Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES December 4, 2018 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Steve Cummings, Thomas Fojtik, Derek Groth, John Hinz, Andrew Mott, Thomas Perry, Robert Vajgrt EXCUSED: Michael Ford, John Kiefer, Kathleen Propp 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 20, 2018 were approved as presented. (Vajgrt/Hinz) OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Fojtik introduced Mr. Groth as the new alternate member to the Plan Commission. Mr. Cummings arrived at 4:02 PM. 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. He explained that this item was laid over from the November 20f meeting due to the high number of concerns. The applicant's narrative requests approval of all permitted uses in the Urban Industrial district. Based on the property owner's history of zoning violations, staff is recommending a condition be placed restricting the applicant to only those uses as described within the planned development application and narrative. Those uses as identified by the applicant are; auto & truck repair, auto service, towing, auto parts sales and auto sales. Staff has additional concerns with the applicant's stated use of parts sales. Staff is concerned the applicant intends to operate an auto salvage facility and sell salvaged auto parts. The applicant is also proposing to increase the size of its outdoor storage area. The outdoor storage area would be fenced with an 8' steel fence that would match the existing fence. 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 Plan Commission Minutes December 4, 2018 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. Mr. Bowen arrived at 4:04 PM. Mr. Hinz said due to the towing service, he was concerned about vehicles sitting on the property that would need to be scrapped. Mr. Burich replied the applicant does own a salvage yard on the south side of the city. Mr. Bowen questioned if the 20,000 sq. ft. threshold triggered the storm water management requirement. Mr. Lyons explained that the 20,000 sq. ft. threshold is within the City' storm water management ordinance. He said once the 20,000 sq. ft. of disturbed area is met, it requires the storm water management. Mr. Bowen asked for confirmation that once the threshold is met, the applicant would have to submit a full plan and adhere to it. Mr. Lyons confirmed. Mr. Mott asked if staff had reached out to the Wisconsin DNR. Mr. Lyons replied they had due to environmental concerns from the Plan Commission. He said staff inquired about types of permits and code requirements. Mr. Mott suggested to approve or layover the request contingent on the Wisconsin DNR results. Mr. Perry stated in his opinion, the DNR is a higher authority. He did not think it was necessary to wait on the results because the DNR could overrule Plan Commission. Mr. Mott said he thought it was important to understand whether or not the applicant falls within some of the permits that are required under Chapter NR 216 for Storm Water Discharge Permits. He stated the auto salvage could have risks of exposure to storm water from batteries, liquids, tires and similar items. He said to prevent these risks, those items need to be contained to avoid contamination. Mr. Burich reiterated that staff is not approving a salvage yard and staff tried to make it clear in the staff report that it will not be an auto salvage facility. Mr. Bowen said it is clarified in condition #17. Mr. Perry added it is also clarified in condition #3. Plan Commission Minutes December 4, 2018 Motion by Perry to approve a Specific Implementation Plan amendment for vehicle sales at 1911 West Snell Road with the following conditions: 1. Base Standard Modification is granted for reduction in the transition yard on the west property line from 17.5' to 10' as granted as part of the 2006 approval. 2. Site/Business is maintained and operated per the submitted plan. There shall be no expansion of or change of uses on -site without further approval through the Planned Development process. 3. Outside storage of parts, fluid, tires, inoperable/unlicensed vehicles and other automotive service related items shall be prohibited in all areas other than the approved enclosed storage area. No outdoor storage shall be permitted outside of the approved enclosed storage area. 4. Towing -related fleet vehicles are limited in parking location to under the existing metal canopy, between the canopy and the building or in the screened storage areas as per the 2006 approval. 5. Driveway, access drives and parking shall be brought up to city standards for hard surfacing per section 30-175(S), examples are concrete or asphalt. 6. Outdoor storage area shall be fully screened with an 8' solid code compliant fence per section 30- 81(B), examples are wood, vinyl or pre -woven galvanized and/or coated chain link that is at least 90 percent opaque. Final fence elevations to be reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission. 7. Site is limited to 21 vehicle sales spaces and those spaces shall be identified by on site signage. 