Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 5,2019 PRESENT: Mamadou Coulibaly, Thomas Fojtik,Michael Ford,Derek Groth,John Hinz,Justin Mitchell,Lori Palmeri, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp EXCUSED: Lynnsey Erickson,John Kiefer STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager;Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager/City Engineer;Jeff Nau, Associate Planner; Alexa Naudziunas,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 October 1, 2019 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Coulibaly) I. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM INSTITUTIONAL (I) DISTRICT TO INSTITUTIONAL—PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (I-PD) DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1745 OREGON STREET Site Inspections: Report: Mr. Groth, Mr. Hinz and Mr. Mitchell reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Institutional (1) District to Institutional- Planned Development(I-PD) District for the property located at 1745 Oregon St. 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 subject site is a triple fronted L-shaped lot which includes a school building that is now vacant as well as associated playground areas. The City is requesting this zone change after a discussion with the Oshkosh Area School District to help accommodate future reuse of the site. The school district has issued a Request for Proposal(RFP) for the former Smith school site. Establishing a Planned Development Overlay should help expedite redevelopment of the site. Also, with the property being located within a residential area, a Planned Development Overlay will be beneficial as it will allow for further review of future land use. No changes to the site are being proposed at this time. He said staff recommends approval of the zone change from Institutional (I) District to Institutional—Planned Development(I-PD) District at 1745 Oregon Street as requested. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. Plan Commission Minutes 1 November 5,2019 Ms. Propp mentioned that she saw on the news that there were two proposals but the school district rejected both of them. She said both proposals were for apartments. She asked if Institutional zoning was going to be appropriate for apartments. Mr. Lyons explained one of the reasons staff is looking at the Planned Development Overlay is because staff understands that reuse of the building is going to be challenging. He said by putting the Planned Development in place, it gives the tools needed to redevelop. Ms. Propp stated she understand the Planned Development and thinks it is great but questioned if Institutional was appropriate for apartments. Mr. Lyons explained Institutional with a Planned Development Overlay does give the ability for apartments. He said it will be similar to Cabrini school which will be discussed later in the meeting. He said Cabrini school is going through a similar process with being rezoned to I-PD. Mr. Fojtik opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Mitchell. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. II. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A NEW BUILDING FOR AN EXPRESS LURE FACILITY AT 355 N. WASHBURN STREET Site Inspections: Report: Mr. Groth, Mr. Hinz and Ms. Palmeri reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Plan Commission Minutes 2 November 5,2019 The petitioner requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan amendment for a new building for an express lube facility at 355 N. Washburn Street. 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 previously approved CUP/PD (2005) of the site was for the construction of an auto dealership including a showroom, associated service area, outdoor vehicle display areas and surface parking. The applicant proposes to expand the use to include the express lube facility of approximately 2,286 sq. ft. at the rear of the main building. The new building will be located within an area currently occupied by service and employee parking spaces. As part of the current proposal, the petitioner plans to remove one existing light pole just south of the proposed building's location. There will be no changes to signage or landscaping. No changes are being proposed to the existing building facades. The petitioner proposes to clad the new express lube building in split-face Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs) to match the existing dealership building. He said staff recommends approval of the Specific Implementation Plan amendment as proposed with the findings and a condition as listed in the staff report. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Mitchell requested that Mr. Wiley go back to the elevation image. He asked what was on the lower right side of the image at the bottom left. Mr. Wiley replied he believes that area is for waste oil. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Condition: 1. Petitioner shall submit an updated photometric plan with information verifying code compliance for illumination levels at the south property line as part of the Site Plan Review process. Seconded by Propp. Plan Commission Minutes 3 November 5,2019 Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Mitchell requested Mr.Wiley go back to the aerial photo. He said this is an intentional built environment and it just looks like a large concrete and asphalt slab with very minimal improvements or value in terms of the environment in which people are working/living and customers are visiting. He pointed out he has a slight issue with the part in the staff report where it states landscaping is not required because it is not visible form the street. He said we have an interest in having an environmentally friendly and attractive setting regardless of the visibility