Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES March 5,2019 PRESENT: Steve Cummings, Thomas Fojtik, Michael Ford, Derek Groth,John Hinz, Andrew Mott, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp, Robert Vajgrt EXCUSED: Ed Bowen,John Kiefer STAFF: Darryn Burich, Planning Director;Steve Gohde,Assistant Director of Public Works; Mark Lyons, Principal Planner;Brian Slusarek, Assistant Planner; Steven Wiley, Assistant Planner;Mina Kuss, Recording Secretary Chairperson Fojtik called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. He stated this is the first Plan Commission meeting where they will be utilizing a new process. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of February 19, 2019 were approved as presented. (Propp/Ford) I. COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL BUILDING NOT PREDOMINATELY CLAD IN CLASS I MATERIALS AND ACCESS CONTROL VARIANCE FOR REDUCED LATERAL CLEARANCE AND DRIVEWAY SPACING AT 831 N. WASHBURN STREET The applicant is requesting approval of the following variances at 831 N. Washburn Street: 1. Commercial Design Standards Variance to allow a new commercial building with less than 50% of total building facades clad in Class I materials. 2. Access Control Variance to allow reduced lateral clearance to 44.8' where code requires 75' and reduced driveway spacing to 109.3' (north) and 67.7' (south)where code requires 125'. 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 develop a new commercial site,including a 10,904 square foot building and 29,509 square foot parking lot. According to the application/plans, 12% of the north facade, 30% of the south facade, 70% of the east facade and 0% of the west facade will be clad in Class I materials. The east facade meets the required 50%Class I material requirement and west (rear)facade is exempt from the requirement. A design standards variance is required for the north and south facades to be less than 50%Class I materials. The Class I materials (12%) on the north facade will be mainly brick veneer and glass windows while the remainder of the facade will be primarily split-face C.M.U. (Class II). According to the applicant, providing additional Class I materials on the north facade would change the corporate standard finishes and trade dress as well as increase the project complexity. The Class I materials (30%) on the south facade will also be mainly brick veneer and glass with the remainder of the facade being utilized for overhead doors along with split-face C.M.U. According Plan Commission Minutes 1 March 5,2019 to the application, additional Class I materials on this facade is not feasible due to the need for solid service bay and access doors, which need to be solid materials for both security and energy purposes. This facade also is wrapped with glass showroom area on the most visible (front) portion. Staff feels that in this case, enforcement of the design standards results in unnecessary hardship. Specifically,the need for overhead doors on the south facade results in difficulty meeting the 50%Class I requirement. According to the applicant, a reduction of the 75' lateral clearance requirement is needed so trucks are able to maneuver on site. The required 125' spacing between driveway approaches is not feasible in this case, as there is approximately 217'between the neighboring driveways (to the north and south). The code required spacing cannot be met for this site and the proposed spacing is appropriate based on the layout of the site. Site Inspection Reports: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Plan Commission voted to accept the staff report as part of the record which passed unanimously. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry asked about the building materials of the surrounding buildings. Mr. Burich responded Dick's is likely made up of mainly Class 1 materials. Mr. Lyons stated a lot of the buildings such as The Bar and PetSmart were built prior to the current code where the requirements were not in place. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments. There were no public comments on this item. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the following variances at 831 N. Washburn Street with the following findings: 1. Commercial Design Standards Variance to allow a new commercial building with less than 50% of total building facades clad in Class I materials. Findings: 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. 2. Due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. 2. Access Control Variance to allow reduced lateral clearance to 44.8,where code requires 75'and reduced driveway spacing to 109.3' (north) and 67.7'(south) where code requires 125'. Seconded by Propp. Plan Commission Minutes 2 March 5,2019 Ms. Propp commented the applicant has a good reason to use the variance and she will be supporting it. Motion by Ford to adopt findings within the staff report. Seconded by Mott. Motion passed unanimously. First motion carried 9-0. II. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A COMMUNITY LIVING ARRANGEMENT LOCATED AT 3851 JACKSON STREET Site Inspection Reports: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Plan Commission voted to accept the staff report as part of the record which passed unanimously. The applicant requests Specific Implementation Plan approval to allow for a Community Living Arrangement at 3851 Jackson Street. 