8. Applicant shall provide a fully dimensioned and scaled parking lot plan to Plan Commission for final approval of the parking lot plan. 9. Parking lot shall be striped in accordance with the approved site plan. 10. No parking shall be permitted outside of the legally established and striped spaces as approved as part of the site plan 11. Applicant shall provide storm water management once 20,000 sq. ft. of total disturbed area is reached. 12. Site shall either be brought into conformance with the 2008 landscaping plan or meet the current landscaping code requirements for paved area, street frontage and yards. 13. The building addition shall be constructed of the same type and color of materials as the existing building. Final building addition elevations to be reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission. 14. Outdoor storage area plan shall be to be reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission. 15. All vehicles in parking spaces shall in be operable condition for safe and legal performance on public right-of-way. 16. All semi -tractors, semi -trailers and towed vehicles shall be stored within the approved enclosed storage area. 17. Permitted use shall be limited to; auto & truck repair, auto service, towing, auto parts sales and auto sales. For purposes of clarification, auto salvage is not a permitted use and vehicles shall not be dismantled and sold for parts on the property. 18. No vehicle of any type shall be kept in the enclosed outdoor storage area for a period of time exceeding 6 months. The enclosed outdoor storage area shall not function as a salvage yard and shall not store vehicles that are being sold for parts or scrap. Seconded by Vajgrt. Plan Commission Minutes December 4, 2018 Mr. Hinz and Mr. Fojtik thanked staff for working diligently on this request and taking the time to rectify some of the items Plan Commission had concerns with. Motion carried 8-0. II. TWO -LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 601 W. COUNTY ROAD Y The petitioner is seeking approval of a two -lot land division/certified survey map from one existing lot located at 601 W. County Road Y. Sizes of the proposed lots are as follows: Lot 1 = 00.165 Acres Lot 2 = 94.875 Acres With the following condition: Place access restrictions along the frontages of County Road Y and Jackson Street (State Highway 76, besides where current driveway openings exist). 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 applicant is proposing to divide off a small lot for a potential residential institutional use. Proposed Lot 1 is sized at 0.165 acres. Access to Lot 1 is available via the driveway entrance for the County Highway Department. City water is available on County Road Y. Sanitary sewer is located on County Road Y, however, the pipe is a force main and connection to it is not allowed. Proposed Lot 2 is 94.875 acres in size. There are currently no plans to expand or modify the existing uses on the site. Generally, the city prefers to restrict access to arterial and collector streets, therefore staff is recommending placing access restrictions along Jackson Street and County Road Y along the entire frontage besides where exiting openings exist. Public Works did not have a chance to review the CSM prior to the distribution of the staff report. Mr. Nau explained that there are two additional conditions that have been added now that Public Works has had a chance to review the CSM. Sam Hall, 710 N. Plankinton Avenue, said he is the attorney on behalf of Winnebago County and is present to answer any questions about the land division and the condition use permit request. Motion by Vajgrt to approve a two -lot land division/certified survey map for property located at 601 W. County Road Y with the following amended conditions: Place access restrictions along the frontages of County Road Y and Jackson Street (State Highway 76, besides where current driveway openings exist). Dedicate right-of-way to obtain 40' of width south of the centerline of W. County Road Y. Place note on CSM stating city sanitary sewer is not available along County Road Y. Seconded by Mott. Plan Commission Minutes December 4, 2018 Mr. Bowen asked if certified survey maps required Council approval. Mr. Nau replied that they do not. Mr. Bowen inquired what the steps would be if the land division was approved but the conditional use permit was not. Mr. Nau explained if that were the case, the City would not sign the final CSM. Motion carried 8-0. III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ESTABLISH AN INSTITUTIONAL RESIDENTIAL USE AT 601 W. COUNTY ROAD Y The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to establish an institutional residential use at 601 W. County Road Y with the following conditions: 1. A final site plan, landscape plan and building elevation plans shall be submitted and approved by the Department of Community Development. 2. A sanitary sewer connection or other on -site sewer system be provided for the residence as approved by the Department of Community Development. 3. The residence is limited to maximum of one (1) occupant. 4. Direct access may not be provided to County Road Y from the residence. 