43 feet tall and that he does not like huge signs for developments. He continued to discuss his concerns with the storm water management issues and that he felt they should be required to control volume and quality despite what the City’s ordinance provisions require, He also discussed the storm water detention basin located within the floodway but felt that the landscaping and fencing concerns could be addressed later when the Specific Implementation Plan is submitted. Mr. Burich indicated that the setback from Highway 41 has not been reviewed as with the new Zoning Ordinance, there is no setback from Highway 41 any longer and discussed the previous code requirements relating to this issue. He also addressed the issue of having less parking stalls in front of the buildings and that proposal was not approved by the Plan Commission as a new requirement in the new Ordinance. He further discussed the parking issue and that retailers desire to have parking stalls in front of their facility. He discussed the tower sign requested which is due to the placement of the structure so far off the road and discussed the height of the proposed sign. Ms, Williams further discussed the petitioner’s desire to have a 60 foot pylon sign as it would serve as a multi-tenant development center sign. Mr. Burich added that staff was not recommending approval for pylon signs for each development but for code compliant monument signage for Lots 1, 2, and 3 instead. Mr. Kiefer questioned if the flood plain depicted on the map was the newer version. Mr. Gohde responded that this was not the updated version of the Sawyer Creek flood plain and discussed improvements made that have affected this issue and explained that the flood plain and floodway could be dramatically reduced from what is currently depicted. The flood plain has to be re-mapped. Mr. Borsuk questioned why we would entertain the idea of the tower sign on the structure as he did not feel it was necessary and would not support approval of it. He felt the pylon sign for the development was adequate as well as the monument signs and discussed previous developers and the base standard modifications requested for their sites as that was the standard for their facilities. He felt designs and layouts could be adjusted to satisfy city requirements or desires and that __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 February 21, 2017 developers do not want to spend the money to modify their standard plans. He wanted to see landscape plans on Koeller Street and the petitioner would need to address this with reasonable standards as it is currently a sea of asphalt. Mr. Bowen disagreed on the concept that retailers do not have standards for their developments that they need to maintain and discussed the retail site selection and how this component is relevant. He questioned the condition relating to the 60 foot tall pylon sign for the development center and why this would be allowed by granting a base standard modification. Ms. Williams responded that initially it was because they were going to reuse the existing pylon sign on the site. Mr. Bowen questioned if the existing sign was 60 feet tall. Ms. Williams discussed the sign issue and stated that staff was comfortable with the original plan to relocate the existing sign however it has changed to reconstructing a new sign now and suggested that the Commission could change the condition to have the signage approval occur during the Specific Implementation Plan process. Mr. Bowen stated that he did not see why we would allow something in the General Development Plan that the Commission was not going to allow when the Specific Implementation Plan comes forward. He did not feel we should allow a 60 foot tall sign and that the developer should have what agrees with the current Zoning Ordinance which is now limited to 35 feet in height. They are no longer utilizing the existing sign and a new sign should meet the new Zoning Ordinance requirements. Mr. Burich explained that there was some confusion with the submittal as to the re-use of an existing sign and any new sign for the site would be recommended at 35 feet in height. Mr. Bowen stated that we need to look at the language in the conditions related to signage and either revise it or strike it completely. The new sign should be required to meet zoning ordinance standards. Mr. Thoms discussed if this project did not appear to be redeveloping the parking area and if they are not reconstructing the parking lot, do they have to comply with current code requirements. Mr. Burich stated that the parking area was going to be reconstructed and the plans reflect the required landscape islands and green space that are part of the current zoning ordinance requirements. Mr. Thoms stated that if they have to comply with the current parking ordinance requirements, that it should be included in the conditions of approval. Mr. Burich explained that all of the parking area would be disturbed and that this aspect of the development should be discussed at the Specific Implementation Plan level. