Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 20, 2018 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Steve Cummings, Thomas Fojtik, Michael Ford, John Hinz, John Kiefer, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp, Robert Vajgrt EXCUSED: Andrew Mott STAFF: Darryn Burich, Planning Director; Amy VandenHogen, Assistant City Attorney; Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; Mark Lyons, Principal Planner; Jeff Nau, Associate Planner; Brian Slusarek, Assistant Planner; Steven Wiley, Assistant Planner; 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 November 6, 2018 were approved as presented. (Propp/Perry) RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW WINDOW AREA REDUCTIONS AT 1936 OREGON STREET The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow for size reduction of window openings on the front facade at 1936 Oregon Street. Mr. Wiley presented the item and reviewed the site, surrounding area, land use and zoning classifications in this area. Planning services staff issued a correction notice to the property owner on September 25, 2018 for work done without building permits. The owner closed one window opening and significantly reduced another opening on the front facade. The owner submitted an application for a design standards variance on October 11, 2018. According to the applicant, the reason for the original window area reductions and window replacements was that the original windows were rotted. The owner would like to leave the small single window. If the single window by itself is not acceptable, the owner would add a new window next to the recently installed one. The new window would be the same size as the existing window and establish a uniform look. Staff is of the opinion that two double hung windows side by side are preferable to one window in this situation. Mr. Wiley noted that there are a few items outside of the requested variance that do not meet code such as the standing seam metal roof, wood beams that are not stained or painted and the spindlesibalusters. Mr. Kiefer and Mr. Ford arrived at 4:01 PM. Mr. Bowen arrived at 4:03 PM. Mr. Bowen asked if Mr. Wiley calculated the total glazing reduction area to see what the overall impact would be on the front facade. Plan Commission Minutes November 20, 2018 Mr. Wiley replied he had not but would be open to calculating it moving forward. Mr. Bowen said it would be a good idea. Frank St John, 1936 Oregon Street, stated he had no problems with adding a second window of the same size of the current one but it would take four to six weeks to order it. He said in the spring, the standing seam metal roof will be replaced with shingles and match the rest of the home. He added that he did not know and was never notified about the spindlesibalusters being out of compliance but is willing to bring it up to code. Mr. Wiley explained why the spindles/balusters were not up to code and gave Mr. St John a few options on how to bring it up to code. Mr. St John stated he did take out a deck/front porch permit. He thought he was in compliance with the deck/front porch and this was the first he had heard about not being compliant. He stated again that he is willing to bring it up to code. Mr. Wiley added that the fasteners should not be exposed. Mr. Fojtik asked if Mr. St John was in agreement to the conditions on the windows. Mr. St John confirmed he was. He noted the new window was of the same width as the original window but the height was reduced. Motion by Vajgrt to approve a residential design standards variance to allow window area reductions at 1936 Oregon Street with the following conditions: 1. Window trim to match color and appearance of the existing windows on the home. 2. Proposed work to meet all applicable residential design standards. 3. A window 29"x 39" in size (same area as existing window) shall be installed adjacent to the existing 29" x 39" window in line with the sill and head of the existing window. This window shall match the existing double hung window. 4. The design standards variance shall apply only to the two ground floor window openings applied for and any future front fagade window closures shall be filed as separate requests subject to Plan Commission review. And the following finding: 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because the decrease of window area will not adversely affect the structure's architectural design, the neighborhood character, or curb appearance of the block. Seconded by Propp. Plan Commission Minutes November 20, 2018 Mr. Hinz commented that he lives in the area and is happy to see the house improving. Ms. Propp added that this was a good compromise. Motion carried 9-0. II. TWO -LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 305 OHIO STREET The petitioner is seeking approval of a two -lot land division/certified survey map from one existing lot located at 305 Ohio Street. Sizes of the proposed lots are as follows: Lot 1 = 0.351 Acres Lot 2 = 0.502 Acres Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The L-shaped subject site currently contains an auto fueling station with convenience store and associated improvements primarily fronting on Ohio Street. Proposed Lot 1 contains the existing storage building. Proposed Lot 2 contains the fuel station and convenience store. Both proposed lots meet minimum dimensional requirements of the Urban Mixed -Use (UMU) District. The newly created parcels will result in a zero -foot setback of the existing off-street parking area. The UMU District allows either a 0-foot or five-foot setback for parking areas. The applicant has the option of creating a cross -access easement for the proposed parcels to maintain the existing pavement, otherwise five feet of pavement on both sides of the new common lot line will need to be removed and restored/landscaped per code. There was no discussion on this item. Motion by Propp to approve a two -lot land division/certified survey map for property located at 305 Ohio Street with the following conditions: 1. Cross access easement shall be provided for both lots, otherwise five feet of pavement on both sides of the new common lot line shall be removed and restored/landscaped, 2. All structures, including but not limited to paved areas, canopy, underground storage tanks and utilities shall be placed on the final certified survey map. Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion carried 8-0-1 (Abstained: Bowen). III. TWO -LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT THE EAST 200 BLOCK OF OHIO STREET The petitioner is seeking approval of a two -lot land division/certified survey map from one existing lot located at the east 200 Block of Ohio Street. Sizes of the proposed lots are as follows: Plan Commission Minutes November 20, 2018 Lot 1 = 1.7447 Acres Lot 2 = 0.8515 Acres With the following conditions: 1. Cross access easement shall be created or modified (if one already exists) to accommodate proposed Lot 2; 2. Access restriction from Lot 2 to Ohio Street shall be indicated on the final survey per Document Number 1420986, Winnebago County Register of Deeds; 3. Any required utility easements shall be drafted and placed on the final survey. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The subject site is an irregularly -shaped parcel. The property contains a shared parking facilities for Bridgeview Center. The applicant is proposing to separate the vacant area from the parking lot to allow for future development. Proposed Lot 1 contains the existing driveways and parking areas. Proposed Lot 2 is an undeveloped area except for a multi -tenant sign located at the southwest corner which serves all of Bridgeview Center. It is anticipated that Lot 2 will be developed with a similar use to that of the nearby businesses. The Certified Survey Map (CSM) will create substandard zero -foot setbacks from the parking areas to the newly created common lot lines. This can be remedied by creating a cross -access easement or amending an existing easement if one exists. The Department of Public Works commented in their review that utility easements will be required for each lot and access restriction from Lot 2 to Ohio Street should be shown on the map per Document Number 1420986, Winnebago County Register of Deeds. These comments have been forwarded to the applicant's surveyor. Mr. Nau noted there had been a change to the conditions due to the map revision which corrected two of the conditions. There was no discussion on this item. Motion by Vajgrt to approve a two -lot land division/certified survey map for property located at the east 200 block of Ohio Street with the following amended conditions: 1. Any required utility easements shall be drafted and placed on the final survey. Seconded by Hinz. Motion carried 9-0. IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ACCESS CONTROL VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A MULTI -FAMILY USE AT 913 & 915 SOUTH MAIN STREET The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to establish a multi -family use at 913 & 915 South Main Street as well as an access control variance for a 72' wide driveway width where code allows a maximum driveway width of 24' with the following conditions: All existing window openings shall be maintained and all boarded up window openings shall be restored. Plan Commission Minutes November 20, 2018 2. First floor fenestration ratios along South Main Street shall be maintained. 3. Department of Community Development to approve 1st floor elevations and floor plans. 4. The project shall be reviewed by the City's Landmarks Commission. 5. A 2-hour rated floor -ceiling assembly provided for separation of ground floor units to allow for conversion to commercial space. 6. Evidence of 18 additional parking stalls within 1,000 feet of building for tenant use shall be provided to the Department of Community Development. 7. Trash and recycling containers shall be located within a refuse enclosure at least 6 ft. in height. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The petitioner is proposing to convert the existing building into apartment units. The first floor will be remodeled into five live/work "townhome style" apartment units, while the upper two floors will consist of 18 loft style apartment units in a mixture of 1 and 2-bedroom configurations. The large storefront glass facades will allow for home offices, galleries, and meeting spaces on the front of the building with moveable partition walls to separate the living spaces from the home office or gallery spaces. The application states that the layout is designed to allow the first floor live/work units to transition back to full storefront retail at some point in the future if necessary. Staff remains somewhat concerned about the conversion of first floor's more traditional "Main Street" style storefronts into a residential use that doesn't "activate" pedestrian activity at the street. Mr. Slusarek noted that another condition had been added to this request post staff report distribution which relates to future facade changes. This was added due to the potential addition of rear windows. Mr. Hinz asked about the rear windows and if there were any concerns in relation to historic preservation for the exterior facade. Mr. Burich responded potentially there could be hence the conditions. Mr. Burich said the petitioner mentioned applying for the historic tax credit. He added that the Landmarks Commission did discuss this request at their last meeting. Mr. Cummings mentioned that Landmarks is in