Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 April 4, 2017 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES April 4, 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; Brian Slusarek, Assistant Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Elizabeth Williams, Planner; James Rabe, Director of Public Works; Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; Allen Davis, Director of Community Development; 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 21, 2017 were approved as presented. (Propp/Kiefer) I. LAND DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO 1650 VILLA PARK DRIVE The City requests land disposition of a 0.04 acre portion of 44th Parallel Park, located east of and adjacent to 1650 Villa Park Drive. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and reviewed the portion of land proposed to be disposed of to the adjacent property owner. He discussed the reason for the request and stated that the Advisory Park Board recommended approval of the sale of this portion of property at their February 13, 2017 meeting. There was no discussion on this item. Motion by Nollenberger to approve a land disposition of property located adjacent to 1650 Villa Park Drive. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 7-0. II. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A NEW HOME WITH LESS THAN 25% OF THE FRONT FAÇADE AND LESS THAN 15% OF THE FIRST 20 FEET OF A SIDE FAÇADE DEVOTED TO WINDOW AND DOOR AREA The applicant requests approval of a new home with less than 25% of the front façade and less than 15% of the first 20 feet of a side facade devoted to window and door area. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and discussed the residential design standards regulations that address the front or side facades of residential __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 April 4, 2017 structures. He reviewed a photo of the front and side façade of the new home and stated that the petitioner was unable to meet the requirements of the design standards due to the layout of the interior of the home. He further stated that staff was supportive of this variance request as enforcement of the standards cause unnecessary hardship and the proposed design will not adversely affect the neighborhood character or curb appeal. The text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that are pending Common Council approval would eliminate the requirement for the side façade requirements and he reviewed the findings supporting approval of the variance request. Mr. Bowen arrived at 4:05 pm. Mr. Borsuk questioned that part of the variance requested will no longer be in effect once the text amendments are approved by the Common Council. Mr. Slusarek responded that the ordinance changes proposed will eliminate side façade requirements however the design standard regulations would still be in effect for the front facades. Mr. Borsuk commented that it concerns him that construction takes place first and the variance is requested after the fact. Mr. Burich explained that the request came forward and the petitioner was aware that they would have to be granted a variance or comply with the current zoning standards for window placement prior to occupancy. This project was early on in the building process and therefore there was still time to adjust the interior or exterior design to comply with the code if the variance was denied and the petitioner had been made aware of that prior to permit issuance. Ed Schmidt, Schmidt Bros. Custom Homes, 4311 N. Lightning Drive, Appleton, stated that he was the petitioner for this request and that he had distributed photos at the last meeting depicting samples of the new homes they construct. He discussed the layout of the interior of the home which makes it hard to meet the requirements of the design standards for window placement. Motion by Thoms to approve a residential design standards variance for a new home with less than 25% of the front façade and less than 15% of the first 20 feet of a side façade devoted to window and door area at 2425 Shore Preserve Drive with the following findings: 1. Enforcement of the standards causes unnecessary hardship. 2. The standards do not apply to this project because the proposed design will not adversely affect the neighborhood character or curb appearance. Seconded by Kiefer. Ms. Propp questioned if staff was still planning on coming back to the Commission with the review of the front façade design standard requirements. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 April 4, 2017 Mr. Burich discussed the pictures reviewed at the last meeting and the need to consider development of standards for the next round of zoning ordinance code changes to address this issue. Motion carried 8-0. III. AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPROVAL FOR OFF-STREET PARKING LOT RECONSTRUCTION FOR THE YMCA AT 324 WASHINGTON AVENUE The petitioner requests an amendment to the General and Specific Implementation Plan approval for the existing YMCA redevelopment to alter and expand the originally approved design for the off-street parking area. Mr. Nau presented the item and discussed the planned development approval for the renovation and expansion of the existing YMCA facility last fall. He reviewed the site and surrounding area and discussed the parking lot area originally proposed to be reconstructed with the original approval. He reviewed the zoning classifications and land use in this area and discussed the features of the planned development approval. He reviewed the current drive accesses to the site as well as the site plan and the areas of the parking lot that will require base standard modifications for reduced setbacks. He discussed the number of parking stalls currently on the site and the number of stalls that are proposed with the reconstruction project. He discussed the lighting for the site which will utilize the existing lighting with supplemental lighting to be added to meet code requirements. He stated that there were no changes proposed to the signage plans approved with the planned development and reviewed the landscape plans submitted. He discussed fencing or landscaping that staff was recommending be installed along one area on the north side of the site that was excluded which is included in the conditions recommended for this request. Kendra Hansen, 1428 S. Clay, Green Bay, representing the architects for this project, discussed the permeable paver areas located in three locations of the site and the one area of the site plan that does not include landscaping due to the garage that is located in the area. The existing garage does not allow for much space to install fencing or landscaping as the structure encroaches on the property line. She further discussed the project and that the reconstruction would reduce paved area and improve storm water runoff from the site. Ms. Propp inquired if they would not be able to meet the condition relating to the fencing or other screening along the jog-out section of the site due to this issue. Ms. Hansen responded that they would be able to meet this condition for a portion of this section of the site however behind the garage structure there would not be enough space to put any fencing or landscaping. Mr. Nau questioned if they would be able to provide some type of screening along the area where there is a gap. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 April 4, 2017 Ms. Hansen responded affirmatively. Mark Hildebrand, representing Hildebrand properties, which are adjacent to the subject site, stated that they had no problems with the proposed parking lot reconstruction plans. Motion by Nollenberger to approve a general and specific implementation plan amendment for off- street parking lot reconstruction for the YMCA at 324 Washington Avenue with the following conditions: 1. Vehicle cross access agreement between the YMCA and Clarity Care be prepared and recorded at the Winnebago County Register of Deeds; 2. Base standard modifications for: a. A reduced 3.96 foot setback along the north boundary of the proposed parking lot; b. A reduced 4.76 foot setback near the northwest boundary of the proposed parking lot; c. A reduced 20-foot setback along the western boundary of the proposed parking lot; d. A reduced six-foot setback near the southwest boundary of the proposed parking lot 3. Provide a minimum six-foot tall solid wood fence buffer at the jog-out section along the north side of the parking lot or other screening/buffering feature as approved by the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Borsuk. Ms. Propp commented on the great improvement that would be achieved by the reconstruction of the existing parking lot for this facility. Motion carried 8-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARING FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM UI URBAN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND I-PD INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY TO UMU-PD URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 460, 474 AND 482 MARION ROAD The applicant requests a zone change from the existing UI Urban Industrial District and I-PD Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay to UMU-PD Urban Mixed-Use District with a Planned Development Overlay (PD). 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 the proposed zone change was consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and discussed the construction of the new water tower that is currently underway and that the existing tower would be demolished once it is complete. She also explained the land swap that will take place between the city and the developer once this project is complete which will result in a new lot configuration and discussed the benefits of the planned development overlay to the petitioner and the community. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 April 4, 2017 Mr. Thoms questioned if the zone change is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan if the proposed development for the site would not be approved. Ms. Williams responded affirmatively. Motion by Nollenberger to approve a zone change from UI Urban Industrial District and I-PD Institutional District with Planned Development Overlay to UMU-PD Urban Mixed Use District with Planned Development Overlay for property located at 460, 474 and 482 Marion Road. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8-0. V. APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 460, 474 AND 482 MARION ROAD The applicant requests approval of a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan for development of a multiple-family residential apartment building located on the north side of the 400 block of Marion Road within the Marion Road Redevelopment Area. Ms. Williams presented the item and stated it was the same area that was just reviewed for the zone change request and discussed the development plans for the apartment complex as well as the various amenities to be provided in addition to the housing units. She reviewed the accesses to the site and the number of parking stalls to be provided which would require a base standard modification as they were less than what code requires. She discussed the alternative options available for transportation in this vicinity which would support the allowance of less than the required number of parking stalls for the development. She also reviewed the impervious surface ratios for the subject site and within the surrounding area which the development would also require a base standard modification for as the ratio for the development would exceed the maximum allowed by code. She discussed the density of the development and reviewed the site plan which meets code requirements as well as the landscape plans which exceed code requirements. She reviewed the storm water management plans which are provided in the form of two detention basins on the site and displayed the locations of these basins on the site plan. There would be one condition added to this request containing the standard language relating to the construction of the detention basins. She reviewed renderings of the building elevations and discussed the roof signage which does not meet code requirements which will be addressed by the petitioner as the signage was conceptual only and will be modified to meet code standards. She also discussed the cul-de-sac bulb to be dedicated and that it would also require a base standard modification for it to be constructed with a 90 foot diameter where code requires a 100 foot diameter bulb. She reviewed the pedestrian accesses to the site and the bicycle and pedestrian easement requested on the east side of the development and reviewed the building elevations which were consistent with the Marion Road Redevelopment Area Plan. She reviewed the conditions recommended for this request with an adjustment to condition 1.c. in relation to the maximum impervious surface ratio permitted by code not to exceed 61.5% as proposed rather than 65% and the addition of the condition relating to the construction of the detention basins. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 April 4, 2017 Peter Jungbacher, 300 N. Main Street, discussed the larger redevelopment district area that went back to the mid 1990’s and the previous apartment developments constructed in this vicinity. He discussed the concept plan which included access to Marion Road and displayed a rendering of the concept plan. He discussed the connection to Pearl Avenue and Marion Road and that it was meant to create a sense of neighborhood and connectivity in this area and his concerns with the changes requested by this development that are different than the other previously constructed developments. He discussed the impervious area concentration which is more than most developments in the market and discussed the claim by the developers that no underground parking was possible where other developments in this vicinity have this feature. He felt the site looks like a lot of it is devoted to parking facilities and discussed the advantages to the underground parking feature and the fact that this development is providing 19% less parking stalls than what is required by code. He further discussed the accommodations being made for this project and passed out a summary of the variances from the code which include a larger percent of impervious area, a taller building elevation, a smaller cul-de-sac bulb, and fewer parking spaces. He discussed the density for the project and the demand for parking as well as the integration into the neighborhood. He also discussed the lost connection between Pearl Avenue and Marion Road with the alteration in the street plan that eliminates the extension of Riverway Drive and Dawes Street and that there would not be much connection to the north due to this change. He felt there was a missing element of planning as far as the traffic pattern. He stated that all five projects developed in this vicinity have contended with high water levels and soil contamination and that it was a cost issue and that this development could utilize underground parking as he felt it was feasible. Cheryl Jacklin, 602 Washington Avenue, stated that the property has been vacant and on the market for a long time and that the developer was not requesting any tax money in the form of TIF assistance to support their project. She further stated that the tax base for the city would be improved if this project was approved and she would like to see the plan move forward as it provides the city an opportunity to improve the area. She explained that the parcel has adequate area to provide surface parking and that the off-street parking facilities proposed are located so it will not be visible from the street. Jeff Schultz, Martenson and Eisele, stated that he understood the 50% rule for impervious surface for open space however the impervious surface on the site as proposed is nearly identical with what currently exists on the parcel and recommended to not have underground parking for this development. Mr. Thoms questioned if they had considered using pervious pavers for some of the parking areas. Mr. Schultz responded that this was not necessary as the detention basins proposed address the storm water issues for the site and a large consideration should be that a lot of storm water runoff is currently coming from this site as it exists in its condition. Mr. Burich stated that the impervious ratio permitted in the zoning ordinance is incorrect for this zoning district and a text amendment will be coming back to the Commission at a later date to __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 April 4, 2017 address this error. He further discussed the rest of the impervious surface ratios of the other developments in this vicinity. Mr. Thoms commented that although there would be a base standard modification proposed for this development that the intent was to change the code to correct the impervious surface ratio in the current zoning ordinance. Mr. Burich discussed how much of the impervious area is devoted to the structure and to the parking facilities and that the ratio includes both elements and that this development is within the same ranges as other developments in this area. He also distributed a breakdown of the other apartment developments including the land area, building area, impervious area, parking/drive area, and percent of impervious surface and parking areas. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, discussed the pervious pavers brought up previously and that they are meant for use in green space areas of a site and not for parking purposes. Mr. Borsuk commented that if there is contaminated soil on this parcel, that he did not feel that pervious pavers should be utilized on this site. Mr. Gohde stated that if this element was used on the site it would have to be lined due to the contamination issues. Mr. Bowen discussed the previous and current zoning ordinance relative to the impervious surface ratios. Joy Skidmore, representing Annex 71, LLC, 409 Massachusetts Avenue, Indianapolis, stated that their company was established in 2009 and discussed their assets and developments in the Midwest area and nation-wide. She discussed their other developments and the ratio calculated for parking stalls which has nothing to do with the issues raised regarding underground parking facilities. She further discussed the costs of creating underground parking and the amount they invested for the land purchase alone. She reviewed the amenities offered with their apartments and that all units are rented by the bed and are fully furnished which is how all of their developments are constructed. Mr. Borsuk questioned when we reviewed other properties in this area that were developed, if there was grant money provided for clean up and remediation of the sites. Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, indicated that all the developments along the river had grant money that was utilized for remediation of the site and the city paid to acquire, demolish, and site preparation for the properties. He further stated that there were some instances where surface parking was utilized as a cap for the contaminated areas and TIF funds were used as well for these developments. Mr. Borsuk questioned if the installation of the cul-de-sac bulb was initiated by the city. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 April 4, 2017 Mr. Burich responded that staff reviewed other alternatives but could not have a permanent stub dead end street and the city is still proposing to put a road through the area and the easement on the eastern side of the property will be utilized for a bicycle and pedestrian path for a connection from the north to the riverwalk. Mr. Thoms inquired if Riverway Drive would be extended to Marion Road. Mr. Burich replied that there was adequate room to continue the road through in that area however we do not know if it is necessary at this point. Mr. Bowen questioned what the trigger mechanism would be to initiate the addition of the extension of Riverway Drive as he felt that the pedestrian connection is more important in that area. Mr. Burich discussed the easements to be established for bicycle and pedestrian access and that the city owns the property adjacent to the subject site. Ms. Williams added that there would be requests for a land division and easements that would come back to the Commission in the future to address these concerns. Ms. Propp commented that if it is not necessary to extend Riverway Drive for traffic purposes for vehicles, that she would still like to have the connection for access from the north for bicycle and pedestrian purposes. Mr. Bowen discussed this issue and stated that he supports it for other forms of transportation needs other than for vehicular access as he felt it was important to have a connection from the north that would lead to the riverwalk. Mr. Thoms discussed the importance of access to the riverwalk via walkways that extend from developments nearby as well as the development of parking areas dedicated for the public for access to the riverwalk area as he felt there was a need to plan for public parking areas for this purpose. Mr. Nollenberger commented that he really wanted to see this area redeveloped and that he felt this proposal was a very viable development for the site. Motion by Nollenberger to approve a general development plan and a specific implementation plan for a multiple-family residential development located at 460, 474 and 482 Marion Road with the following revised conditions: 1. Base standard modification to permit: a. An increase in the maximum building height permitted by code not to exceed 52 feet in height. b. A reduction in the code required parking stalls to 255 spaces (0.80 stalls/unit), as proposed. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 April 4, 2017 c. An increase in the maximum impervious surface ratio permitted by code not to exceed 61.57% as proposed. d. A 90 foot diameter cul-de-sac bulb for future infrastructure improvements on Dawes Street. 2. Placement of the easternmost access drive be coordinated with the Department of Public Works to prevent conflicts with existing underground utilities. 3. Pedestrian access be shown to Dawes Street and installation be required when the proposed cul-de- sac improvements are made. 4. 30 foot bicycle and pedestrian easement be provided along the easternmost property line extending north from Marion Road towards Riverway Drive. Condition to be implemented at time of Certified Survey Map and land swap approval. 5. Formal signage plans to meet code requirements and be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to building permit issuance. Should formal signage plans not meet code requirements, the applicant will be required to request an amendment to the Specific Implementation Plan and receive approval from the Plan Commission and Common Council. 6. Grading, erosion control and storm water plan be approved by the Department of Public Works and the detention basin be designed without riprap above the water line, include emergent plants on the safety shelf, and native plants on the side slope. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8-0. VI. RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL ON OREGON/JACKSON STREET BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES Mr. Cummings stated that he felt the renderings were still not what the Commission asked for and he felt the views were not adequate. James Rabe, Director of Public Works, discussed his communication with the project manager from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, (DOT), and that the concerns raised by the Commission were passed along. He further discussed the amount of input that the city will have as the project is still under the control of the DOT when it comes to a final decision on plans. Board members discussed if they had sufficient information to make a recommendation at this time. Mr. Rabe passed out additional information on the various alternatives including how often the bridge opens, additional costs for aesthetic improvements, and height comparisons and discussed the elevations and how the project would proceed. He also explained the DOT workshops, the lifespan of the bridge if rehabilitated only and reviewed again the maps of each alternative presented. He further discussed the high level fixed alternative and its similarity to an overpass for Highway 41 and the difference in elevation between the existing bridge and that alternative which would be 16 feet higher in the center and 23 feet clearance under the bridge. He reviewed the renderings and discussed alternative F with the raised clearance with the riverwalk clearance extending underneath the bridge. He stated that alternative C and F were the most popular selections with other boards and discussed the elevation for alternative F. He reviewed alternative __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 April 4, 2017 J1 with the off-alignment and discussed the length of time for bridge closures with each option and reviewed a summary of each option. Mr. Bowen questioned when the Wisconsin Street bridge was constructed. Mr. Rabe responded that it was constructed in 2008 and discussed the navigable clearance between the Wisconsin and Oregon Street bridges. Commission members discussed the number of times the bridge needs to open, the amount of clearance with various alternatives, the agency that would have the authority to approve a fixed bridge alternative, and who has the authority in regard to control of the waterway. Mr. Davis