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 develop the existing vacant commercial parcel into a 1-story,40,040 sq. ft., 53 unit assisted living facility. The facility will be a licensed Community Based Residential Facility (CBRF)with the State of Wisconsin Department of Health Services. The proposed building is designed to fit between the wetland areas. Vehicular access to the development is provided by a shared access driveway south of the proposed development, which currently serves the adjacent commercial area. The applicant has indicated that they do have some high peak times for visitor parking that necessitates the extra parking spaces. The proposed driveway area in the front yard is 45' in width and is necessary for delivery truck circulation. Finalized landscaping plan, storm water management plan and photometric plan will be addressed during the Site Plan Review process. Final code compliant signage will require a building permit. Final building elevations have been submitted. The City does not have design standard requirements for institutional uses, therefore elevation plans for multi-family design standards were utilized as a reference. The buildings are primarily clad in a mixture of stone and wood fiber siding and appear to be meeting multi-family design standards. The plan includes a proposed a dumpster enclosure to the south of the building at the west end of the parking lot and will match the principal structure in materials. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Fojtik inquired about when in the process does the final lighting plan and landscaping plan get approved. Mr. Slusarek replied it occurs during Site Plan review. Plan Commission Minutes 3 March 5,2019 Mr. Perry said these types of facilities are in demand based on the current demographics but may not be in demand in 15 years. He urged the city to look at the plan in 15 years because these facilities will be the strip malls of the future. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments. Ken Koziczkowski,4825 County Road A, said he was from Ganther Construction/Architecture, the architecture company representing the potential buyer of the property. He stated he is available for questions. Mr. Fojtik closed public comments. Motion by Uajgrt to adopt findings within the staff report and approve a Specific Implementation Plan for a Community Living Arrangement at 3851 Jackson Street with the following conditions: 1. Base Standard Modification to allow a total of 41 parking spaces. 2. Base Standard Modification to allow a 45'wide driveway in the front yard. 3. Cross Access Agreement required for driveway entrance to the site. 4. Landscaping and lighting plans must meet base code requirements. Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 9-0. Mr. Cummings left at 4:18 pm. III: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A PET GROOMING BUSINESS AT 1691 OHIO STREET Site Inspection Reports: Ms. Propp and Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Plan Commission voted to accept the staff report as part of the record which passed unanimously. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to establish a pet grooming business at 1691 Ohio Street. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. According to the applicant, the owner of the business will occupy the residence on the lot and will exclusively own and operate the business with no additional employees. The business is expected to have about 20 pets per week to start and possibly grow up to 40 pets per week, with hours by appointment only to start. The application states that there will be no changes made to the site. The applicant also notes that every pet taken outside from the business will be on a leash with the business owner or animal owner only and no pets will be left unattended if outside. The existing parking meets code requirements for a commercial animal boarding/day care use. Staff is in support of the proposed pet grooming use as Plan Commission Minutes 4 March 5,2019 the relatively small scale of the operation should not be detrimental to the surrounding residential uses. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Hinz questioned if there was ample room for parking at the site especially during the winter. Mr. Slusarek replied there are two parking stalls along the side of the commercial unit. Motion by Vajgrt to open up the public hearing. Seconded by Ford. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Fojtik asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Sydney Todd, 807 Bay Shore Drive, stated she would be the owner and would be utilizing the side driveway for customer parking. She said she also has a pretty long driveway on the other side of the building which could also be utilized for customer parking since she only has two cars. She explained there would be off-street parking available but would prefer off-street parking customers to park on 171h Avenue instead of Ohio Street. Ms. Propp inquired about the length of time an animal would be at the site for pet grooming. Ms. Todd explained the length of time could vary up to four hours depending on the dog. She said the pet owner would drop off the dog and would come back later to pick up the dog. Ms. Propp asked if there would be daycare. Ms. Todd replied it is not a daycare or boarding facility. She said the facility would be for grooming only. Mr. Fojtik closed the public hearing. Motion by Propp to adopt findings within the staff report and approve the Conditional Use Permit for a pet grooming business at 1691 Ohio Street with the following condition: 1. All animals must be leashed when outside and may not be left unattended. Seconded by Hinz. Motion carried 8-0. IV: APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW TWO NEW ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER (EMC) SIGNS AT 501 E. PARKWAY AVENUE Plan Commission Minutes 5 March 5,2019 The applicant requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan amendment to allow two Electronic Message Center (EMC) signs at 501 E. Parkway Avenue. Mr. Wiley 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 not proposing any changes besides the on- building signage. Currently the on-building signage