Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES September 18,2018 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Steve Cummings, Thomas Fojtik,John Kiefer,Andrew Mott, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp, Robert Vajgrt EXCUSED: Michael Ford,John Hinz STAFF: Darryn Burich, Planning Director;Mark Lyons, Principal Planner; Steven Wiley, Assistant Planner;Allen Davis, Community Development Director;James Rabe, Director of Public Works; Steve Gohde,Assistant Director of Public Works;Mina Kuss, 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 September 4, 2018 were approved as presented. (Vaigrt/Borsuk) I. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW A NON- COMPLIANT STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF AT 523 W. 4th AVENUE The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow a non-compliant standing seam metal roof at 523 W. 4th Avenue. Mr. Wiley presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area. The applicant applied for and obtained a permit to re-roof his house on April 9th, 2018 and it was a permit to shingle over one layer of existing shingles on the house. The applicant states that this permit was issued incorrectly and that the permit was supposed to have said "installation of a standing seam metal roof". The standing seam metal roofing was illegal at the time the permit was issued. Planning Services sent multiple correction notices to the applicant. Staff informed him of his options to obtain a permit and bring the roof into compliance or seek a design standards variance. He stated that he is retired, living on a fixed income and cannot afford to re-roof again. He spent the money that he had saved on the present roof. Mr. Bowen and Mr. Kiefer arrived at 4:02 pm. Mr. Borsuk asked if the correct permit was obtained,would the materials still be unacceptable. Mr. Wiley replied the materials would still be unacceptable. Mr. Wiley said the usual process is that the applicant would meet with Staff and discuss materials. Staff would then give feedback and let the applicant know if there were any conflicts. He added the installation was also not acceptable in this case. Plan Commission Minutes 1 September 18,2018 Mr. Bowen asked for clarification on the timeline in terms of when the work was completed versus the ordinance passing. Mr. Wiley replied it seemed like the roof on the garage was completed prior to the ordinance passing because it was a late permit. However,he was unsure when the completion of the roof on the home occurred. Mr. Bowen questioned if the standing seam metal roof on the garage was allowed before or after the ordinance passing. Mr. Wiley answered detach accessory structures were not addressed with the standing seam metal roof ordinance. Therefore,it was allowed at the time. Mr. Bowen asked if any type of standing seam metal roofs were allowed on a primary structure prior to the ordinance passing. Mr. Wiley and Mr. Burich confirmed it was not allowed at all on a primary structure. Mr. Bowen confirmed that after the ordinance, the standing seam metal roof was allowed on primary structures as long as design standards were met. Mr. Wiley stated the grounds for stripping the roof down to the sheathing was for safety reasons. The fire chief at the time,Tim Franz, recommended it during the ordinance process. Mr. Burich questioned the Staff report, which stated the standing seam metal roof was adopted in April 11, 2017. Mr. Wiley replied the date was a typo in the ordinance. He clarified the ordinance was adopted by Common Council on March 27, 2018. Blair Joas,523 W. 4th Avenue, clarified that he told Inspections Services it was going to be a standing seam metal roof on the home at the time the permit was requested. He said it should have said steel over shingles and not shingles over shingles. He said it was his fault for not checking the wording on the permit before he paid for it. Mr.Joas called for the inspection once the roof was completed and was told it was not permitted. He stated he purchased the materials and paid the labor cost for installation. Mr.Joas commented he does not know what he should do next. Mr. Borsuk asked if Mr.Joas purchased the materials separately versus the installer purchasing them. Mr.Joas responded he did buy the materials in hopes of installing the roof himself but his health took a turn for the worst. He said his heart went bad and he had to have a pacemaker put in. Since then, Mr.Joas realized his limitations. He plans on selling the home due to the difficulties of keeping up on the home. Plan Commission Minutes 2 September 18,2018 Mr. Vaigrt asked for clarification on the ordinance in terms of if the roof installations had to be completed by a professional or not. Mr. Wiley reviewed the ordinance. He said the paint has to be done at the factory but he does not see a provision that states the installation has to be completed by a licensed contractor. Mr. Burich said it is state code that a licensed contractor would have to do the installation. He added verbiage of that type is not usually included in ordinances. Mr. Vaigrt asked if it applied for the City of Oshkosh. Mr. Wiley said yes. He added that contractors have to be licensed through the state in order to pull a permit, otherwise the property owner has to pull the permit. Mr. Propp questioned why it was legal to have a metal roof on the garage but not on the primary structure due to the close