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 requesting approval of a conditional use permit to establish an institutional residential facility for a County resident convicted of a sexual offense (Wis. Stat. 980) and deemed ready for release. The application states that Section 980 of the Wisconsin Statutes requires the County to identify a suitable place for residence for this offender. The applicant anticipates there will be only a single resident on the subject parcel and the County intends to install a pre -manufactured housing structure for the facility. The County will bear the cost of establishing utility and other necessary service connections to the parcel and providing necessary access/parking for the facility. The applicant notes that due to the particular resident intended to be housed at the site, state law imposes some limits on what can be located within a certain proximity of the subject parcel. As the applicant owns the surrounding land beyond 1,500 feet from the parcel, the applicant can reasonably guarantee that land within that proximity will not be used for these purposes. Mr. Perry stated he would like to ask the applicant more about the prefab house in regard to number of bedrooms. Mr. Hinz said the staff report states limited to one occupant. Plan Commission Minutes December 4, 2018 Mr. Perry said there may be more than one bedroom dependent on what the requirements are for staff. Mr. Bowen inquired what the next steps would be if this particular resident no longer resides at the property. Mr. Burich stated that from staff standpoint, the conditions and the conditional use permit would be going forward in perpetuity Mr. Bowen suggested adding a timeline. Sam Hall, 710 N. Plankinton Avenue, said he is the attorney representing Winnebago County. He explained that the request is due to the new statutory framework that was updated a year and a half ago. He said the applicant is currently looking at a two bedroom mobile home unit with one person residing in it. He said the two bedroom would allow more room for monitoring. He stated he does not know what the future holds for the parcel or mobile home after the resident leaves. He explained that because of this uncertainty, it is a reason why the applicant is proposing a mobile home. Mr. Hall gave background information on the updated statute in regard to the 980 sex offender having to be returned to their local community. He explained that Winnebago County had to find a suitable place for the offender to live that met all the setback requirements. He said there were not a lot of sites that satisfied all those requirement but the parcel does with the added benefit of being close to the Sheriff's department. He reiterated the uncertainty of next steps for the parcel. He explained that with the statute and being under court order, there is a tight timeframe/urgency for the County to find suitable housing. He said the County is willing to comply with all the conditions placed on the request. Mr. Hinz asked if there would be a possibility of more offenders added to the area. He is concerned that there may potentially be a community of offenders. Mr. Hall replied he sympathizes with the concern but cannot say what the future may hold for the property. Mr. Hinz asked if there have been any discussions about doing a similar request for other offenders. Mr. Hall replied there have not. He said the County does know of one other offender but that offender is not subject to this current statute. He explained that the offender to be housed is the only offender they know of that is subject to the current statute requirements. Mr. Bowen asked for Mr. Hall to explain the nature of the supervised release and to give background on typical monitoring practices for this type of offender. Mr. Hall explained the monitoring is significant. He said the State will be providing a formal supervised release plan of which has not been submitted. Plan Commission Minutes December 4, 2018 Mr. Bowen asked what type of monitoring is typical for this offender. Mr. Hall replied it is similar to a prison. He said the offender would be essentially on house arrest with no availability of the internet. He said there will also be people onsite monitoring. He reiterated there will be more details once the State has finalized the supervised release plan. Mr. Bowen asked if the County would be open to a timeline for review to be added as a condition in case the property is no longer utilized as requested. Mr. Hall said he understands the suggestion but has concerns due to the County being under a statutory court order obligation to find permanent housing. He said adding a review timeline could be viewed as temporary housing and not permanent. Mr. Bowen asked what the typical timeframe is for this supervision period. Mr. Hall replied it varies depending on the offender, the offense, the age and so on. Mr. Perry asked staff why it is considered an institutional use rather than a residential use. Mr. Burich explained the type of use requested fits into the zoning ordinance as an institutional residential use as it will be owned and operated by Winnebago County. Mr. Lyons added it also fits with the zoning district. He explained if it were to be zoned as residential, the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended to do a spot zoning. Mr. Perry asked for confirmation that the County could not sell the parcel as a residential property after the requested use is no longer being utilized. Mr. Lyons replied it could not because institutional does not allow single-family residential plus the County would have to rezone the parcel which may or may not be approved. Mr. Hinz said it is County owned and would have to follow the County processes. Mr. Perry inquired if it was possible to add a condition limiting the number of bedrooms to the mobile home. He stated his concern is that once it is larger than two beds, the County could petition the State for licensure for an adult family home and there would be no limits for who could reside at the home. Mr. Burich said it is a reasonable request since the conditional use permit is requesting for a mobile home for one occupancy. Mr. Lyons added that under the statute, it would be a reasonable request. Mr. Perry stated he recommends it as a condition. Plan Commission Minutes December 4, 2018 Mr. Burich said one of the conditions also states a maximum of one occupant. Mr. Perry inquired if the condition would hold if the County petitions the State for licensure for an adult family home. He recommends adding the condition of no more than two bedrooms to prevent such instances. Mr. Burich explained there are different statutes in aspects of adult family homes that could prevail over local preemptions for adult family homes. Mr. Perry explained what his thoughts would be if he were the County and how he would cut costs by adding more residents. He said his main concern is adding a third person because of the State licensure. Mr. Burich discussed the new language for condition #3. Mr. Fojtik commented that modifying the condition would still allow the County to comply with the court order. Mr. Burich asked who is responsible in respect to the maintenance, facility and the grounds. Mr. Hall clarified that the County would be the landlord and charging rent but the supervising requirements belong to the State. He said the State will be paying rent and bear the supervising costs. He said the County would maintain the grounds just like a landlord. Mr. Perry asked if the County would contract the supervision services. Mr. Hall answered that the County does not have the capabilities since the supervision is controlled by the State. Mr. Perry asked if the State had contractors or contracted companies they could use for the supervision services. Mr. Hall replied that they may. Mr. Perry suggested again that he would like to add the two bedroom limit as a condition due to concerns about contractor motives. Mr. Hall stated the County only plans on putting up a two bedroom unit and has no interest to put up a three bedroom unit. Mr. Burich suggested to amend condition #3. Mr. Bowen said he understands the conflict regarding the review timeline but is still concerned with future communications between the applicant and the City. He stated he is concerned about Plan Commission Minutes December 4, 2018 establishing a use that could go on in perpetuity. He asked if staff would be in support of another condition which would be to review the conditional use permit after termination of residency. Mr. Burich asked for feedback from the Plan Commission. Mr. Perry clarified that if the County is willing to do the heavy lifting for this offender, this offender has some significant needs that need to be addressed. Mr. Bowen said he understands that aspect but is concerned from a planning perspective. Mr. Burich explained there have been requests that had a review timeline but the intention or the review was to look at placing additional conditions to the request. Mr. Perry commented that the property is designed for this particular use and if this offender leaves the residency, the contractor would find another resident to keep the revenue flowing. He said the home will always be used to this purpose unless the surrounding areas are sold and turned into residential development. He said the home could also be directly wired to the Sheriff's department. Mr. Burich stated they could add a review timeline but it would have to be after the offender no longer resides at the property. Mr. Hinz said it could be reviewed every time the home was vacant but that could lead to being reviewed multiple times a year. Mr. Fojtik commented that Plan Commission might be limited to what they could do with during the review. Mr. Hinz suggested laying down the ground work for the request with limiting the home to a two bedroom maximum. Mr. Burich explained that conditional use permits have changed through the years and it is harder to sunset a request. Mr. Vajgrt agreed with Mr. Perry on amending condition #3. Motion by Hinz to amend condition number 3 as follows: The residential structure is limited to maximum density of one (1) occupant and maximum of two (2) bedrooms. Seconded by Uajgrt. Motion carried 8-0. Motion by Uajgrt to approve a conditional use permit to establish an institutional residential use for property located at 601 W. County Road Y with the following amended conditions: Plan Commission Minutes December 4, 2018 1. A final site plan, landscape plan and building elevation plans shall be submitted and approved by the Department of Community Development. 