consists of wall signage primarily near the building entrances and visually compatible with the building. The applicant is requesting a Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) amendment to allow the addition of a digital EMC on the south side of the building and the addition of a digital EMC to the north side of the building. In both cases, the new EMCs would supplement the existing on-building wall signage. The intent of the applicant is to use this signage to provide information to visitors on hours the facility is open and events occurring there. The combined area of both proposed EMCs is approximately 23.44 sq. feet. The zoning ordinance allows a maximum of 100 sq. ft. per side for an EMC on an Institutional- zoned parcel. The combined area of the two proposed EMCs is less than one-fourth of the total area allowed by base zoning. The ordinance does only permit one (1) EMC per lot so the applicant will require a base standard modification(BSM)to allow two EMCs on this site. The applicant's site,building and adjacent railroad all serve as buffers that should minimize potential problems for neighboring properties. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Fojtik thanked Mr. Wiley for the visuals relating to the distances from residential. Mr. Hinz questioned if the EMCs would have to be auto-adjusting depending on the time of day. Mr. Wiley replied they would have to be auto-adjusting by ordinance. Mr. Ford asked if the sign would scroll. Mr. Wiley said he was not sure but it would have to comply with the ordinance. Mr. Burich and Mr. Lyons said they do not believe scrolling is allowed. Mr. Fojtik asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Site Inspection Reports: Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Jamie Wilcox, 350 W. 141h Avenue, said he is not familiar with the regulations on the EMCs and would like know what the regulations are. He explained the reason for the signs which is to notify visitors of events or hours without having them walk to the door, especially in the winter. He said the reasoning for two signs is that each entrance serves a different age group. Mr. Burich read from the ordinance on regulations for the EMCs. Mr. Wilcox asked for confirmation that it could not be scrolling. Plan Commission Minutes 6 March 5,2019 Mr. Lyons said it could not and explained the minimum amount a time a message could be up before changing. Mr. Wilcox inquired about the auto-adjusting light. Mr. Lyons read from the ordinance the regulations for the EMCs. He said all EMCs should have a photo sensor built in to adjust the light depending on the time of day. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were public comments. Dan Rylance,602 E. Parkway Avenue, said he is a neighbor to the Boys and Girls Club and they are a great neighbor. He said he has lived in his home for 20 years and has no objections to the signs. He voiced his and the neighborhood's concerns about traffic on E. Parkway Avenue. He said there is very high traffic in the area due to the busses and schools. He stated there is no law enforcement in the area. Mr. Fojtik closed public comments. Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings within the staff report and approve a Specific Implementation Plan amendment to allow two new Electronic Message Center(EMC) signs at 501 E. Parkway Avenue with the following conditions: 1. Base standard modification to allow the addition of two (2) EMCs on the site in accordance with the locations provided by the applicant. 2. No additional freestanding or on-building signage shall be installed on site without applying for and receiving approval from the Plan Commission and Common Council. 3. 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. 4. Proposed EMCs shall meet all ordinance standards for Electronic Message Boards, as explained in Section 30-280 of the Zoning Ordinance. Seconded by Ford. Motion carried 7-0-1 (Abstain:Perry). Mr. Fojtik commented the signs makes perfect sense for the use of them. Ms. Propp said she feels better about the signs because they are located on the building instead of being a freestanding sign or monument sign. V: PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (HI) TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (HI- PD),APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ADDITION AT 2661 W. 20TH AVENUE Plan Commission Minutes 7 March 5,2019 Site Inspection Reports: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Plan Commission voted to accept the staff report as part of the record which passed unanimously. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Heavy Industrial District (HI) to Heavy Industrial District with a Planned Development Overlay (HI-PD). The applicant also requests approval of a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan to allow for an industrial building addition. 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 proposed development consists of an approximately 6,250 sq. ft.building addition along the side of the existing building. The building expansion would provide storage area for raw stock (some of which is presently stored outside) and provide room for additional automated tooling centers. The proposed development will continue to utilize a single existing access drive from W. 20th Avenue. The site will still meet the code requirements for parking. The applicant is requesting a Base Standard Modification(BSM) to reduce the rear yard setback from 25' to 14.5' to accommodate the building addition. Staff is in support of the requested BSM as it will provided an opportunity for a growing local business to remain at its current location. By reducing the rear yard setback it will allow the applicant space to include two more 25'machine bays. Staff believes the reduction in setback can be mitigated by additional landscaping, including additional landscaping for the adjacent residential area, while having minimal impact on the industrial use to the south. Section 30-240 of the zoning ordinance requires building expansion of less than 50 percent of the existing floor area to be substantially similar to the design and materials of the existing building. The proposed building addition will be clad in ribbed metal siding to match the existing ribbed metal building. Final building elevations will be reviewed and approved during Site Plan Review. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. Mr. Fojtik opened up the public hearing. Howard Floeter, PO Box 983 of Fond du Lac, said he is from Cadre Inc. representing the applicant/owner. He stated the owner has no concerns with the landscape modifications. He said he is available to answer any questions. Mr. Fojtik closed the public hearing. Motion by Uajgrt to adopt the findings within the staff report, approve a zone change from Suburban Mixed Use district (SMU) to Neighborhood Mixed Use district with a Planned Development overlay (NMU-PD), General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan for an industrial building addition at 2661 W. 201h Avenue with the following conditions: Plan Commission Minutes 8 March 5,2019 1. Base standard modification to reduce the rear yard setback from 25'to 14.5'. 2. Final storm water management plans approved by the Department of Public Works as part of the formal Site Plan Review. 3. Final landscaping plan shall be approved by the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 8-0. VI: PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM SUBURBAN MIXED USE (SMU) TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 12 (MR-12) AND APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DEVELOPMENT FOR MULTI-FAMILY LOCATED AT THE 1400 BLOCK OF OSBORN Site Inspection Reports: Ms. Propp and Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Plan Commission voted to accept the memo as part of the record which passed unanimously. Mr. Lyons presented the item and explained that staff had originally received a zone change and Conditional Use Permit request for the 1400 block of Osborn Road. The request was related to a proposal for construction of six 12 unit apartment buildings. In compliance with state law a class II notice for Public Hearing was submitted on February 20th and published on February 23rd and February 26th stating that a Public Hearing would take place on March 5th. On February 21, the applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed project. As a result of that meeting, the applicant is proposing modification to the development plan. Due to the timing of the advertised Public Hearing and time necessary to revise the plans, staff was not able to provide an official staff report and recommendation for action for the March 5th Plan Commission meeting and the applicant is requesting official action be delayed until the March 19th Plan Commission meeting. However, as the Public Hearing has already been noticed for March 5th, there is a requirement to hold the Public Hearing. An official staff report and recommendation,based on the revised plans will be provided as part of the March 19th Plan Commission packet. Mr. Lyons showed the original plan and compared it to the revised plan. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Propp inquired about the density. Mr. Lyons responded the density falls significantly below the unit density that could be allowed. Mr. Burich gave background information on the reasoning for the zone change and Conditional Use Permit. He said the SMU district used to allow residential as a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Lyons commented there is additional material that has been added such as the two letter written by an adjacent property owner. Mr. Burich added the letters are both from Joe and Carol Ferlo of 1230 Devonshire Drive. Plan Commission Minutes 9 March 5,2019 Mr. Mott questioned about the area to the north. Mr. Lyons replied it was a multi-tier landscaping berm. Ms. Propp inquired about the water easement located at the northwest corner. Mr. Lyons explained it is an underground water line. Mr. Gohde added it was for drinking water. Mr. Fojtik opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Sarah Hillenbrand, 3121 Gateway Road of Brookfield, stated she is with Premier Real Estate. She stated Premier is the development firm that has completed two projects in the last four years in Oshkosh. She said the projects were Soda Creek and Oregon Place. She explained the projects helped them understand how much of a need apartments were to the city. She said Oregon Place was 100%pre-leased the day it opened. She brought a rendering of the building. She gave background information on the neighborhood meeting and the concerns/feedback of the neighbors. She said in light of the concerns, they decided to redesign the site to try and please as many neighbors as possible. She said as part of the redesign, there was more landscapingibuffer added to the north and the drive leading to Mason Street was removed. She stated they only want what is best for the neighborhood. Mr. Hinz inquired about the tree line on the northwest corner of the property. Ms. Hillenbrand replied the tree line does end at the south of the Ferlo property. She said she believes the ordinance states that the tree line should run along the true property line but they are not doing that because they are trying to be as accommodating as possible. Ms. Propp inquired about the western part of the site. Ms. Hillenbrand referred to her rendering. She explained all front doors to the units are located on the long stretches of the building and the garages are located on the shorter sides of the