Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 March 21, 2017 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES March 21, 2017 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, John Kiefer, Robert Vajgrt EXCUSED: John Hinz, Karl Nollenberger STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; Brian Slusarek, Assistant Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Steve Gohde, Assistant 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 March 7, 2017 were approved as presented. (Vajgrt/Propp) Mr. Fojtik stated that Item IV was being removed from the agenda as no renderings of the bridge have been received at this time but should be available for the next meeting. I. PUBLIC HEARING-TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE The City of Oshkosh Department of Community Development requests review and approval of amendments to the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Burich discussed the reasons for the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which need to be addressed to meet the goals and objectives of the new regulations. He further stated that these amendments were to modify sections of the code that were either incorrect or needed slight adjustment and that there will be more of these types of amendments in the future. Mr. Slusarek presented each text amendment and gave an overview of each code section proposed to be modified in the current ordinance and gave a brief explanation of the amendment and why it was necessary. Devon Englebretson, Cypress Homes & Realty, 1336 W. Washington Street, Appleton, stated that they were developing 21 units in a new subdivision on the west side of the city and that code section 30-241 (F)(5) and (5)(a) related to the facades on new principal structures was a topic that the city had approached their company for input on. He discussed the plans they develop for new homes and that the 25% of window area requirement on the side facades they recommended to have removed as it does not coincide with the new home designs that are currently being marketed. He further discussed the 25% requirement for window openings in the front façade which he felt should also be reviewed as all of the plans that they market for new home designs may not qualify as far as meeting the city’s code requirements. He felt the façade design standards should be further reviewed by the city. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 March 21, 2017 Ed Schmidt, Schmidt Brothers Custom Homes, discussed the 25% requirement for window openings for the front façade which was also an issue for his company and that there were other architectural features that make a home attractive. He passed out samples of new homes they build depicting some of the front façade features included and that more windows results in more costs. He discussed the Shore Preserve subdivision where they are constructing new homes and that a lot of older homes may meet these standards however new homes are not built the same as far as interior layout and do not have adequate window area in the front façade to meet these standards. Ms. Propp questioned if he was opposed to the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance related to the facades for new structures. Mr. Schmidt responded that he approves of the changes being proposed but thinks that it needs to go further to address the front facades as well as this issue is going to come up a lot with the existing code standards. He explained that they have a design standards variance on the next meeting agenda for this purpose and that he felt the front façade requirements should be eliminated. Mr. Thoms stated that he has a problem with the 25% window openings in the front of the house as it would require too many design standards variance requests and questioned what the reasoning was for this requirement. Mr. Burich responded that part of the reasoning was applicable to more traditional styles of homes and that this requirement applies to older homes however new homes are not designed in the same fashion. He further explained the purpose of this requirement as the city still needs the interconnection between the front facades of the homes and the street and the concerns with blank front facades as their impact on the curb appeal of the neighborhood could have a negative effect. City staff can go back and further review the front façade requirements and discuss this issue with representatives from the industry that develops new homes and find a way to meet both criteria for their needs and the city’s standards, He discussed designs of new and older style homes and that the amendment to the ordinance proposed today was to eliminate the side façade requirements only at this time and those applicants will still need to submit for a design standard variance for front facades until this concern can be addressed. He further explained the need to have a balance between the two concerns and that it will be addressed in the next round of text amendments to the current ordinance. Mr. Cummings questioned how these requirements affect garage structures. Mr. Slusarek explained how the zoning ordinance standards apply for garage structures. Mr. Burich added that the city does not want garages to be the dominate feature of the structure as the curb appeal is an important facet to the community. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 March 21, 2017 Ms. Propp questioned if the Commission should vote on all the other remaining text amendments except the section related to the facades of new principal structures. Mr. Burich responded negatively and stated that staff must still work with the front façade concerns however the side facades need to be addressed now which is included in this proposed text amendment. Ms. Propp asked to clarify that parties would have to apply for a variance for the front façade standards until the issue is addressed. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the text amendments to the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 8-0. II. AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPROVAL FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING FOR THE PROPOSED UNIVERSITY INTRAMURAL RECREATION FIELD COMPLEX LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF PEARL AVENUE FROM WISCONSIN STREET TO 350 FEET WEST OF OSCEOLA STREET The petitioner requests to amend a Specific Implementation Plan for an intramural recreation field complex along the north side of Pearl Avenue west of Wisconsin Street. The petitioner is requesting approval of the lighting plan which was not included in the original submittal. 