Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 December 19, 2017 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES December 19, 2017 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, John Kiefer, Robert Vajgrt, Michael Ford EXCUSED: none STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; Mark Lyons, Principal Planner; Brian Slusarek, Assistant Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Steven Wiley, Assistant Planner; 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 December 5, 2017 were approved as presented. (Vajgrt/Hinz) Mr. Bowen arrived at 4:02 pm. I. THREE-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 2840 HARRISON STREET/2827 BOWEN STREET & 2825 BOWEN STREET The owner/applicant is requesting a three-lot land division/certified survey map from two existing parcels containing a total of 1.572 acres. Sizes of the proposed lots are as follows: Lot 1 = 0.385 Acres Lot 2 = 0.744 Acres Lot 3 = 0.443 Acres Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and discussed the previous use of the property and the existing structures on the site. He stated that the land division would not change the land use pattern in the area and is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He further stated that the lot sizes meet the city’s code requirements and reviewed the certified survey map and the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Thoms questioned if there was sufficient room between the structures for Lots 2 and 3. Mr. Slusarek responded that this was not an issue as the lot line in question between these two lots was not changing. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the three-lot land division/certified survey map for property located at 2840 Harrison Street, 2837 and 2825 Bowen Street with the following conditions: __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 December 19, 2017 1. Cross access easement for Lots 1 and 2 be recorded with the Winnebago County Register of Deeds. 2. Final CSM include utility laterals/services to all buildings (water, sewer, storm, gas, electric, etc.). 3. Final CSM include 7 feet of right-of-way dedication on Bowen Street and Harrison Street. Seconded by Kiefer. Motion carried 9-0. II. THREE-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AND SUBDIVISION VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2175 PUNHOQUA STREET (LAKESHORE MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE) The petitioner is seeking approval of a three-lot land division/certified survey map from one existing parcel containing a total of 98.4645 acres. The petitioner is also applying for a variance from the subdivision regulations to allow for the creation of a parcel with zero right-of-way frontage whereas Section 30-443(H)(3) requires a minimum of 30 linear feet of right-of-way frontage for newly-created parcels. Sizes of the proposed lots are as follows: Lot 1 = 65.358 Acres Lot 2 = 32.813 Acres Outlot 1 = 0.294 Acres Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and discussed the need for a subdivision variance for a zero right-of-way frontage and the size of the proposed lots. He stated that Lot 2 would be rezoned to a new zoning district for the development of the Oshkosh Corporation headquarters as a separate action item on this agenda. He discussed the use of the other two lots for future purposes for recreational use and the extension of Westfield Street from the south. He noted that the area to the east was excluded from the certifie d survey map at this time as this area will require further research as there may be a need to vacate some possible pre- existing alleys and this area would then be incorporated into Lot 1. He also discussed the subdivision variance proposed for Lot 2 as it currently has no connection to the public right-of-way and will be temporary until the street areas can be dedicated. Mr. Thoms questioned where the land is located that has a deed restriction placed on it. Mr. Nau responded that a small portion was within Lot 1 and the deed restricted land was mostly located outside of this lot and not part of the certified survey map. Ms. Propp inquired if the land to the east will be incorporated into Lot 1 at a later date. Mr. Nau responded affirmatively and stated that this area contains possible street vacations that need to be further researched and this will all be cleared up at a later date. Areas to be researched also include the terminus of Punhoqua Street. Ms. Propp inquired how wide the strip of land around Lot 2 was. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 December 19, 2017 Mr. Nau responded that it was 80 feet. Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, added that this area was to preserve a connection from Mary Jewel Park to the city owned lands to the west. Mr. Bowen questioned if the area for the extension of Westfield Street would be taken from Lot 1. Mr. Davis responded affirmatively. Mr. Bowen then questioned when the traffic impact analysis would be completed. Mr. Davis replied that there would be a joint meeting on January 30th to discuss the traffic impact analysis results. Mr. Bowen then questioned why we are not mapping the road connections at this time. Mr. Burich responded that this action was not necessary at this point. Mr. Davis added that the adjoining property owners are agreeable to the extension of Westfield Street as it serves their property as well and the city needs to wait for the results of the traffic impact analysis prior to mapping the street connections. Mr. Bowen commented that he was uncomfortable with doing the land division right now prior to the completion of the traffic impact analysis and how the development site will be served by road connections. Mr. Davis responded that time was of the essence as the city has to close on the property sale to create the parcels for tax incremental finance (TIF) purposes as this has to be done by the end of the year to create the TIF district. Motion by Vajgrt to approve a three-lot land division/certified survey map and subdivision variance for property located at 2175 Punhoqua Street. Seconded by Thoms. Motion carried 9-0. III. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW A COVERED PORCH ADDITION AT THE RESIDENCE AT 3063 SHADOW LANE The applicants are requesting approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to allow a 7’ x 4’6” covered porch addition on the front façade of the residence at 3063 Shadow Lane. Mr. Wiley presented the item and reviewed photos of the home and discussed the surrounding area which is predominantly residential uses. He discussed the covered porch addition proposed and reviewed the floor plan as well as the materials to be utilized which should match the home’s exterior. He also discussed the reason for the desire to construct the covered porch which was for __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 December 19, 2017 safety purposes to keep snow off of the deck leading into the home. He reviewed the finding that the variance would not adversely affect the structure’s design or curb appearance and the conditions recommended for this request. There was no discussion on this item. Motion by Vajgrt to approve a residential design standards variance to allow a covered porch addition for property located at 3063 Shadow Lane with the following finding: 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because the covered porch addition will not adversely affect the structure’s architectural design, the neighborhood character, or curb appearance of the block. And the following conditions: 1. New porch addition to meet all applicable building codes concerning dimensioning of the steps, railing heights, etc. 2. Front porch addition will meet design standards for porches visible from the street. Seconded by Ford. Motion carried 8-0-1. (Abstained-Hinz) IV. APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN & SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PLACEMENT OF A NEW MAINTENANCE GARAGE BUILDING AT 500 S. OAKWOOD ROAD (MERCY MEDICAL CENTER) The applicant requests approval of a General Development Plan & Specific Implementation Plan amendment to allow placement of a new maintenance garage within the existing Mercy Medical Center located at 500 S. Oakwood Road. Mr. Lyons 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 location for the proposed structure on the site as well as the site plan and discussed the elements of the maintenance garage and stor age building for the facility. He noted that the building would not be very visible as it is located in a remote area of the site and the facility would lose some parking stalls for its development however the site would still maintain adequate parking stalls to serve the use. He stated that the landscaping plan was deficient and the plans will be required to be modified to meet code requirements. He also reviewed the elevations for the structure and the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Bowen questioned if there was no additional lighting proposed around the new structure. Mr. Lyons responded that there was a photo metric plan submitted that met code requirements. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 December 19, 2017 Mr. Bowen stated that he had concerns with if the additional lighting was adequate even if it met code requirements as he wished to avoid creating a significant blind spot in this area of the development. Tom Laabs, Facility Director and Project Manager, stated that the lighting is totally surrounding the building so it would be adequately lit and they would also have cameras installed in this area. Mr. Thoms questioned if the impervious addition for this structure was addressed in regard to storm water management requirements. Mr. Lyons replied that the amount of disturbed area was under the threshold to require additional storm water management. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, indicated that staff reviews all developments to ensure that storm water management facilities have adequate capacity and the city’s code requirements are met. Mr. Thoms then questioned why there was no concerns regarding the construction of a large metal building on the site as he felt it did not meet the city’s standards for aesthetic purposes. Mr. Lyons indicated that the site was zoned Institutional District and this district does not have additional standards for building materials in the new zoning ordinance and the use of the structure and location on the site was taken into consideration in this circumstance. Mr. Thoms commented that he felt that these materials should not be allowed for the construction of the maintenance facilities regardless of the code standards as it was in a planned development overlay district. Mr. Burich stated that the location of the structure on the site and the landscaping around it does not lead to significant concerns from staff as to the aesthetic quality. Mr. Thoms continued discussion regarding that the building was not aesthetically pleasing and that the petitioner should be required to utilize the same design characteristics of the principal hospital structure. Mr. Borsuk arrived at 4:28 pm. Mr. Lyons indicated that it was within the Commission’s purview to request more architectural features if they felt it were necessary. Mr. Thoms stated that he felt it was too close to residential uses to be allowed to be constructed with pre-fab metal materials as it could have a negative impact on surrounding properties. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 December 19, 2017 Tom Laabs stated that the site was heavily wooded and that they have taken great measures to match the colors with the existing structure and that it was important to look aesthetically pleasing for their purposes as well. Bryan Emrich, 427 W. 17th Avenue, questioned how the Commission determined what was aesthetically pleasing as the current use of that portion of the property is a parking lot. Mr. Fojtik explained that the Commission considers elements such as matching colors and materials which is considered relevant to the structure being aesthetically pleasing and cohesive to the other existing buildings on the site. Board discussion continued regarding the standards that the Commission considers when reviewing projects. Mr. Emrich commented that the Commission considers not just the building itself but the materials to be used on the exterior when reviewing development projects. Mr. Burich discussed the location of the structure as well as other issues related to this development and stated that there was not a hard and fast standard for this type of evaluation. Motion by Vajgrt to approve a general development and specific implementation plan for placement of a new maintenance garage building for property located at 500 S. Oakwood Road with the following condition: 1) Final code compliant landscaping plan be submitted as part of the formal Site Plan Review. Ms. Propp commented that the materials are going to be similar as well as the colors and she felt it was an adequate distance from other properties that it should not have a detrimental impact. Seconded by Hinz. Motion carried 9-0. V. APPROVE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE DISTRICT – SECTION 30-59 CORPORATE BUSINESS PARK (CBP) Planning Services is proposing to create a new zoning district as Section 30-59 Corporate Business Park (CBP) that is intended to enhance and upgrade the city’s current Business Park District located in Article II Section 30-60 of the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Burich presented the item and stated that the proposed new zoning district was developed after comments heard from both Business Park and Suburban Mixed Use District property owners and the new zoning district was a hybrid of both existing districts. He discussed concerns and increased architectural standards and that all developments within this district would require planned development approval. He explained that the district standards could be changed at some point in the future after further review if alterations were determined to be necessary. He reviewed each section of the proposed Corporate Business Park Zoning District which was Intent, __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 December 19, 2017 Principal Uses Permitted by Right, Principal Uses Permitted as Conditional Use to serve the principal uses in the district, and Prohibited Uses. Mr. Thoms questioned if existing businesses in this area can be rebuilt. Mr. Burich responded that nonconforming uses may be allowed to be re -established providing that they are not damaged beyond 50%. He continued discussion on the sections of the new zoning district regarding Exterior Materials, Building Composition, Door and/or Window Openings, Façade Articulation, Accessory Structures, Parking, and Landscaping. Some of these sections would be part of the planned development approval process and the code was meant to improve street frontage appearances along Oshkosh Avenue. All properties would have a planned development zoning designation and will have to obtain approvals for specific development features during that process. He then moved on to the next sections covering Trade Dress, and Signage which are features that need to be consistent with this area and are more subjective. Lastly he covered the section on Density, Intensity, and Bulk Regulations related to building heights, lot sizes, setbacks and other specific minimum and maximum requirements for this district. Mr. Cummings questioned what the minimum height would be for the proposed district. Mr. Burich responded that there were no minimum height requirements and that the maximum height would allow for four to six story structures depending on the development features and all projects would be under planned development review requirements. He felt there was the potential for one to five story structures in the district. Mr. Cummings commented that he did not want this area to look like the frontage road as he did not feel that these types of developments were appropriate on a gateway corridor. Mr. Burich stated that the increased architectural standards, requirements for building placement, and reduced signage allowable will satisfy the need for quality developments in this district. Mr. Ford questioned if the 25% of required on-site parking to be located between an arterial street and the principal building could be adjusted to accommodate specific developments. Mr. Lyons responded affirmatively. Mr. Bowen discussed the signage requirements which prohibit pylon signs and allow monument signs at a maximum of 10 feet in height and questioned if we would allow parcels adjacent to Highway 41 to be different as developments on Highway 41 would need to have higher signage to be visible. Mr. Burich stated that this district’s requirements would supersede the signage allowances for developments in the Highway 41 corridor as the code cannot fit every situation. Mr. Bowen discussed how we reconcile support for the vast majority of this with the impacts on other developments that may have unintentional consequences. He felt that it takes away __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 December 19, 2017 principal development along Highway 41 which is different than other developments further away from the highway. Mr. Burich indicated that requirements were more restrictive in this area and that this district could be replicated in other areas of the community. Mr. Lyons added that the use of the planned development addition to the district would allow for specific issues to be addressed during the planned development review process. Mr. Bowen stated that he was not comfortable with some uses that are pre-existing in this area in the circumstance that they would be redeveloped or sold and he also had concerns with parcels adjacent to Highway 41 that may experience a negative impact due to the restrictions within this new zoning district. Mr. Burich commented that pre-existing developments would still maintain their nonconforming status and elements such as signage can continue to exist as long as it is