building. She said the area Ms. Propp was inquiring about would be the garage areas of six units. Cindy Smith, 1345 Kensington Avenue, said she had many questions. She asked about the access drive to Mason Street, the height of the berm, distance of the berm to her property line,if there would be a dugout for the water runoff,elevation and the buffer screen. Joe Ferlo, 1230 Devonshire Drive, said he was here with his wife Carol. He thanked Ms. Hillenbrand,Jim and city staff for going over and beyond with helping find a solution to please as many people as possible. He stated the buildings are lovely looking. He showed pictures of his property with the placement of the buildings overlaid. He stated he is not trying to stop the development but would like the developers to take one more look at the site. He said the Plan Commission Minutes 10 March 5,2019 development will affect the property values as well as the backyards. He referenced both of his letters and said he is very thankful for being able to meet and talk with the developers through the whole process. He explained that his lot is open to the site with no buffer. He suggested using the first site layout but removing the north building. He feels this would be a win-win for everyone. He stated he does not want anyone to feel as if he is ungrateful but is just asking for another look at the site. He explained how they chose the house at Devonshire Drive and have put in$40,000 worth of improvements in the hopes of retiring in that home. He thanked everyone again and welcomed anyone to visit his property to better understand his side. Mr. Fojtik closed the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing comments. John Maas, 840 Challenger Drive of Green Bay, stated he prepared a lot of the documentation for the property owner and Premier, the prospective developer. He referenced the hard copies of the site plan and landscaping plan he brought to the meeting. He explained the reasoning for the rezone, gave background information of the zoning for the surrounding properties and said he believes the rezone aligns with the Comprehensive Plan. He said one of the big concerns for the neighbors were the second floor balconies. He said to fix that issues, they will be installing a multi-tier berm which would consist of black spruce and would be 8-12 feet high and grow more when mature. Mr. Maas reviewed the amount of buffer between residential. He said Premier should be applauded for redesigning their site and completely removing one building. He said in order to accommodate the neighbors, they may have to get a variance for the landscaping at the northwest corner of the property because the landscaping does not line up with the true property line. He said they would leave the vegetation in that area. He stated the lot is one of the worst lots they have tried to develop into a multi-family. He stated the neighbors warned them about the petroleum contamination in the soil which does exist. He explained there and five to six feet of fill throughout the property. He said there are a lot of extra cost in developing this lot. Mr. Hinz questioned how tall the trees were at the northwest corner. Mr. Maas replied around 30 feet. Mr. Ferlo replied to the west, there are four to six oak trees that run along the property line which are quiet tall. He said at the very top northwest corner,there is a grove of trees which creates a buffer from his house and the house on Kensington Avenue. He stated keeping the vegetation in those areas is definitely a win. Mr. Hinz commented it is hard to tell distance without lines on the maps. Mr. Maas stated they are extending the buffer plantings 155.5 feet from the south even though it may go in a diagonal but may need a variance for this deviation. He said another concern from the neighbors was the developer having to trim down the mature trees by the fence area. He said the redesign mitigated the issue by creating more of a buffer and no trimming would be needed. He said they took into account the concerns of the neighbors during the redesign. Plan Commission Minutes 11 March 5,2019 Mr. Fojtik inquired about Mr. Ferlo's suggestion about utilizing the first plan but removing the north building. Mr. Maas explained the second plan gave more of a buffer from the transmission line towers in the front. He said the green space they created in the front can be a berm if necessary because it is one of the few places they can borrow clay soils from that aren't fill. He explained the areas outside of the buildings and pond are areas identified as fill. Ms. Propp thanked Mr. Maas. She inquired about what the northwest corner of the lot would look like at completion because it is hard for her to visualize. She said it is one of her primary concerns. She asked about the arborvitae hedge on the west side and why it does not go further south. Mr. Maas responded it runs to the Ferlo's southern property line. He explained the landscaping and how it aligns with the water main. Plan Commission and staff discussed the process for site inspections. Mr. Hinz commented he is very happy that developers are starting to work with Plan Commission on developments and willing to find a middle ground because it was not always like that. He commended staff for their work in creating this working relationship with developers. Ms. Fojtik agreed with Mr. Hinz. He asked what the process would be for next meeting on this item. Mr. Burich and Mr. Lyons explained the process would be the same as any other item but they would not need to hold a public hearing as that requirement has already been fulfilled. No actions were taken on this item. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:21 pm. (Vajgrt/Hinz) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services Plan Commission Minutes 12 March 5,2019