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 February 21, 2017 Mr. Borsuk reiterated that he still had concerns with the storm water infrastructure and questioned if there would be a requirement for an operation and management audit. Mr. Gohde stated that this was added to the last ordinance update and would be required to be certified and discussed further details of the DNR and City requirements related to this issue. Mr. Borsuk then questioned if they would have to have O&M plans completed and checked to see if it is operating as proposed. Mr. Gohde discussed the schedule of checks that would have to be performed to satisfy the requirements of the DNR. Jared Schmidt stated that they would not have submitted plans without knowledge of the limitations of the site and that they were aware that they cannot fill in an area within the floodway. He further discussed the issue and stated that they would need to meet City requirements as well as DNR and FEMA requirements and they believe that the development plans would work even though it is a unique site. Mr. Borsuk inquired if they were going to meet the release rates for the redeveloped site. Mr. Schmidt responded that the release rates would be drastically reduced because of the nature of the development and the increase of green space. Mr. Borsuk commented that he did not feel that the mention of the 15% reduction on the site was that drastic. He felt it may be necessary to add a condition regarding the reduction of the release rates. James Rabe, Director of Public Works, suggested that a condition could be added that would include peak flow rates to be reduced to the maximum extent practical in conjunction with the Department of Public Works during the site plan review. Peak flow release rates could not be determined at this time. Mr. Borsuk questioned how critical the tower sign was for the development. Mr. Brown responded that he feels it is necessary and important to them as the building will get lost as the site continues to develop. Mr. Thoms inquired why the sign needed to be that tall as far as what is the function that would require it for storage units. Mr. Brown replied that they do not want people to miss it and it was an opportunity to advertise. Mr. Thoms then inquired if he would be willing to bring the height of the sign down to meet zoning ordinance requirements. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 February 21, 2017 Mr. Brown responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms stated that there appeared to be some delineation between lots and questioned if that was the intent as it would reduce his concerns about cross access parking. Mr. Brown replied that it was the intent to delineate the uses between the lots and that they do not have users lined up at this time as they need to address the floodway issues first. At this time he was looking to get approval of the General Development Plan only to allow him to move forward with staff on the preparation of Specific Implementation Plans. Mr. Thoms continued to discuss his concerns with delineation of the sites and cross access issues. Mr. Burich displayed on the site plan the areas of landscaping features between the sites that would delineate each of the lots. Mr. Thoms continued to discuss why he felt this was necessary to decrease issues with parking concerns between the various potential users. Ms. Propp questioned how high the main building elevation would be compared to the 43 foot tower sign proposed on the structure. Mr. Brown responded that the building would be 35 feet tall. Ms. Williams added that this feature was discussed with the developer and the concern was if the sign was constructed to meet code requirements, it would make the sign similar in height to the building. Discussions with the developer were that they were adamant regarding the option of utilizing the tower signs instead and their willingness to forego the monument sign for this site. Mr. Borsuk commented that the plans depict wall signage as well and questioned why this type of development as a storage facility would need both wall signage and a tower sign. Mr. Brown responded that he felt the development needed to have both types of signs due to lack of visibility. Mr. Borsuk stated that he had conflicts with the proposed signage for the development and cross parking. Mr. Bowen left at 5:25 pm. Ms. Propp stated that she would like to remove the base standard modification related to the 60 foot tall development center sign (4b) as she would prefer to have code compliant signage for the site. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 February 21, 2017 Mr. Borsuk commented that he would also like to remove the base standard modification for the 43 foot tall tower sign as well (4c) as it detracts from the development. Mr. Thoms felt that signage should be code compliant for monument, pylon, and wall signage for now and with the submittal of the final plans the issue can be addressed. Mr. Rabe suggested language relating to the peak flow storm water reduction that could be added as another condition of approval. He recommended reducing peak flow to maximum extent practical in conjunction with the Department of Public Works during site plan review. This will provide the flexibility to work with the developer on the site plan design to obtain significant reductions on the site. Board discussion continued on the storm water management concerns on water quality and quantity issues. Mr. Rabe stated that the peak flow cannot be addressed at this point of the development with any more specific details. Motion by Propp that the Plan Commission finds that the general development plan for a planned development approval for an indoor storage facility, a multi-tenant commercial structure, and two single-tenant commercial structures located on the southwest corner of N. Koeller Street and Robin Avenue is consistent with the criteria established by Chapter 30-387 (C)(6) and recommends approval of a planned development for a general development plan with the following revised conditions: 1. Cross access agreements will be required between all four lots contained within the development area to enable site access and internal circulation between parcels. 