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 discussed the previously approved planned development for the Intramural Recreation Field Complex, (IRFC), and reviewed the approved plans, He explained that the lighting plans submitted did not meet the City’s lighting code standards and requires an amendment to the planned development and reviewed renderings of the dome structure. He discussed the use of the site and hours of operation and stated that revised lighting plans were received today and reviewed the new plans for the north field. He discussed the location of the poles and the base standard modification requested for their placement as well as the zoning ordinance requirements which will also make a base standard modification necessary for both reduced setbacks and height of the poles. He reviewed the photometric plans and discussed the light spillover at the property lines which was due to the unique development requirements of an outdoor sports field and city staff’s concerns with glare from the Fox River which could have a negative impact on adjacent properties. He stated that the lighting plans for the south field were also revised changing the height of the poles from 70 to 80 feet and he discussed the placement of the poles in the vacated right-of-way which the revised plans have adjusted to address this concern. He discussed the base standard modifications for the placement of the poles for the south field and reviewed the revised photometric plans as well as the base standard modifications requested for the light spillover at the property lines and for the field to be illuminated up to 12:00 am where code requirements are 10:00 pm. He stated that the item would be reviewed in two years after occupancy of the facility for negative impacts on adjacent __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 March 21, 2017 properties. He also reviewed a rendering depicting the amount of glare at the property lines and the revised conditions recommended for this request addressing the light poles for both fields at 80-feet tall and removing the condition relating to the poles located within the vacated right-of- way. Mr. Borsuk questioned if other City department staff had reviewed this request for their input. Mr. Nau responded affirmatively. Mr. Borsuk then questioned where the requirement came from for the 4 foot-candle maximum average lighting for outdoor recreational facilities as this does not seem practical for these types of developments. Mr. Burich responded that this may be something staff would have to look into for more unique type uses as we do not want to create nuisances for adjacent property owners. He further discussed other facilities in the community that have generated complaints from neighboring property owners due to lighting or noise issues. Mr. Bowen inquired if condition 1)d related to the lighting levels at the property lines is matched up with the plans that were approved for the planned development or if the condition should be revised to address this issue more closely such as the inclusion of a maximum level by which it could be exceeded. Mr. Thoms questioned if when the dome was deployed, if the exterior lighting will be off. Mr. Nau responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms discussed the proposed use by the University which is noted as Monday through Thursday and the possibility that it could be utilized seven days a week. Mr. Nau stated that the facility would be open to other organizations in addition to the University so the facility may be utilized on weekends as well. Mr. Thoms commented that he was concerned with development on the south side of the Fox River and the possible negative effects of 80-foot tall lighting that may be utilized seven days a week. Mr. Borsuk stated that the area on the south side of the river was already built out and there was no area for new development at this location. Mr. Burich added that City staff would be reviewing this issue in two years from its occupancy and the lighting can be modified with the adjustment of light fixture angles or restrictions on the time of use if necessary. Mr. Bowen questioned if Titan Stadium has restrictions on their use as it is a similar venue. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 March 21, 2017 Mr. Burich responded that he did not recall if that specific site was restricted however it has been done in other areas where there was a concern. He further stated that the City wants the University to be able to move forward with their plans for this site. Mr. Thoms then commented on the use of loudspeakers and if this issue has been addressed in regard to noise issues after 10:00 pm. Mr. Nau responded that this would be governed by the City’s Municipal Code which addresses the noise ordinance. Joann Rife, Director of Planning and Construction, 650 Witzel Avenue, stated that they do not anticipate any glare issues across the river from this site and that from November through April the dome will be deployed so the exterior lighting will not be utilized. She also discussed the hours of operation until 12:00 am which was to allow adequate time to finish events and clean up the site after the event is completed. She further stated that there would be no loud speakers on the exterior of the dome so the City’s Municipal Code for noise concerns should be addressed, Ms. Propp questioned how tall the light poles are for this facility compared to other lighting in the campus area. Ms. Rife replied that the light poles at Gruenhagen Hall are 98 feet tall so the lighting for this facility is essentially shorter and are designed to light the field area only. Ms. Vajgrt inquired if the facility was not proposed to be used from Friday through Sunday. Ms. Rife discussed their normal building operation schedule which is until 10:00 pm on Saturday and 11:00 pm on Sunday however student participation is anticipated to be during the weekdays of Monday through Thursday with other organizations possibly utilizing the complex on weekends. Mr. Borsuk suggested adding language to condition 1)d relating to the foot candle maximum at the property lines to address that it would be per the approved planned development. Motion by Vajgrt to approve an amendment to condition 1)d to address that the lighting was allowed to exceed the 0.5 foot candle maximum at the property lines in accordance with the approved plan. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8-0. Motion by Vajgrt to approve an amendment to the general and specific implementation plan for exterior lighting for the proposed University Intramural Recreation Field Complex located along the north side of Pearl Avenue from Wisconsin Street to 350 feet west of Osceola Street with the following conditions: __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 March 21, 2017 1) Base standard modifications: a. Allow a 5-foot front yard setback and 2.5-foot street side setback for light poles for the north and south fields, respectively; b. Permit 80-foot tall light poles for the north and south fields; c. Permit a 30 foot-candle average and a 50 foot-candle average lighting for the north and south fields, respectively; d. Permit the north and south fields to exceed the 0.5 foot-candle maximum at the property lines in accordance with the approved plan; e. Permit lighting for the north and south fields to be illuminated up to 12:00 a.m. 2) The Plan Commission shall review this request two years from time of the sports complex’s occupancy to ensure no detrimental effects have resulted from the lighting to the surrounding area and to determine if any modifications need to be made to the lights or hours of operation. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8-0. Mr. Cummings left at 4:50 pm. Mr. Fojtik turned the Chairperson duties over to Ms. Propp as he recused himself from the discussion and vote of the next item as he is involved with this project. III. GENERAL AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPROVAL FOR NEW REFUSE ENCLOSURE AT 625 ALGOMA BOULEVARD The petitioner is requesting General and Specific Implementation Plan approval for construction of a new refuse enclosure, seating area, and scooter parking area. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and discussed the current dumpsters on the site which are not contained in an enclosure and reviewed the site plan depicting the addition of the refuse enclosure, seating area, and scooter parking area. He discussed the base standard modifications necessary for placement of the dumpster enclosure between a building and a public street and for a reduced front yard setback and reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Bowen questioned if there was an existing curb cut in that location now. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively and displayed on the map the location of the curb cut. Motion by Vajgrt to approve a general and specific implementation plan for a new refuse enclosure at 625 Algoma Boulevard with the following conditions: 1. Base standard modification from the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of a dumpster enclosure between a building and a public street. 2. Base standard modification from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 6 foot front yard setback for refuse enclosure, seating area, and scooter parking area where code requires 30 foot minimum front yard setback. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 March 21, 2017 Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 6-0-1. (Fojtik abstained) IV. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL ON OREGON/JACKSON STREET BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES Mr. Borsuk stated that he believed that there was only one alternative that showed the realignment of Marion Road and Division Street and he felt the City should see if it was feasible to do this and also eliminate the City Center access just north of the bridge. He felt it would be best to direct traffic away from the bridge to avoid congestion issues. Mr. Burich commented that it could be discussed as part of the recommendation to the Council regarding the preferred alternative. Mr. Bowen stated that if this portion of the project was outside of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s. (DOT). scope. the Plan Commission could still make a recommendation to the Common Council to consider this as well. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, commented that there were two alternatives that included the realignment of Marion Road and Division Street however it would not be included in the DOT’s funded project, He further stated that this realignment was considered in 2008 but was not supported and therefore did not move forward. Board discussion ensured regarding the cul-de-sac option and access to City Center and the designs that will address this issue. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT Proposed New Cell Tower Bill Mr. Burich discussed pending legislation for review of cell tower installation which was previously removed from local municipalities by the current legislation in place. He discussed the limitations of the proposed new legislation and the residential zoning districts in the city that it would apply to which is only one small area. The City is making an effort to forward a recommendation to legislators to revise the bill to allow this review to apply to any residential zoning district rather than its current restriction and Commission members could contact local legislators to provide support of the revision. Zoning Ordinance Updates Mr. Burich discussed the text amendments presented today for the zoning ordinance updates and that there would be more amendments being brought forward in the coming months for minor changes to the ordinance. He explained that with any large update such as this one, once it is in effect, it requires some revisions to address issues that are not working as intended and the ordinance will be corrected over time. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 March 21, 2017 Comprehensive Plan Update Mr. Burich discussed the progress made on this update and that the last session regarding land use was not well attended and requested that Commission members provide comments if they can relative to this session. He stated that the next meeting is April 24th and that it was requested by a Commission member that Outlook calendar invites should be sent out for future meetings. Imagine Oshkosh Update & Corridors Study Update Mr. Burich discussed the progress made on this update and that a traffic plan should be prepared by the end of the month for review by the public and that this portion of the update was delayed due to staff changes at the consultant firm. He felt this portion of the update should be available in two weeks to one month. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:07 pm. (Vajgrt/Propp) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services