support of this request. Ms. Propp asked for confirmation about the Landmarks Commission reviewing this request. Mr. Cummings replied affirmatively. He said the Landmarks Commission was very enthusiastic about the front facade and keeping the architectural integrity. Ms. Propp asked if the Landmarks Commission discussed the back of the building. Mr. Cummings replied they did not discuss that topic in detail. Mr. Burich stated it is a topic of concern since the back of the building is covered in sheet metal hence the addition of the last condition. Plan Commission Minutes November 20, 2018 Ms. Propp asked for confirmation that changes to the exterior or back of the building would need approval by Plan Commission. Mr. Burich confirmed. Ms. Propp asked for clarification on what buildings were part of this request. Mr. Lyons pointed out the buildings that were part of the request. Ms. Propp inquired about the garage door on the front facade of the building. Mr. Burich replied that he did not know what the plan is for the garage door and that the Plan Commission could inquire that of the applicant. Mr. Fojtik mentioned he was involved in the Sawdust District meetings and noted there were concerns about having residential on the first floor. He asked if this request was approved if it would conflict with the Sawdust District plan. Mr. Burich replied it would not since the Sawdust District Plan has not yet been adopted so implementing that might be a bit premature. He explained that ideally, the subject property would be a good candidate as a mixed -use building with upper floor residential and first floor retail/commercial especially given that the average daily trip is approximately 9,000 vehicles. He also stated that the time probably is not right yet for retail in that area and that a lot has to change yet for that to occur. He added that staff is willing to support the ground floor units if they are constructed to more easily allow the units to be rehabilitated into commercial spaces when the time is right. Motion by Vajgrt to approve a conditional use permit for a multi family use and access control variance for property located at 913 & 915 South Main Street with the following amended conditions: 1. All existing window openings shall be maintained and all boarded up window openings shall be restored. 2. First floor fenestration ratios along South Main Street shall be maintained. 3. Department of Community Development to approve 18t floor elevations and floor plans. 4. The project shall be reviewed by the City's Landmarks Commission. 5. A 2-hour rated floor -ceiling assembly provided for separation of ground floor units to allow for conversion to commercial space. 6. Evidence of 18 additional parking stalls within 1,000 feet of building for tenant use shall be provided to the Department of Community Development. 7. Trash and recycling containers shall be located within a refuse enclosure at least 6 ft. in height. 8. Petitioner shall submit plans for Special Area Design Review by Plan Commission for all exterior fagade changes. Seconded by Kiefer. Plan Commission Minutes November 20, 2018 Ms. Propp stated she is still curious what the plan is for the garage door. Mr. Burich replied any changes on the exterior will likely need approval by the Plan Commission. Mr. Burich mentioned more about the petitioner looking into applying for tax credits. He said with the conditions, staff is comfortable with recommending approval for this request. Mr. Cummings explained that during the Landmarks meeting, the petitioner showed various examples of previous projects. He stated the petitioner has a lot of experience with similar projects. Mr. Fojtik commented that this would be nice for the street. Mr. Bowen inquired about the process for the Special Area Design Review. Mr. Lyons explained that CMU zoning requires the Special Area Design Review. He stated there are three types of Special Area Design reviews which are project, alteration and design. He then explained the process for all three types. Motion carried 9-0. V. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR VEHICLE SALES AT 1911 WEST SNELL ROAD The applicant requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan Amendment for vehicle sales at 1911 W. Snell 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. On February 14, 2006, Common Council approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Planned Development amendment to expand the existing truck stop operation to include used automobile sales. On February 14, 2008, the CUP for automobile sales expired. On March 11, 2008 Common Council denied a CUP request to renew the expired CUP for automobile sales. On November 25, 2008, Common Council approved a planned development amendment allowing for relocation of the existing ground sign and a fence on the property, as well as construction of a new driveway and an addition to the existing building. In May 2017, Planning Services issued a correction notice to the property owner for storage of unregistered, unlicensed/inoperable vehicles being stored in the open on the site. The petitioner subsequently submitted an application for a Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) amendment to expand the existing truck stop use to include automobile sales. The request also includes a 50' X 50' building addition as well as fencing for additional outdoor storage area. The applicant has established a history of being unable or unwilling to follow through with the conditions placed on his site related to outdoor storage. Due to this fact, staff is recommending the applicant be required to bring a written narrative and detailed outdoor storage plan back to Plan Commission for final approval prior to being permitted to increase the size of the