proximity of the buildings. Mr. Burich replied it may have been an oversight in the code. Ms. Propp said she originally thought both the garage and house were non-compliant. She asked what the steps were if Plan Commission denied the variance request. Mr. Wiley responded it would end with Plan Commission. Mr. Burich said potentially it could go to the Board of Appeals. Ms. Propp asked if the applicant had considered the Board of Appeals. Me. Burich replied they have not applied for the Board of Appeals. Mr. Burich explained the applicant would have a higher statutory standard to meet with the Board of Appeals than he would with Plan Commission. Ms. Propp commented there were a lot of things that were overlooked in this case. She added she unsure what the next steps would be for the applicant. Mr. Burich replied the applicant would have to replace it because it is not compliant in terms of materials and installation. He said this is a tough position to be in but it has happened previously with applicants seeking relief for work that has been done wrong or they did not obtain the proper permits. This particular case conflicts in several ways with the provisions of the current standing seam ordinance and more importantly it is a safety concern according to the previous fire chief. Due to the conflicts and safety concerns, it was difficult for Staff to support the variance. Plan Commission Minutes 3 September 18,2018 Mr. Borsuk states he sees two issues;the permit issue and the installation of non-compliant materials. Mr. Borsuk said he is particularly concerned about the life safety issue due to the improper installation and cannot support the variance. He suggested the ordinance be handed out to home building businesses such as Menards in order to have the information readily available on what is complaint and non-compliant in the City of Oshkosh. Mr. Mott agreed with Mr. Borsuk's concerns, especially the safety concerns pointed out by the fire chief. Mr. Vaigrt agreed as well and stated as a past firefighter,he agrees with the fire chief 100%. He said in the instance of a fire, the scenario is unpredictable. Motion by Vaigrt to approve the residential design standards variance to allow a non-compliant standing seam metal roof at 523 W. 4th Avenue. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion denied 9-0 with the following finding: 1. The variance is not defensible because the original permit was not issued for standing seam metal roofing, the standing seam metal roofing was illegal at the time the permit was issued and the installed product conflicts in several ways with the provisions of the current standing seam ordinance. Mr. Burich suggested the applicant contact Planning Services after the meeting. II. DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION WITH MATERIALS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING BUILDING AT 347 N. SAWYER STREET The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City's Design Standards for the construction of an addition with materials not substantially similar to the existing building at 347 N. Sawyer Street. Mr. Lyons presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area. Staff conducted a workshop related to this request at the August 21,2018 Plan Commission meeting. The applicant and Plan Commission members discussed several options as part of that meeting. The applicant proposes to construct a 1,645 sq. ft. addition on the north side of the building. The applicant intends use the addition for storage and detailing. The cladding of the new addition would consist of vinyl composite brick and EIFS with a stucco finish. The applicant feels that the City's applicable design standards ordinance will place a cost hardship on the owner and prohibit the owner from constructing the desired addition. Without the addition the continued viability of this parcel would be in question. Maintaining the original brick facade on the new addition would be cost prohibitive. Staff is of the opinion that the addition as currently proposed would not have a detrimental impact on the architectural integrity of the building. Plan Commission Minutes 4 September 18,2018 Mr. Borsuk asked about the durability of the material, the appearance of the overhead door and in what direction would the overhead door be facing. Mr. Lyons replied the overhead door would be facing the multi-family residential across the street. Mr. Burich asked if there was a way to soften up the overhead door to make it look less industrial. Mr. Lyons replied it is possible to look into varying the colors to blend the door in. Gavin Dorsch, 17 Highland Avenue, stated he had samples of the materials with him. He said he has not received information about the durability of the material yet. Mr. Dorsch explained the history of the upgraded exterior at Pastimes in Ripon. Pastimes has the same material on its facade and the material has been there for over 12 years. Mr. Borsuk asked if there was a warranty or guarantee from the manufacture. Mr. Dorsch responded he could get that information but assumes it would be the typical minimum 20 year warranty. He explained it has been difficult to communicate with the manufacturer. Mr. Dorsch explained the history behind another structure with the same materials. Mr. Borsuk asked about the softening of the overhead door. Mr. Dorsch replied he would be willing to soften the look. He explained the white color proposed was to