2. Easternmost access driveway on Robin Avenue be reconstructed to meet code requirements. 3. Access control ordinance variance to permit reduced lateral clearance for the access driveways as proposed where the code requires 75 feet of lateral clearance be provided. 4. Base standard modification to permit: a. Impervious surface ratio to exceed code permitted 70% and final impervious surface ratios be provided at the time of Specific Implementation Plan review. 5. Prior to building permit issuance the petitioner will be required to obtain necessary DNR permits and meet City code requirements for development within the floodplain and/or floodway. 6. Petitioner shall reduce peak flow to the maximum extent practical in conjunction with the Department of Public Works during site plan review. Seconded by Nollenberger. Motion carried 6-0. III. FOUR-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 900 N. KOELLER STREET The owner/petitioner is requesting a four-lot land division/certified survey map from one existing parcel containing a total of 10.750 acres. Sizes of the proposed lots are as follows: __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 February 21, 2017 Lot 1 = 1.993 Acres Lot 2 = 1.317 Acres Lot 3 = 1.278 Acres Lot 4 = 6.162 Acres Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the proposed parcel layout of the land division and discussed the size of the proposed lots and the purpose of the land division. He stated that the lots would meet the minimum lot sizes and dimensional requirements and that staff had no concerns with the layout of the parcels as proposed. He further stated that the certified survey map, (CSM), is lacking information as far as missing features which will be required to be added to the CSM prior to receiving City approval and has been added as a condition of approval to this request. He also discussed the issue that city services may not be able to be extended to Lots 2 and 3 depending on how the area is developed and the options available to address this issue. He further stated that the land division was consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Department of Public Works only concern is the ability to serve Lots 2 and 3 as far as city services. He reviewed the condition recommended for this request. Mr. Thoms commented that there was a 36 foot strip for access from Koeller Street to Lot 4 of the development and questioned if there was a need to provide any other accesses for the other proposed lots on the site. Mr. Nau responded negatively as the site would be utilizing the existing driveways for access to the individual lots. Mr. Burich added that the planned development will be discussed later on the agenda and that those types of questions will be addressed under that action item however the plans do depict cross access between the lots. Mr. Thoms then questioned if there would be shared storm water management for the entire development. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, responded that it would be a condition of the development and that there could be individual storm water management facilities on each of the four lots or an integrated system that would serve the entire development. Mr. Thoms stated that this should be determined before the CSM is approved. Mr. Burich responded that this issue was also part of the planned development and that the CSM just creates parcels of land and that the developer was proposing a shared detention facility at this time but the issue would have to be addressed after the finalized plans are submitted. If this did not work out as planned, detention facilities would have to be provided on each site. Mr. Nau commented that the City would not sign off on the final CSM until all the designed features required are resolved and are added to the document. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 February 21, 2017 Mr. Gohde added that the development would have to be farther along in the design process to make these determinations regarding storm water management facilities as this would be part of the redevelopment process. Easements cannot be created for the CSM at this point as final designs have not been completed. Mr. Thoms questioned if Article 8 referenced in the conditions would address these issues. Mr. Nau responded affirmatively and stated that it would encompass all issues such as structures, easements, and utilities. Mr. Borsuk commented that he wanted to look at storm water management as a whole for the site not as separate smaller sites. Mr. Gohde indicated that this is a plan of common development and all four lots will be combined as one unit when considering storm water management issues and there would be no exception for separate lots. Mr. Borsuk discussed the storm water issues that already exist in this area now and that we need to incorporate total site management for any development of this property. Mr. Gohde explained that the site needs to meet TSS reduction standards for redevelopment and that the impervious surface cannot be increased however quantities control runoff will not be addressed. Mr. Borsuk stated that there should also be velocity reduction for the site as the release rate should be reduced as well as water treatment as this is the opportunity for the city to address these issues. He would be requesting a condition to address these issues when