Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 July 18, 2017 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES July 18, 2017 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, John Kiefer, Robert Vajgrt, Michael Ford EXCUSED: David Borsuk STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Brian Slusarek, Assistant Planner; Darlene Brandt, Grants Coordinator; 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 June 20, 2017 were approved as presented. (Vajgrt/Hinz) I. ACCEPT DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT 751 SOUTH WASHBURN STREET The City of Oshkosh is requesting acceptance of a drainage easement to allow for continued storm drainage from the subject property and surrounding properties and to provide access to the existing drainage swale. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and explained the reason for the easement request. He discussed the size of the proposed easement and stated that the Department of Public Works will work with the owner to have appropriate easement documents signed and recorded once the easement has been approved. There was no discussion on this item. Motion by Vajgrt to approve acceptance of an easement for property located at 751 S. Washburn Street. Seconded by Hinz. Motion carried 8-0. II. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE MODIFICATION OF ONE WINDOW ON THE WEST (SIDE) ELEVATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 614 W. 11TH AVENUE The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to permit the re-orientation of one window from vertical to horizontal on the west (side) elevation of a single family home located at 614 W. 11th Avenue. Mr. Cummings arrived at 4:05 pm. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 July 18, 2017 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 history of the property and that the window had been replaced without obtaining a building permit. He reviewed photos of the home depicting the conditions prior to the window replacement and after the work was completed with the installation of the horizontal window and discussed the size and style of the window replacement. He also discussed the reason for the window replacement which was due to water damage and the re-orientation of the window allowed for more usable wall space and added privacy from the neighboring home, The change in the window’s orientation will not negatively affect the structure’s architectural design, the neighborhood character or curb appearance of the block and the home will be re-sided covering both the opening from the vertical window as well as another window opening that had been closed off previously. Mr. Hinz noted that the wording in the staff report was incorrect as it stated that the change of window orientation was from horizontal to vertical when it should have stated that it was from vertical to horizontal. Mr. Ford questioned if the property owner had obtained the necessary building permit prior to the window replacement, if this issue would have been resolved. Mr. Nau responded that the owner would have been informed of the ordinance requirements for the design standards and they would have had the option to change the window installation to vertically oriented in the existing opening or to go through the process to obtain a variance through approval of the Plan Commission. Mr. Thoms inquired if this style of window was in line with the architectural style on this type of home as the finding supports that the variance would not adversely affect the structure’s architectural design. Mr. Burich responded that the window was not a predominant feature of the home and the window does not impact the curb appeal of the property as it is located near the rear of the home and has low visibility from the street. Mr. Thoms questioned if the property owner replaces more windows, if they would require additional design standards variances to have the other window on that elevation oriented horizontally to match this window installation. Mr. Nau responded that the other window located on this elevation is in the rear of the home and would not require a variance from the design standards as it was not within the area governed by these requirements so the standards would not apply in this circumstance. Mr. Thoms commented that this is not the first time that work has already been completed and then a variance requested after the fact and questioned how this could be avoided. Mr. Burich replied that property owners completing work without a building permit is not uncommon and that the city does its best to make citizens aware of the necessary permits. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 July 18, 2017 Mr. Thoms suggested that communications be placed in the tax bills or water bills regarding the requirements of obtaining building permits to make property owners aware of these requirements. Mr. Burich indicated that the city has to find a better method of educating citizens regarding these requirements and that this is a goal of the Strategic Plan. Mr. Hinz commented that the staff report states in the finding that the window replacement will not adversely affect the structure’s architectural design and questioned the patched area left on the siding where the previous window existed. Mr. Burich responded that a condition would need to be added to this request, if approved, requiring that the siding be restored in a certain amount of time to ensure that this is completed. Ray Reinders, 614 W. 11th Avenue, discussed the water damage that was a result of severe leakage from the existing window and therefore they replaced the window immediately with the intentions to replace the siding in the future. He stated he was aware of the requirements to obtain building permits as they have