break up monotonous of the building. He described other colors and details that could be used on the overhead door to soften the look. Mr. Fojtik asked if Mr. Dorsch would be willing to work with Staff on the overhead door. Mr. Dorsch replied he would and would be open to adding it as a condition. Mr. Lyons said it could be added as a condition. He pulled up the street view and explained where the addition would be located. Ms. Propp stated she drove past the building earlier and thought the color of the building looked more of a dark red brick and not black. Mr. Dorsch explained the brick is black, for lack of a better word, and is the same color on the entire building. He added the color does look different depending on how the light hits the building. The brick is from 1965 and is no longer available,hence the difficulty of matching the color even if brick or other materials were proposed. Ms. Propp said she was involved in the workshop and is agreeable as long as the colors are compatible and the overhead door is softened. Plan Commission Minutes 5 September 18,2018 Mr. Perry asked if the increase in height was to accommodate the door. Mr. Dorsch replied it was. The height is needed to accommodate clearance of the track for the overhead door. He said the roof is as low as it can go structurally. The roof of the addition is about a foot and half taller than the main building. Motion by Uaigrt to approve the residential design standards variance to allow construction of an addition with materials not substantially similar to the existing building at 347 N. Sawyer Street with the following conditions: 1. Colors of the cladding on the new addition shall be similar in appearance to that of the cladding on the original building. 2. Any additional work involving the exterior of the property shall be filed as a separate request(s)for review by the Department of Community Development and the Plan Commission. And the following findings: 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. 2. The variance is needed so that the spirit of the ordinance is observed. Seconded by Mott. Mr. Borsuk questioned if softening the appearance of the overhead door needed to be added as a condition or if it was understood the applicant would be willing to work with Staff. Mr. Lyons confirmed it was understood that the applicant and Staff would work together. Mr. Kiefer pointed out there is no landscaping around the site except for the terrace and the garbage dumpster sits out in the open. Mr. Kiefer asked if there were any steps that Staff or Plan Commission could take to enhance the site. Mr. Lyons explained a most of the dumpsters mentioned were legal non-conforming dumpsters and existed prior to the dumpster enclosure requirements. Staff did not evaluate other areas of the site since design standards for current commercial buildings are specific to the variance being requested. He said if it were a Planned Development (PD), Staff would probably broaden the scope to look at those other areas. Mr. Burich added that if it was a PD or possibly a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) the scope could be broadened. For the design standards process, Staff typically does not review or condition other areas of the site besides what is being proposed. Mr. Lyons reminded Plan Commission the dumpster enclosure regulations was not always a requirement and it is common to have open dumpster. Plan Commission Minutes 6 September 18,2018 Mr. Bowen asked if the new addition would be required to any foundation planting requirements. Mr. Lyons replied it would not because it is not a 50%increase in gross floor area. Mr. Borsuk stated it was a great catch by Mr. Kiefer. He said this would be a great opportunity to address other areas of the site like storm water. Mr. Borsuk stated he does not feel it is out of context to ask for landscaping or a dumpster enclosure. Mr. Burich stated the other site area would potentially be reviewed during a PD or CUP but does not feel it is appropriate for design standard variances. Mr. Lyons added the majority of the case law for Wisconsin would not support adding those types of conditions on a design standard variance. Mr. Burich said if landscaping pertained to the new addition,it could possibly be added because it relates to the design standard variance request. Motion carried 9-0. III. ZONE CHANGE FROM CENTRAL MIXED USE (CMU) DISTRICT TO TWO FLAT RESIDENTIAL-10 (TR-10) DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 222 W. 8TH AVENUE The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Central Mixed Use (CMU) District to Two Flat Residential- 10 (TR-10) District for property located at 222 W. 8th Avenue. Mr. Lyons presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area. The applicant recently purchased the vacant lot located at 226 W. 8th Avenue and presently resides in the home at 222 W. 8th Avenue. The applicant wishes to combine the two parcel into a single lot. In order to proceed with the lot combination process both lots need to carry the same zoning designation. Staff review the proposal and agrees with applying a TR-10 designation to both parcels prior to the lot combination, so they will be consistent with the surrounding residential area. The 10 and 20 year land use recommendations designate this property as commercial;however, the adjoining parcels to the north, west and east are residential land uses. Staff does not have concerns with extending the zoning to maintain consistency with adjacent land uses as part of the ongoing Comprehensive Plan update. Erik Sievert, 222 W. 8th Avenue, stated the purpose of the rezone is to only receive one property tax bill and one utility bill. Mr. Sievert said he has been paying two separate bills for years,from the time he purchased the lot. He stated he was unaware of how to fix the problem until someone provided him with the necessary information,hence the rezone. Motion by Vaigrt to approve a zone change from Central Mixed Use (CMU) district to Two Flat Residential-10 (tr-10) district for property located at 222 W. 8th Avenue. Plan Commission Minutes 7 September 18,2018 Seconded by Perry. Motion carried 9-0. IV. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA: REZONE FROM INSTITUTIONAL (I) TO CORPORATE BUSINESS PARK WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (CBP-PD) FOR TWO OUTLOTS NORTH OF N. KOELLER STREET LOCATED AT THE FORMER LAKESHORE MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE V. APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A NEW ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER AT 3530 OMNI DRIVE (OMNI GLASS& PAINT) The applicant requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan amendment for an Electronic Message Center (EMC)upgrade at 3530 Omni Drive. Mr. Wiley presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area. The original Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development (CUP/PD) obtained in October 2006 was for Omni s facility which includes their commercial glass and paint operation with its associated office, manufacturing and retail showroom uses. The owners later received a CUP with a Planned Development Amendment for outside storage in August 2007 since the storage was not included as part of the original CUP/PD. The applicant is requesting a base standard modification(BSM) from the maximum permitted 50 sq. ft. to 150 sq. ft. The existing pylon sign would remain. The only modification would be to install a larger EMC in place of the current EMC on the pylon sign. The new EMC would be slightly more narrow than the existing one,but of a greater height than the current EMC. The applicant states that he is requesting the BSM for a larger EMC because the current EMC is difficult to read from Interstate 41. There are no other changes to the site. There was no discussion on this item. Motion by Vajgrt to approve a Specific Implementation Plan Amendment for a new electronic message center at 3530 Omni Drive (Omni Glass &Paint) with the following conditions: 1. Base standard modification from the maximum permitted area of 50 sq.ft. per site to allow an EMC of 150 sq.ft. in area. 2. Overall height of the EMC shall not increase from the present height. 3. Total area per side of all freestanding signage on the site shall not exceed the base standard of 400 sq. ft. total. 4. No modifications shall be made to other aspects of the site. Any future modifications shall be filed as separate requests and be reviewed by the Plan Commission. 5. Proposed EMC shall meet all ordinance standards for Electronic Message Boards, as explained in Section 30-280 of the Zoning Ordinance. Seconded by Borsuk. Plan Commission Minutes 8 September 18,2018 Mr. Fojtik stated he has noticed how bright some of the Electronic Message Centers can be and questioned if there was an ordinance that would regulate the brightness. Mr. Lyons replied the code has some verbiage but not a lot. Mr. Fojtik and Mr. Burich discussed some of the brighter signs located off of Interstate 41. Mr. Lyons read verbatim the Electronic Message Centers code to Staff and the Plan Commission. The code was broad and did not give details on lighting allowances. Mr. Burich added for future request, the standard could be applied. Motion carried 9-0. VI. PUBLIC HEARING: 2019 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Staff requests review and acceptance of the 2019 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The purpose of this review is for the Plan Commission to make a determination of consistency of the proposed programs and activities in the 2019 CIP with the City's Comprehensive Plan, official maps or other planned activities. Mr. Lyons presented and navigated though the interactive CIP dashboard. Mr. Borsuk recapped items he had questions on that have already been answered prior to the meeting. However,he did have others that were not answered yet. He said he did not see anything on Ceape, Otter, Waugoo and the central business district on when those roads would be reconstructed. Mr. Gohde replied Otter is being done this year,Washington is being done this year and Court is under construction currently. Mr. Borsuk stated he lives in the area and has not seen any construction on Ceape, Otter or Waugoo. Ms. Propp and Mr. Kiefer commented Ceape was already completed. Mr. Gohde stated Otter Avenue is under construction currently and part of it has been paved. He said Washington Avenue is under construction currently. He does not believe Waugoo is in the 5 year CIP. Mr. Kiefer asked about Ceape being redone in concrete and its infrastructure. Mr. Gohde explained the project history of Ceape and other roads in the area. Plan Commission Minutes 9 September 18,2018 Mr. Borsuk said he read about the lead pipe abatement and questioned what the plan was for replacement in the section running from the curb to the houses. Mr. Gohde