the Specific Implementation Plan is presented. Mr. Burich commented that these issues will be reviewed under the planned development guidelines and that the General Development Plan should have been discussed first on the agenda. Mr. Gohde commented that the approval of the CSM is not the time to address storm water management issues. Mr. Burich explained the General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan processes that are now part of the new Zoning Ordinance criteria and the differences between the two processes. Items such as storm water and cross accesses should be discussed as part of that process. Mr. Borsuk felt that cross access and cross parking agreements between the lots and should both be addressed and the CSM should reflect the cross access agreements and cross access parking easements. He discussed other facilities that have experienced issues from not having shared access and parking. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 February 21, 2017 Mr. Burich commented that the General Development Plan is showing the development as having too much parking area currently. Mr. Thoms discussed that we should address conflicts between the lots for parking issues prior to the land division being approved. Mr. Burich indicated that both cross access agreements and cross parking easements would be addressed. It would be less of an issue if it was all one development site. Motion by Borsuk to approve a four-lot land division/certified survey map for property located at 900 N. Koeller Street with the following condition: 1. Final Certified Survey Map meets all requirements outlined in Article XIII: Subdivisions in the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance prior to final acceptance. Seconded by Thoms. Mr. Bowen stated that the Commission should ask the petitioner if they are agreeable to the application of cross access and parking agreements as this could have a negative impact on the development. Jeff Brown, General Capital Acquisitions, 6938 N. Santa Monica Boulevard, Fox Point, stated that they would like to hold off on these issues until the submittal for the Specific Implementation Plan however cross easement access is anticipated at this time. He discussed the issue in further detail and reiterated that they would like to hold on specific details of this concern until the Specific Implementation Plan is complete. Mr. Burich discussed the creation of the lots through the CSM and questioned if this aspect of the development was a critical need at this time or if approval of the CSM could be done at a later date when these concerns could be addressed. Mr. Brown responded that they could proceed without the CSM approval if necessary and discussed the aspects of how the lots could be changed later and the way the site is developed and how it would affect this depending on the end users. Mr. Burich then questioned if they would need approval of the CSM at this point for the development of Lot 4 and possibly come back at a later date for the other proposed lot divisions. Jared Schmidt, Robert E. Lee & Associates, 1250 Centennial Centre Boulevard, Hobart, discussed the reason for the approval of the CSM at this time in relation to the purchase of the property and acceptance of the development concept plan. He explained that the approved CSM provides for the necessity of flexibility and more marketable lots and discussed the different ways to solve the utility service issues for Lots 2 and 3. He further stated that the general concept needs to be acceptable and he does not see big issues but retailers’ desire designated parking fields. He further __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 February 21, 2017 discussed the perception of both users and desire of the retailers and the impacts of restricting parking to eliminate as much risk as possible. Mr. Burich added that the General Development Plan will lay out the sites in more detail which is the next item on the agenda. Mr. Thoms discussed the marketability of the lots and the uses for these lots and how he would like to avoid any issues in the future regarding parking. He also discussed the storm water management issues and that the planned development overlay allows the city more ability to require specific details of the development to be other than just what meets code requirements and he would like to know that the storm water management is going to be done for the entire site. Mr. Schmidt indicated that they will be getting a reduction in the water flow by the reduction of impervious surface on the site and discussed the various storm water management options which will reduce the flow and volume by the addition of green space to the site. He continued discussion regarding how storm water management will be addressed by the nature of the city’s ordinance requirements and the changes to the characteristics of the site. There will be quality reduction, peak flow reduction, and volume reduction and should meet the TSS 40% reduction. Mr. Burich suggested that the Commission discuss the General Development Plan first and return to the approval of the CSM after that discussion. Mr. Borsuk withdrew his motion to approve a four-lot land division/certified survey map for property located at 900 N. Koeller Street. Motion by Kiefer to change the order of the agenda to move the land division discussed to Item III and the conditional use permit/planned development for the General Development Plan to Item II. Seconded by Cummings. Motion carried 8-0. Motion by Thoms to approve a four-lot land division/certified survey map for property located at 900 N. Koeller Street with the following condition: 1. Final Certified Survey Map meets all requirements outlined in Article XIII: Subdivisions in the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance prior to final acceptance. Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 6-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE REZONE OF 1218 AND 1226 WITZEL AVENUE FROM UMU URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT AND SR-5 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 5 DISTRICT TO UMU PD URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY The petitioner is requesting a rezoning of 1218 and 1226 Witzel Avenue from their current designations of SR-5 Single Family Residential 5 District and UMU Urban Mixed Use District to the proposed designation of UMU PD Urban Mixed Use District with a Planned Development Overlay. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 February 21, 2017 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 combination of the two lots into one site and the reason for the zone change request which would be to allow the lot combination as they could not be combined into one parcel without consistent zoning designations. He explained that the reason the petitioner desired to combine the two lots into one parcel was to allow the expansion of the parking lot for the dental office at 1218 Witzel Avenue. Mr. Thoms stated that he would like to know what if any delineation will be done between 1226 and 1302 Witzel Avenue as he felt 1302 required some type of buffer as it was a residential property and this would change the adjacent lot from a residential use to a commercial use. Mr. Slusarek responded that there would be a buffer yard between the two parcels which will be discussed during the review of the General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan which is the next item on the agenda. Mr. Thoms discussed if the zone change or planned development should be discussed first. Mr. Burich stated that the zone change would be required to be approved first before the planned development could be considered. Mr. Slusarek reviewed the buffer requirements which with the proposed six foot tall solid fence, a 10 foot setback with 50% landscaping would be required. He further explained that the landscaping requirements could be less or more based on the amount of setback. Wayne Kettlewell, 2891 County Road K, Omro, stated that he is associated with the property at 1302 Witzel Avenue and discussed that the current parking lot already floods the back yard of this property and that they were looking for some type of relief from further development on this site. Motion by Borsuk to approve a zone change from UMU Urban Mixed Use District and SR-5 Single Family Residential 5 District to UMU PD Urban Mixed Use District with a Planned Development Overlay for property located at 1218 and 1226 Witzel Avenue. Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 6-0. V. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR GENERAL AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPROVAL FOR PARKING LOT EXPANSION AT 1218-1226 WITZEL AVENUE The petitioner requests approval of a Planned Development to allow expansion of the existing parking lot. Staff is recommending the following action associated with this request: 1. Planned Development approval of a General Implementation Plan and Specific Implementation Plan for expansion of an existing parking lot on the subject site. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and again reviewed the subject site as well as the site plan for the proposed expansion of the parking lot and explained that the plans as submitted would add 12 additional parking stalls with the removal of the residential structure on 1226 Witzel Avenue. He __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 14 February 21, 2017 further explained that the zoning ordinance allows a maximum of 16 parking stalls however staff is supportive of a base standard modification to allow additional parking spaces due to safety and traffic concerns. He discussed that the original site plan shows 32 parking stalls on the redeveloped parking lot and discussed that to accommodate the side yard setback and buffer requirements, staff was recommending removal of two of the western-most parking stalls. He also discussed the designing of the storm water drainage plans to direct the runoff from the site to Witzel Avenue and not to adjacent neighboring properties which will be reviewed at the site plan review level. After the revisions to the site plan, the parking lot expansion will result in 10 additional parking spaces for a total of 30 stalls. He also reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Fojtik left at 5:45 pm. Mr. Thoms asked if they were required to put in the fence and landscaping and a ten foot setback from where the fence is located. Mr. Burich confirmed that the ten foot setback is from the property line and stated that was the purpose of removing the two western-most stalls from the site to provide adequate buffer area between this use and the residential property at 1302 Witzel Avenue. Mr. Thoms discussed the landscaping on the outside of the fence and the water runoff concerns of the adjacent property owner. He questioned if the Department of Public Works will have to determine what needs to be done for the addition to the parking lot or the entire site so it does not negatively impact the adjacent properties. Mr. Gohde explained the swale along