had other projects completed at the home that he obtained permits for. The window located closer to the back of the home that is closed off was already in that condition prior to his purchase of the property and would be sided over however another window could be replaced with the same horizontal style on that elevation to match the replacement window. Mr. Burich stated that if another window on that elevation was to be horizontally oriented to match this installation, the window in the rear of the home would be allowed to be done in that fashion as it is not within the area of the front of the home where the design standards would apply. However if the property owner was considering this alteration for the window near the front of the home, it would require another variance request to be approved by the Plan Commission for this alteration to be allowed. Mr. Reinders responded that he was willing to work with the city on this matter however he was willing to place two horizontally oriented windows on that side of the home to have them match if that was necessary to receive approval of his variance request. Ms. Propp commented that she can see approving the horizontal window for this façade as it is closer to the rear of the structure however to place a matching horizontal window on that elevation in place of the window near the front of the home may be an issue as that window is more visible from the street. Mr. Reinders replied that he is trying to make it aesthetically pleasing to everyone. Mr. Burich further discussed the differences between the variance request for the horizontal window replacement and its location which is just within the parameters of the design standard requirements and the vertical window in the front of the home. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 July 18, 2017 Motion by Vajgrt to approve a residential design standards variance request for the modification of one window on the west (side) elevation for property located at 614 W. 11th Avenue with the following finding: 1. The standards do not apply to this particular project because the re-orientated window will not adversely affect the structure’s architectural design, the neighborhood character, or curb appearance of the block. And the following condition: 1. Complete exterior siding restoration within a 12 month period. Seconded by Hinz. Motion carried 9-0. III. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE REQUEST TO PERMIT AN ADDITION EXCEEDING 50 PERCENT OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE’S EXISTING FOOTPRINT AND EXCEEDING THE HEIGHT OF THE HIGHEST ROOF RIDGELINE AT 1720 SANDERS STREET The applicant/owner requests approval of variances to permit an addition to the principal structure that exceeds 50% of the principal structure’s existing footprint and exceeds the height of the highest roof ridgeline of the principal structure. 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 reviewed the revised site plan and discussed the purpose of the home addition which is to add an indoor recreational area including an indoor pool to the home. He reviewed renderings of the existing home and of the proposed plans including the addition. He discussed the size of the parcel which is larger than most residential lots and that the unique circumstances exist with it. He further discussed that if the variance request was approved, it would not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood character or curb appeal as it would be constructed with similar materials to that of the existing structure and the indoor pool was an unusual feature for a home requiring the clerestory windows which is the reason for exceeding the height requirements. He stated that this request was supported by a neighboring property owner and no objections had been received and he reviewed the finding and condition recommended for this request. Mr. Bowen questioned if the existing free standing garage will be removed with the addition including an attached garage structure. Mr. Slusarek responded that the existing detached garage will be relocated to the rear corner of the property and replaced with the attached garage proposed as part of the addition. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 July 18, 2017 Mr. Bowen commented that including the square footage of the new attached garage feature effects the amount of total square footage of the existing and new footprint of the home and that should be taken into consideration. Mr. Thoms questioned if this house would be similar in style to other homes in the vicinity with the proposed addition’s height, Mr. Burich responded that it would not be out of character with neighboring properties as there were other two story homes on W. 18th Avenue so the additional height of the proposed addition should not be an issue. Mr. Kiefer asked to clarify that the existing garage would be moved to another location on the property. Mr. Slusarek replied that it would be relocated to the southeast corner of the parcel and meets city zoning ordinance requirements for setbacks in this location. Dennis Ruedinger, 1434 Hazel Street, stated that he was the contractor for the project and that the only feedback they have received was from one neighbor who was in strong support of the proposal for the variance request. Ms. Propp inquired if work has been started on the project. Mr. Ruedinger responded that a portion of the work has been started and the building permits were obtained. Motion by Vajgrt to approve a residential design standards variance to permit an addition exceeding 50% of the principal structure’s existing footprint and exceeding the height of the highest roof ridgeline for property located at 1720 Sanders Street with the following finding: The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because the addition will be consistent with the architectural style of the existing home and homes in the neighborhood. And the following condition: The total area of all accessory structures, including the attached garage, shall not exceed 1200 square feet in area. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 9-0. IV. LAND DISPOSITION OF VACANT PROPERTY 1805 JACKSON STREET The petitioner is requesting a land disposition of an approximate 20,000 square foot parcel of vacant land at the northwest corner of Jackson Street and Murdock Avenue. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 July 18, 2017 Mr. Burich stated that this item has been requested to be withdrawn by the petitioner and would be coming back to the Commission on August 1st. He further stated that there were several concerns about the layout of the site and he was inquiring if there was any other additional information that the Commission would like to see when the item comes back for a recommendation at the next meeting. He further stated that he has received communication from an adjacent property owner that they are also interested in purchasing this parcel. Mr. Fojtik commented that there needs to be more information on the proposal for the Commission to make an educated recommendation. Ms. Propp stated that access to this property is huge due to its location on the round-about and it would have to be via an adjacent property. Mr. Thoms questioned if they ask for variances for setbacks for development of the site, will the city be willing to support it as the buildable area of this site is very small. Mr. Burich indicated that the petitioner did not desire to put a lot of time and effort into preparation of site plans without knowing if it could be acquired and that the parcel is not zoned as a planned development area. Therefore the zoning would have to be either changed to a planned development classification or the petitioner would have to request a variance be granted from the Board of Appeals for any reduction in required setbacks. Mr. Bowen commented that from a procedural standpoint, he did not see how the Commission could make a land use decision on property that has no site plan or access to the site from the street. A land disposition is based on purchase price and not the land use and he felt that the process is not going in the right direction with no known use or site plan to base a recommendation upon. He did not feel this could move forward to the Common Council for a decision with no recommendation from the Commission. Mr. Burich stated that between now and the next meeting, we should be able to obtain a site plan for the property as the Commission needs to see how it integrates into the area prior to making a decision on the disposition request. Mr. Bowen commented that the city does not have an appropriate process for land dispositions of city-owned parcels and he felt there should be a more structured way to handle these dispositions. Mr. Cummings stated that the use of the site appears to be for a food business. Mr. Burich indicated that the petitioner should have a site plan and the use would have to fit into the development scheme in this area. Ms. Propp discussed how busy this particular round-about was and that this was a difficult site to develop due to the traffic volume and the driveways of the adjacent properties are also very close. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 July 18, 2017 V. REVIEW OF 2016 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Ms. Brandt presented the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report for the period of May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017 summarizing accomplishments and detailing how funds received from HUD were expended. Funding is received annually from HUD based on census data and is required to be utilized on programs benefiting low to moderate income objectives such as housing, public services/facilities, acquisition and demolition, neighborhood initiatives, and planning/administration. Available funding for 2016 was $968,473.53 comprised of $752,818.00 of grant funding and $215,655.53 of program income with expenditures totaling $968,473.53 with a percentage of 91.18% of current funding expended to benefit low and moderate income, 8.74% for public service programs, and 12.65% for administration activities. Ms. Brandt explained some of the projects these funds were utilized for such as housing rehabilitation projects and homebuyer assistance loans, lead abatement grants, rental rehabilitation, and neighborhood initiatives/services. She also summarized the amounts granted to local public service sub- recipients, funding spent on demolition of slum and blight properties in the central city, neighborhood projects, acquisition of two properties in neighborhood areas to be demolished, oversight of programs involving Fair Housing issues, and total planning and administration expenditures. She discussed the carryover of funds from last year and why this occurs. She reviewed a chart depicting the percentages of how the money was spent by category and stated that the majority of funding was spent on housing related projects (70%). She also reviewed a report on the low to moderate income programs served by this funding. Ms. Brandt stated that the full CAPER report has been prepared and will be submitted to HUD, who will perform a comprehensive review of the program activity. A copy of this report is available in the Planning office, library or online for anyone who wishes to review it. Any comments on this report can be either mailed or emailed to her. Mr. Thoms questioned why the general administration expenses were such a high percentage of the funding spent. Ms. Brandt explained that the administration expenses include a portion of salaries for staff, Fair Housing Council support and program costs. and consultant’s fees and that HUD has a cap of 20% for administration expenses. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT Zoning Ordinance Update Mr. Burich reported that staff is working on updates to the zoning ordinance however the office is short staffed at this time and there are no amendments prepared for review as yet. The Commission will see some amendments in the next month or so after he has an opportunity to meet with the home building association in the next few weeks regarding the front façade issues. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 July 18, 2017 Imagine Oshkosh Project Mr. Burich reported that the final draft of this document has been prepared for review and should be going for public comment and to various other city committees for input within the next month. Comprehensive Plan Update Mr. Burich discussed the progress made on this project and that the land use maps would be the next item of discussion. Mr. Thoms stated that he felt that we need to look at nonconforming uses in areas of the city where circumstances have changed and the current land use is inconsistent with the land use maps. Mr. Burich indicated that the next meeting for the Comprehensive Plan update will be July 31st and continued discussion on the importance of the elements of the land use maps. Mr. Thoms requested that we should check on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and the Imagine Oshkosh Plan to ensure that these plans are officially adopted so they can be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and be able to be enforced. Public Hearing Process Mr. Burich discussed that the public hearing process was to be moved from the Common Council meetings to the Plan Commission meetings with the adoption of the new zoning ordinance with the intent that with a controversial project we would have the opportunity to get a lot of comments from neighboring property owners that could be incorporated into the staff report for the item. He further discussed the concept of having a neighborhood hearing with a brief presentation from staff initially to give neighbors a chance to state their concerns prior to bringing the item forward as an action item. This process would be utilized for land use amendments or other controversial items and he was requesting feedback from the Commission on if it would be appropriate to have this neighborhood meeting as part of the Plan Commission meeting rather than a separate neighborhood meeting as done in the past. The item would then come back with a staff report as an action item at a later date. We currently have an application submitted for a land use amendment within the city’s expansion area and was planning a neighborhood meeting for property owners to hear their concerns. He further discussed the area involved in the submittal. Mr, Vajgrt questioned if we could set a time limit for each person’s comments such as the Council meetings where there is a five minute limit given for comment by any one individual. He had concerns with a large number of people wishing to speak and extending the meeting too late in the evening. Mr. Burich agreed that this would extend the time of the meeting but that was the reason for this discussion to get feedback from the Commission on how they felt about this change in process. Ms. Propp commented about having a hearing at the regular time of Plan Commission meetings rather than in the evening as it may prevent some property owners from attending. She also requested that the Commission be provided enough information in advance of the meeting so they would have specifics and an overview of the proposal for the site so Commission members could __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 July 18, 2017 do research on the site in advance of the meeting. She did not want a vague description of an item that did not provide the Commission with enough details as is done with some of the workshop items. Mr. Bowen questioned if the neighborhood meeting would be part of the regular meeting at the end after action items. Mr. Burich responded that he would like the Commission and staff to hear comments at the same time as it would provide adequate time to address concerns when staff reports are being prepared for the request so they may be addressed with appropriate conditions and recommendations. Mr. Thoms stated that he felt that this would allow for a better product going to the Council and would provide a better result in the long run. Mr. Burich clarified that the Commission would like to establish a time limit of five minutes on speaking for each property owner and specific information on the request in advance. Mr. Bowen discussed the concept of having this hearing as part of the meeting or after adjournment such as a workshop. He felt that some people may be more comfortable speaking off camera during a workshop setting rather than during the meeting that is televised. Mr. Burich indicated that he would have to give this matter further thought as the workshop setting may be more comfortable for people wishing to speak but having it during the televised meeting would have everything on record if Council members would care to view it. Mr. Thoms questioned if this met open meeting laws standards. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively and stated that it would not fall under a public hearing but a neighborhood meeting and that he will work on the appropriate wording for this issue. Mr. Bowen stated that he was also in support of time limits of five minutes for speakers. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:00 pm. (Vajgrt/Hinz) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services