existing outdoor storage. Plan Commission Minutes November 20, 2018 Ms. Propp mentioned that she drove past the property earlier in the day. She stated the site appears to look worse than the pictures and the pictures do not do the site justice. She said all the available parking spaces were being used and there was no space left on the property for the requested vehicle sales. Mr. Cummings added that he also drove past the site earlier in the day. He explained the history of the property and how it used to be a nice truck stop but it is now an eyesore. Mr. Hinz questioned if staff had heard from any of the abutting property owners pertaining to vehicles encroaching on the property lines because it looks like it from the pictures. Mr. Burich stated that he believes the adjacent property owner had hired a surveyor to stake out the property lines. Mr. Hinz asked if there had been any concerns for the length of time the property has gone unpaved or the possibility of contamination. Mr. Burich replied it is a concern. Mr. Hinz said it was not addressed in the staff report but should be a concern due to liquids sitting for long periods of time. Mr. Burich stated it is why staff is recommending a storage plan since it was never the intent for the site to be a junkyard. He said the contamination concern could be added as a condition. Mr. Perry stated he was concerned about other issues beyond this stage relating to access to the public, location of the property for vehicle sales, signage and other items. He said this leads him to believe that there will be more obstacles that would need to be addressed in the future. Karl Keas, 3530 Omni Drive, stated he was there representing Omni Glass & Paint Inc. who owns one of the adjacent properties. He said a surveyor was hired and the property lines are now staked out. He confirmed it does show that the trailers and vehicles are encroaching the west boundary property line. He stated that they had asked for the trailers and vehicles to be removed a little over a month ago. Mr. Vajgrt asked if the vehicles had been moved. Mr. Keas replied there has been activity since the request but the vehicles are still encroaching on the property line. Mr. Bowen complimented staff for willing to work with the applicant due to the long history of noncompliance from the owner. He stated the noncompliance issues have been going on for longer than he has been on the Plan Commission. He stated that this property owner has not operated in good faith with the City of Oshkosh and has not done so for the better part of a decade. Plan Commission Minutes November 20, 2018 He said he would not support this request but is happy to see that staff is working in good faith with the owner. Mr. Fojtik mentioned to city staff that time has value and at some point time should be given to those who are willing to work with the city and willing to respect conditions agreed upon. Ms. Propp stated the site is an eyesore to the entire city. She stated the property should be sold, razed, contamination problems cleaned up and then make it a nice gateway property. She added she would not support this request. She inquired about what the outcome would be if Plan Commission denied the request though the owner would still be out of compliance. Mr. Burich stated it is currently an active case in court. Ms. Propp asked if the case could result in something positive. Mr. Burich explained there is a legal process that needs to be followed and currently the owner is going through the administrative side of the process. Mr. Hinz inquired about the possibilities of adding a one year timeframe to check -in on the proposed request. He said he is trying to help find common ground. Mr. Burich replied timeframes have been added previously and can be added if needed. He commented that staff is as concerned as everyone else. Mr. Hinz stated he would be willing to make a motion but with two other conditions which would be for contamination and the encroachment issue. Mr. Lyons explained with the current conditions, it would only allow storage within the permitted storage area. Mr. Hinz said he is concerned about the contamination and would like a check -in timeline for that. Mr. Burich replied staff has provided a staff report that they would approve of but if Plan Commission wants to modify the conditions, they can. Mr. Perry also commended staff for their efforts. He said there would be 13-14 conditions for this request and that they still would not be met. Mr. Cummings explained this is the same owner of various properties in the city that has had reoccurring similar issues. He said the owner has shown no willingness to comply with the city. Mr. Fojtik said Omni Glass & Paint Inc. is very nice in appearance. He mentioned the noncompliant site could negatively affect neighboring property owners such as Omni. Mr. Ford inquired about the legal process. Plan Commission Minutes November 20, 2018 Mr. Cummings left at 5:04 PM. Mr. Burich replied that part of this process is putting together another Planned Development that will clearly detail the issues. Ms. VandenHogen explained that this action would give both sides a fresh start/slate. She added this would give a baseline for both parties. She said she appreciates the concerns about noncompliance. She also explained the best and worst case scenarios. Mr. Ford stated though the applicant has not been in compliance for over a decade, he would be willing to support the request if it helps open doors to finally resolving the issue. Mr. Vajgrt asked if there could be a time limit to the request. Mr. Burich replied nothing could be done until there is compliance with the conditions. Mr. Vajgrt clarified his question about the time limit. Mr. Burich replied the Planned Development could