stated that the Coast Guard has jurisdiction over issues relating to the Fox River. Commission members continued to discuss the alternatives and the realignment of Division Street and Marion Road and safety issues relating to the different options. Mr. Burich stated that an alternative needs to be selected before further decisions are made regarding street realignment or relocation of accesses near the bridge. Commission members continued discussion on the alternatives and their concerns including a hindering the use of the waterway with a fixed bridge. Nick Lang, 1950 White Swan Drive, and Peter Lang, 2300 White Swan Drive, stated they were both property owners of the vacant parcels on W. 6th Avenue that are planned for redevelopment and passed out handouts depicting the building elevations and how the height of the bridge structure will affect their development. They were in favor of the on-alignment alternative and are opposed to the high level fixed bridge. They explained how the high level fixed bridge would have a negative impact on their development as it would be similar to a brick retaining wall at 21 feet in height. They further discussed the potential impact of the feasibility of their redevelopment plans if a higher bridge structure was in place in this location and that they had spoken to the Coast Guard and DOT and reviewed points of their discussions with these agencies. They discussed that Oshkosh was well suited for a remote operation bridge however it was not planned at this time and that they felt the rehabilitation option was the best alternative. They also favored the on- alignment reconstruction with the riverwalk placed underneath but were opposed to the high level fixed bridge alternative. Commission members discussed the concerns raised by the developers in regards to the elevations and impacts on their development area depending on the alternative selected. Mr. Gohde could not confirm if the developer’s renderings were accurate as to how it would impact their development. Commission members questioned if the developer had any objection to the off alignment alternatives as they included the realignment of Marion Road and Division Street. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 April 4, 2017 The Langs were not in favor of the off-alignment alternatives as they felt it impacted their development area and did not feel that the bridge reconstruction project should be used to address concerns with the road realignment. Commission members continued to discuss various aspects of the options such as costs for construction and maintenance, the life span of the existing bridge, and the persuasiveness of the Lang’s presentation. They felt that the riverwalk should be placed under the bridge for safe pedestrian access to the riverwalk and discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the various alternatives and the realignment of Division Street and Marion Road as well as the access to City Center off of Jackson Street. The consensus was that the high level fixed bridge was not desirable but that the construction of a new bridge should be undertaken. Alternative F the on-alignment raised clearance option was the most favored. The Commission continued to discuss the impact on the future development, the impediment to the waterway with a fixed bridge, and the realignment of Marion Road and Division Street which they felt should be part of their recommendation. Mr. Burich suggested that the Commission make a decision on their choice of alternatives without making additional recommendations regarding the realignment of the streets as this would not be consistent with the recommendations made by the boards and commissions that were requested to provide a recommendation. He suggested that the Commission pick an alternative for the bridge reconstruction only. Motion by Nollenberger to recommend alternative F for the Oregon/Jackson Street bridge reconstruction. Seconded by Propp. Mr. Bowen commented that he would be abstaining from voting on this item as he was affiliated with the developers but he felt that the realignment of the roads discussed should be part of their recommendation. Commission members continued to discuss the alignment recommendation of the intersection as they felt that the DOT or the City should address this issue even if the two projects could not be linked. Motion by Nollenberger to amend the recommendation for alternative F for the Oregon/Jackson Street bridge to include the realignment of Marion Road and Division Street. Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 7-0-1. (Bowen abstained) PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT Cell Tower Bills AB 130 and 161 Mr. Burich discussed Assembly Bill 130 regarding the placement of cell towers and that the original proposal would only impact one zoning district in our community as far as the restriction. He discussed the revisions to it that would include a buffer area of 200 feet that would apply to the City’s SR-3 and SR-5 zoning districts. He gave further details regarding the matter and its effects on our community and that once the bill is passed, it will not be likely to be addressed again in the __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 April 4, 2017 future and he would rather the bill not be passed until it can be revised to benefit more residential districts. He then discussed Assembly Bill 161 which would allow the city to impose setback requirements for the placement of cell towers and discussed how the two bills could affect the city and the areas that would be affected. He felt the bills needed further analysis but at this point Bill AB 161 appeared to be more beneficial for all areas of the city as it would allow the city to either prohibit or permit placement of towers by the enforcement of certain requirements. He further discussed in more detail the restrictions and benefits of this pending legislation and will continue to follow the issue and update the Commission. Update on Arena Mr. Burich reported on the progress with the construction of the arena and that the developer had done work to enhance the facades and other modifications to make the site more pedestrian oriented. He stated that the item may come back to the Commission for amendments to their approval. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:58 pm. (Thoms/Propp) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services