responded the area in question is owned by the private property owner. He said the City does replace the public side of the area, from the curb to the main. He said through the current ordinance, the homeowners have six months to replace the pipe system. He said there is a grant available through the state for up to$1,500 per property and gave a brief explanation of the process. Mr. Borsuk asked about the$400,000 allocated for remediation at the 7th and 81h Street gas station. He questioned if the City would get any money from PECFA, Marathon or US Steel who are the owners of the property to help with the cost. Mr. Burich said he could not recall if PECFA was used already. Mr. Davis said he could not recall either. He said the City acquired the property several years ago and did not remediate the site. They only demolished it. The plan was to keep it bare until they knew what the final development were going to be. He said the only thing he has heard is the possibility of WDC or EPA funds being used. Mr. Borsuk stated he was just curious if the City could go back to the owner and ask for a contribution. Mr. Davis responded he would have to look into it to see if it was possible. Mr. Bowen said the VPLE is part of the process. He said looking back to find the responsible party would be part of the VPLE if the owner of the responsible party can be traced back. Mr. Mott stated it would depend on how the area was purchased. Mr. Bowen said he would hope part of the cost would go towards the use of the process and trying to comply. Mr. Borsuk asked with the enormous amount of money spent for storm water infrastructure, should it be a change trigger for containment to first disturbance of soil from 20,000 square feet with redevelopment of big box complexes and South Shore development. He also asked if this might be an opportune time to bring up some of those issues, perhaps changing the storm water ordinance. Mr. Gohde replied it is not a topic that is discussed other than a brief discussion on how it would substantially impact redevelopments. Mr. Borsuk said he feels it should be reevaluated. He asked with work on Oregon Street, do we have adequate road way on Hughes and Waukau for potential heavy truck traffic. Plan Commission Minutes 10 September 18,2018 Mr. Rabe stated Hugh Street was just repaved this year. There should be no traffic on Waukau due to the reconstruction of the bridge. Mr. Rabe said he believed east of Oregon is not a truck route, therefore trucks would not be allowed on the street. Mr. Borsuk questioned Mr. Rabe about east of Oregon not being a truck route. Mr. Rabe replied he does not believe Waukau is a truck route east of Oregon. Mr. Bowen pointed out that Hydrite Chemical is located on Waukau. Mr. Rabe replied the trucks can use the road if there is a business there but it is not a through truck route. He said legally, trucks cannot go from Oregon to Main Street because it is not a through truck route. He stated again he does not believe it is a truck route. Mr. Borsuk stated it should be something to look into. Mr. Rabe reiterated that Hughes Street was just done this year. Mr. Bowen inquired about the project happening by Old Omro Road and what used to be Emmers Lane area. He asked if the project worked hand in hand with those streets coming into the city from the town. Mr. Rabe confirmed with those properties becoming attached as part of the Zone B attachment, the project would be closing a water main loop to provide services within the City. He said the Town of Algoma is looking to reconstruct Omro Road in the near future,hence why the City wanted to close off the water main prior to the reconstruction of the street. Mr. Bowen asked if the intersection of Westhaven and 21 had been reevaluated lately due to the high traffic in the area. He mentioned this would be a good time to review it since it is now part of the City. Mr. Gohde said he has been studying it for a while. He stated the transportation director, Chris Strong, at the time did review it as well as make modification. Mr. Bowen asked if the current condition of the intersection was the best way. Mr. Gohde replied it is as of six to eight years ago. Mr. Fojtik added it would be a great site for a roundabout since there is not heavy pedestrian foot traffic. Mr. Bowen inquired about the reference to Congress Park in the 2019 section because it appears in the 2020 section. Plan Commission Minutes 11 September 18,2018 Mr. Rabe stated after the draft was published, Public Works did find a few oversights in the static maps. He said the interactive map should be up to date. He said the statics maps will be updated before final approval. Mr. Bowen said he wanted to make sure he did not misread it. Mr. Rabe replied the project might have been bumped and the static map was not updated to show it. He stated again he did notice similar issues after the draft was printed. Mr. Bowen asked if there was a better way to drain Congress Athletic Field. Mr. Rabe said he is not familiar with what is going on with the park yet. Motion by Vaigrt to accept the 2019 Capital Improvement Program with the determination of consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan, maps or other planned activities. Seconded by Perry. Motion carried 9-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:06 pm. (Vajgrt/Perry) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services Plan Commission Minutes 12 September 18,2018