2. A sanitary sewer connection or other on -site sewer system be provided for the residence as approved by the Department of Community Development. 3. The residential structure is limited to maximum density of one (1) occupant and maximum of two (2) bedrooms. 4. Direct access may not be provided to County Road Y from the residence. Seconded by Hinz. Motion carried 8-0. IV. ZONE CHANGE FROM SUBURBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT (SMU) TO SUBURBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (SMU-PD), GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A COMMERCIAL OFFICE AT 1755 W. 7TH AVENUE The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Suburban Mixed Use District (SMU) to Suburban Mixed Use District with a Planned Development Overlay (SMU-PD), approval for a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan for 1755 W. 7th Avenue. Mr. Lyons 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 use the existing vacant commercial building as their commercial office building. In doing so, the applicant is requesting to reuse the existing pylon sign pole and replace the existing diamond shaped cabinet with a new rectangular cabinet. The applicant is proposing a blockout style sign where only the letters would be internally illuminated. Staff is in support of a zone change to include the planned development overlay as the applicant and owner are willing to make other improvements to the site and limiting the allowed uses of the property. Mr. Perry asked if the applicant decided to go with the 97.4 sq. ft. pylon sign, if they would be able to keep the signage from the south building facade. Mr. Lyons replied that currently the signs are legal nonconforming unless Plan Commission would like to add another condition for signage. Mr. Perry asked if the top board on the south facade was a message board. Mr. Lyons replied yes, it is an Electronic Message Center. Mr. Perry questioned if the EMC was operational. Mr. Lyons said he was not sure but the applicant could verify. Mr. Burich added that it was operational when AE Jewelers was in the building. Plan Commission Minutes 10 December 4, 2018 Mr. Lyons showed the EMC and described how some panels look like they have been replaced over the years. Mr. Perry said the way the EMC is placed on the building, it could be easily used for help wanted advertising. Mr. Lyons explained the thought process of staff for the conditions they chose. Mr. Perry inquired about the applicant's options for signage. Mr. Lyons replied the conditions could be modified as needed by Plan Commission to give the applicant more options for signage. John Davids, 1560 Arboretum Drive, stated he is the future owner of the property. He clarified details about the channel letter sign that would replace the cabinet sign on the west facade. He said he would prefer the 128.1 sq. ft. pylon sign because it would allow a border around the logo and make it more aesthetically appealing. He said if he would only be allowed the 97.4 sq. ft. sign, then he would like to keep the EMC. He explained that he had met with the neighbors and they support the request. He said the neighbors would like a longer hedgerow than what is proposed and he is willing to extend it for them. He explained more about the landscaping plans and stated he is agreeable to the signage conditions. Mr. Burich stated is did speak with the adjacent property owners and they do support the request. Motion by Uajgrt to approve a zone change from the existing Suburban Mixed Use District (SMU) to Suburban Mixed Use District with a Planned Development Overlay (SMU-PD), approval of a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan for property located at 1755 W. 7th Avenue with the following conditions: 1. Those adult uses as described in Section 30-59(D) shall be prohibited as permitted uses. 2. Base standard modification to allow a 55' tall pylon sign. This shall apply to only this request and any future changes to the sign shall require the sign to be brought into compliance with current ordinance requirements. 3. Base standard modification to allow a 128.1 sq. ft. pylon sign. 4. All signage shall be removed from the south building fagade. 5. Pylon and west wall signs shall be blockout style with only the letters being internally illuminated. 6. Applicant shall provide an additional 30 points of paved area landscaping along the southern edge of the parking lot. Seconded by Hinz. Mr. Burich asked if anyone had issues with the signage. Mr. Bowen inquired more about Mr. Perry's concerns regarding the signage. Plan Commission Minutes 11 December 4, 2018 Mr. Perry stated his concern was that the applicant didn't have more options but the applicant prefers the option staff recommended in the conditions. Mr. Hinz added that the applicant seems to be in favor of the 128.1 sq. ft. pylon sign. Motion carried 8-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:04 pm. (Vajgrt/Hinz) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services Plan Commission Minutes 12 December 4, 2018