be revoked through the same process if the applicant does not show good faith in complying. Mr. Vajgrt questioned if the applicant does not move forward with complying again, how long would staff have to wait to enforce. Ms. VandenHogen clarified the questions Mr. Vajgrt was asking about. She said to look at the situation as implementing and enforcing and not revocation. Mr. Burich said the conditions and detailed staff report will make future issues easier to enforce. He added that the owner has been cited and he did not feel a timeframe was necessary because everything should be immediate. Mr. Vajgrt asked if the owner has had to pay any monetary fees due to the citations and fines. Mr. Burich replied not yet because this is an active court case due to the citations. He explained again that the owner is working on the administrative side of the process. Mr. Vajgrt asked who issues the citations. Mr. Burich responded that staff does and explained that the due process does take time. Mr. Lyons added that this request would give both sides a fresh slate. He said due to the lengthy legal trail of paperwork, the staff report is a consolidation of previous requests and is written to represent them as a whole. Plan Commission Minutes 10 November 20, 2018 Ms. Propp asked for confirmation that this request would help aide the city in a positive manner and if it would, she would support it. Mr. Kiefer questioned if there would be a time limit with the conditions. Mr. Burich replied it is currently being enforced that is why the applicant is submitting this request. Mr. Lyons reviewed the conditions and questioned adding a reasonable timeframe for the conditions. He said it does not necessarily need a timeframe because they would take legal action if the applicant is not complying. Mr. Perry questioned how many votes were needed to approve this request. Mr. Burich stated it would be a majority vote. Mr. Hinz questioned if the request was approved, if it would be the first time a Specific Implementation Plan was approved without a specific plan. Mr. Bowen asked for confirmation that the goal was to make a clear path to compliance. He stated he was against allowing other uses for the applicant since the applicant is unwilling to be compliant with the codes in every request he has submitted. He stated he would support the request if it would finally help with the applicant complying. Mr. Lyons stated the outdoor storage can be modified to match the 2008 approved outdoor storage plan if Plan Commission request it to be. Mr. Bowen said he would like to see compliance first before allowing additional uses. Mr. Lyons explained the reason for the auto sales request is due to the ordinance update. Mr. Bowen stated the beauty of the Planned Development is that two sides work together in good faith to find a medium while understanding the limitations of the code. He said this has not occurred with this applicant and he is weary of allowing more bad faith bargaining. He inquired on how to make a baseline compliance motion. Mr. Lyons responded that it may be best to deny it since the baseline was what was previously approved. He noted another option would be to add more conditions which would match the previously approved request. Mr. Burich said the expansion of the outdoor storage could be denied and then grant the auto sales. He also said this item could be laid over but there may not be much change in two weeks. Mr. Bowen suggested the lay -over would at least give staff time to look further into the request. Plan Commission Minutes 11 November 20, 2018 Mr. Lyons stated from a staff perspective, the auto sales is not a concern as much as the outdoor storage. Mr. Burich suggested looking at what constitutes a vehicle for sale due to previous concerns. Mr. Bowen commented it would have to be state licensed for auto sales. Ms. VandenHogen mentioned there is a status meeting in mid -December. Mr. Burich said with the lay -over, it would give staff more time to tighten up the conditions and take into consideration Plan Commission's feedback. Ms. Propp brought up the use expansion. Mr. Burich replied it is not something that staff had considered but would look into. Mr. Perry asked if there could be a condition to ask for immediate removal of encroached vehicles. Mr. Lyons replied condition number three would imply encroached vehicles would have to be moved since they are not in a permitted area for storage. Mr. Perry stated this issue should not have been left to the abutting property owner to take civil action. He inquired if a timeline could be set on condition number three to help with the situation. Mr. Perry pointed out the vehicles can't be moved inward or else there would be no driveway. Mr. Lyons said the courts give a timeframe and would enforce. Mr. Burich stated that the timeframe may not help plus staff is citing in a timely manner. Mr. Hinz asked if staff was in favor of the two week lay -over. Mr. Burich agreed it would be a good idea and it would give staff time for more discussions. Mr. Bowen questioned if the lay -over would affect the current legal process. Mr. Burich asked Ms. VandenHogen on what date the status conference was set for. Ms. VandenHoegn responded the lay -over would not impact the status conference because it is scheduled for December 121h, the day after Common Council Motion by Hinz to lay over the Specific Implementation Plan amendment for vehicle sales at 1911 West Snell Road until December 41h. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 7-1 (Nay: Perry). Plan Commission Minutes 12 November 20, 2018 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:27 pm. (Vajgrt/Propp) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services Plan Commission Minutes 13 November 20, 2018