the north portion of the subject site that would allow the runoff to flow to the northeast corner and could be graded out to this area and to the storm sewer system. He displayed on the site plan where the drainage would flow and that curb and gutter around the parking lot perimeter would help in preventing any sheet flow of water runoff from the site. Mr. Thoms then questioned if by adding the swale and grading feature, if it would alleviate future issues that the neighboring properties have had with flooding concerns. Mr. Gohde responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms stated that if adding curb and gutter would improve the conditions. Mr. Burich indicated that if it is not required by code, it could be added as a condition to this request. Mr. Gohde discussed that this feature would control where the water runoff could go on the site but he could not make a more definite determination without further details however the water runoff would not be allowed to flow onto neighboring properties or the right-of-way. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 15 February 21, 2017 Mr. Thoms stated that he would like to add a condition to this request for the requirement of curb and gutter on the expansion area of the parking lot if further review shows that it is necessary or if it is required by code. Mr. Burich suggested a condition that curb and gutter on the parking lot expansion as determined to control parking lot runoff as determined by the Department of Public Works. Mr. Kiefer inquired if the removal of the two stalls from the site plan would bring the total number of stalls down to 28. Mr. Slusarek responded that the removal would result in a total number of 30 parking stalls. Mr. Gohde added that John Davel from Davel Engineering was present earlier but had to leave the meeting but was supportive of the loss of the two parking stalls as recommended. Mr. Kiefer questioned if the swale on the back of the site would control some of the flooding issues on the neighbor’s property. Mr. Gohde discussed the situations that arise between property owners and that he was unaware of the grading of the property and the flow of water in this area and suggested that they could work together to come to an agreement regarding the matter as there are no public drainage easement in this area. Mary Jane Kettlewell, 2891 County Road K, Omro, stated that she had discussed the drainage issue with the dentist who owns the property in the past as they experience flooding in the back of the property at 1302 Witzel Avenue and she had concerns with if expanding the parking lot would increase the issues on this property. She continued to discuss a drainage feature on the adjacent property that she claimed no longer functioned however she was not sure who installed it. Mr. Rabe stated that if the parking lot runoff is not directed to the neighbor’s property. it could not be addressed by the expansion of the parking lot but this would be part of the standard review process for the Department of Public Works of the storm water management plans. Motion by Nollenberger that the Plan Commission finds that the general and specific implementation development plan for a planned development approval for a parking lot expansion located at 1218-1226 Witzel Avenue is consistent with the criteria established by Chapter 30-387 (C)(6) and recommends approval of a planned development for a general and specific implementation development plan with the following conditions: 1. The subject lots, 1218 and 1226 Witzel Avenue, shall be combined through approval from Planning Services. 2. Base standard modification from the Zoning Code to allow construction of ten (10) additional parking spaces, for a total of thirty (30) parking spaces, where code requires a maximum of sixteen (16) parking spaces. 3. The proposed site plan shall be modified to have the two western-most parking stalls removed. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 16 February 21, 2017 4. Curb and gutter on the parking lot expansion as determined to control parking lot runoff as determined by the Department of Public Works. Seconded by Thoms. Motion carried 5-0. VI. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL ON OREGON/JACKSON STREET BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES Commission members discussed with Mr. Rabe when this item would be proceeding to the Common Council and if this discussion could be delayed until the next Commission meeting. Mr. Rabe indicated that this item could be delayed until the next meeting if necessary. Mr. Thoms commented that he would like to see more information on the matter than what had been provided. Motion by Nollenberger to table this item for a vote after discussion as less than half the Commission members were present at this point. Seconded by Thoms. Commission members discussed if the item should be reviewed now and voted on at the next meeting. Mr. Rabe stated that he could go over the alternatives for the bridge reconstruction at the next meeting or discuss it with the remaining members of the Commission now. Mr. Nollenberger commented that he had to leave due to another commitment and it was determined that there would no longer be a quorum for the meeting to continue for discussion of this item. Motion by Nollenberger to amend his previous motion to lay the item over until the next meeting. Seconded by Thoms. Motion carried 5-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:02 pm. (Kiefer/Thoms) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services