maintained. Mr. Bowen stated that interstate visibility is important to businesses in this location as far as the height of their signage. Mr. Burich indicated that it is a unique situation with the height of the highway and this area of the district is unique in this circumstance and it is difficult to write code standards that are all encompassing. Mr. Bowen also felt that there should be a definition in the zoning code clarifying the meaning of trade dress. Mr. Burich responded that he could add some wording to address this concern. Mr. Borsuk questioned what is permissible for branding signs, outdoor storage and vending machines. Mr. Burich replied that there is a limit of 250 square feet which is permitted for outdoor display. Mr. Borsuk felt that there should be no outdoor vending machines or other temporary sales of products as these items serve as signage and discussed branding on buildings as that element also serves the same purpose. Mr. Burich discussed monument, electronic message centers, and wall signage requirements in this proposed district. Mr. Lyons explained wall sign code standards for commercial buildings and stated that cabinet signs are prohibited in this district however pin-mounted or channel letters would be allowed. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 December 19, 2017 Mr. Cummings stated that the Corporate Business Park is a gateway into the city and that the city has been criticized for other gateway streets that lead into the city such as Jackson Street and 9th Avenue and that this is our one chance to do it right. He continued discussion with the importance of curb appeal in these corridors and that the Common Council wants high standards in this area and does not want it to look like the frontage road. Mr. Burich discussed the architectural standards, landscaping and parking requirements and other elements proposed in this district and that the requirements as proposed will have the highest architectural standards and the least signage allowed. The district also prohibits obnoxious uses found in other corridors of the city and there may be a menu of uses allowed however the design controls in place will address any issues. Mr. Cummings commented that he would feel more comfortable with reviewing other communities work on their gateway developments. Mr. Thoms stated that he felt that the amount of signage is excessive, and although it makes sense in some areas, but not in this district. He discussed the developments on the frontage road and that it is not very cohesive and questioned if staff looked at existing ordinance related to landscaping and planned developments and if we have something in here specific to signage. Mr. Lyons commented that the city rolled back the allowed amount of signage to 30% in the new zoning ordinance in 2017 and has not had enough time to see the full results of the change at this point. Cabinet signs are usually larger and the amount of signage can be reduced further if the Commission found it necessary. Mr. Thoms discussed the possibility of this district being extended in the future to other areas of the city and the incorporation of businesses near Highway 41 that could create issues for them. He questioned how this applies to businesses in this area. Mr. Burich responded that all uses in the Suburban Mixed Use district are broader than this new zoning district. Mr. Borsuk discussed the height of signs on gateway streets and that staff could re-visit the Highway 41 standards and that pylon signs are not necessary near 41 and only apply to businesses in this area. Mr. Cummings commented that the Highway 41 corridor is different than Oshkosh Avenue and this gateway could be used as a template for Jackson Street, South Park Avenue and other gateway streets. Ms. Propp stated that she understands the points made for signage needs on Highway 41 however the existing developments in the 41 corridor could have their signage replaced if destroyed although it may not provide certainty for some property owners. She further stated that there are only 15 parcels in the district and some could be combined with redevelopment opportunities. She __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 December 19, 2017 did not want to see so many uses permitted however the conditional use permit process could help control this issue. Mr. Burich commented that due to a change in state legislation, conditional use permits must be accepted if they agree to all the conditions placed on their development and it could be dictated by the city and also the planned development overlay status on these sites. Ms. Propp agreed that there should not be outdoor storage or vending in this district as it would prevent clutter. Mr. Burich indicated that incidental outdoor display could be prohibited by adding this to the new zoning district requirements. Ms. Propp discussed displays in the window areas of buildings and if this could be addressed. Mr. Burich responded that it could be addressed during the planned development review process. Mr. Thoms commented that conditional use permits could be hard to enforce with uses and could create legal issues if not enforced consistently. He continued to discuss that the city has not been good about enforcing conditions on planned developments to control aesthetic issues. He felt that the roll back of the amount of allowed signage in the zoning ordinance was not enough and additional standards should be applied to this district. He felt that the prohibited uses were acceptable and would like to see the city address underlying code requirements for commercial developments to see where we need to go to accomplish what we want. He did not think that this zoning district would extend to Highway 41 and some pieces like the signage and outdoor storage should be addressed in the ordinance. Mr. Bowen suggested that the item move forward to the Common Council with staff evaluating some options of types of various buildings that would reside in this district. He felt that staff should present a number of buildings for review and how much signage would be on them. The Council could then evaluate what is appropriate and develop an appropriate percentage for allowable signage. Mr. Borsuk stated that he did not feel this concept was feasible. Mr. Burich stated that he will have to discuss this with staff to see if there is adequate time to address this. Mr. Borsuk commented that the Commission identified areas that they are uncomfortable with and felt that the Commission should address this now with the understanding that it will come back and be retooled in the near future. Mr. Burich suggested that signage could be restricted to 10%. Mr. Borsuk questioned how we would handle window signs. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 December 19, 2017 Mr. Burich responded that windows signage is limited to 33% by code requirements in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Borsuk felt that no windows signs should be allowed other than company identification and hours of operation only. Nothing more should be allowed to be displayed in windows as it is for advertising purposes only. Mr. Cummings stated that there were no visual aides to review and he would feel more comfortable with visual elements. He felt staff should provide examples to review of other communities and their gateway developments. Ms. Propp felt that 10% would be adequate for wall signage and the Council could change it at their discretion. Staff could add that there is no incidental outdoor storage or display and trade dress definition could be updated. Commission members discussed not allowing window signage and decided to leave this aspect out at this time. Mr. Thoms suggested that the Commission make the alterations they feel necessary and move it forward to the Council and let them make further decisions on any additional revisions they would like to see. Mr. Lyons stated that 33% of window area can contain signage in the current code. Mr. Bowen stated that he was supportive of the new zoning district requirements however it was not commercially reasonable by limiting the signage to this degree as it was a major issue and will be difficult to get people to develop in this area. He felt we are setting ourselves up for failure with these restrictive thresholds. The Commission came to a consensus that the new zoning ordinance district should move forward with the following revisions: 1. Add no incidental outdoor storage and display. 2. Trade dress definition updated. 3. Lower maximum façade signage to 15% of wall area per building facade. Motion by Vajgrt to approve a new zoning ordinance district-Section 30-59 Corporate Business Park (CBP) with the above referenced alterations. Seconded by Hinz. Motion carried 9-0. Mr. Bowen left at 5:35 pm. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 December 19, 2017 VI. ZONE CHANGE FROM I-INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT, SMU-SUBURBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT, SMU-PD SUBURBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND SR-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 2 TO CORPORATE BUSINESS PARK WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1634 THROUGH 1900 OSHKOSH AVENUE AND 1886 THROUGH 1936 RATH LANE The applicant requests a zone change from the existing I – Institutional District, SMU – Suburban Mixed Use District, SMU-PD Suburban Mixed Use District with a Planned Development Overlay and SR-2 Single Family Residential-2 District to CBP-PD Corporate Business Park District with a Planned Development Overlay for properties located at 1634 thru 1900 Oshkosh Avenue and 1886 through 1936 Rath Lane and a portion of Lake Shore Municipal Golf Course. Mr. Lyons presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area and explained that the proposed zone change would encompass 20 properties. He further explained that the City’s Comprehensive Plan has commercial use as the designation for the whole area. Ms. Propp stated that the two properties that were residential to the east have not been included in this new zoning district. Mr. Lyons responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms commented that two properties on Highway 41 are not part of the corridor and questioned why we are including them as he felt it would make it too restrictive for redevelopment of the sites in the future. Mr. Burich replied that the district is wide and for neighborhood cohesiveness we wanted to have the same standards for all properties. He explained that there is no longer a 41 Corridor Overlay in the new zoning ordinance with the exception of signage requirements to be allowed to be higher. Mr. Thoms inquired what the negative issues are for those business owners. Mr. Burich responded that if those properties would be redeveloped they will have to meet the new standards in this zoning district. Mr. Cummings left at 5:40 pm. Mr. Lyons stated that this would only apply if the property owner tears down the structure and fully redevelops the site. The new requirements would not apply to sign replacements and other minor renovations. Motion by Borsuk to approve a zone change from I-Institutional District, SMU-Suburban Mixed Use District, SMU-PD Suburban Mixed Use District with Planned Development Overlay and SR- __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 December 19, 2017 2 Single Family Residential 2 to Corporate Business Park with a Planned Development Overlay for property located at 1634 through 1900 Oshkosh Avenue and 1886 through 1936 Rath Lane. Seconded by Ford. Motion carried 8-0. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Burich stated that this would be Mr. Thoms last meeting as he is leaving the city and how much we appreciate his commitment while serving on the Commission. Mr. Burich stated that Ms. Foland was also retiring at the end of the year and this would be her last meeting as well and that she would be greatly missed by the Department. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:45 pm. (Vajgrt/Thoms) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services