from the street. He said he understands there are limitations, given that it is a drive-thru lube,but there are waste oil receptacles that are out in the open. He said additional landscaping could help break up the large area of concrete. He said one of the things they are doing is trying to create valuable environmental and life areas that improve our lives. He believes that landscaping can help improve it in the same way it does at golf courses, parks and hunting in the woods. He stated he does not understand why landscaping isn't pursued to break up the concrete. Mr. Lyons explained that typically staff reviews them by looking at what is required and if Base Standard Modifications are being requested, if so, what is a reasonable ask to offset those requests. He said in this case there is none required and the applicant is not asking for any Base Standard Modifications. He said staff contemplated what the justification was for asking for landscaping and decided it was not required as part of the ordinance. He said it is a Planned Development and Plan Commission has leeway if they want to add other conditions. He reiterated that staff did not have a rational reason to why they should be requesting additional landscaping. Ms. Palmeri pointed out and read Item I in the staff report on page 4 under Findings and Recommendations. She stated she realized this was something that the Council found previously. Mr. Lyons replied that item could easily be removed from a finding in this case. He explained that staff looked at the actual ordinance requirements and there weren't any requirements for staff to use to require the landscaping. He reiterated that it is a Planned Development and it is in Plan Commission's purview to add/modify conditions or findings as they see fit. Ms. Palmeri said she brings it up because recently she was at the airport and the director was referencing some of the storm water issues that they face. She said it may or may not be attributed from the Outlet mall and the strip going across because they experienced some issues over there. Mr. Lyons said Stringham Creek watershed in general as you move east across the highway has some summations to the airport. Ms. Palmeri asked if this contributes to the Stringham Creek watershed. Mr. Gierach stated this is separate from the Stringham Creek watershed and that it is too far north. Mr. Lyons said he wouldn't imagine this area being impacted like it is by the airport due to the different watersheds. Plan Commission Minutes 4 November 5,2019 Mr. Hinz asked what would be required if the entire back section was redone/repaved. Mr. Lyons replied if a full reconstruct of the parking lot were to take place, it would have to be brought up to code with today's standards in terms of storm water management, landscaping, islands, curbing, etc. He said a mill and overlay resurfacing does not require those things but a full reconstruct does. Mr. Mitchell said he would like to make a motion. Plan Commission members and staff discussed the condition to be motioned and how it should be written based on the ordinance and previous methodologies. Motion by Mr. Mitchell to add the following condition: 1. Final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development and shall include an additional 80 points of landscaping around the new building. Seconded by Palmeri to add a second condition. Ms. Propp asked for confirmation that the landscaping would be only around the new building. Mr. Mitchell confirmed. Ms. Propp said there are a lot of issues with that. She said she sees ingress and egress. She stated there is not enough room on the side of the building and pointed it out on the map. Mr. Wiley mentioned landscaping on the southern end was discussed. He said they were going to require 40 points on the south side but the applicant came back and said it was not possible because there is only 16 feet for the access drive. Ms. Propp said they would have to move the building to the north. Mr. Wiley said they mentioned that they wanted to have a straight shot from the bays of the original dealership to the new building. Mr. Lyons said he believes the area is gated and customers would not be able to bring their vehicles to the back directly. He said the dealership would be taking the vehicles back. He said the developer can confirm. Mr. Mitchell explained to Ms. Propp that he was thinking more about adding landscaping by the waste oil receptacle area. Ms. Propp stated she is sympathetic to what Mr. Mitchell wants to accomplish but does not like the fact that the ordinance does not allow them to do this. She said she was not sure what grounds Plan Commission Minutes 5 November 5,2019 Plan Commission has if the applicant pushes back. She said she will probably not be supporting the amendment though she is sympathetic with the thought. Mr. Hinz echoed what Ms. Propp said. He said it is not that they shouldn't add more landscaping to the city because they should. He said Oshkosh is already known to be difficult to develop in and for Plan Commission to start adding conditions that are not required in the ordinance just further enhances that vision,whether it is true or not. He said adding this could discourage other developers from coining to Oshkosh. He stated Plan Commission needs to remain consistent in following the ordinance and the intent of it. He said he agrees with Ms. Propp and does not think this is the right time and place. Mr. Mitchell stated these two have pointed out that it is not in the ordinance and is not required. He said Mr. Lyons was kind of gray with his description. He said he is reading the staff report and there is a whole section on landscaping and it does not state that it is not required because staff can't do that. He said the staff report simply states it doesn't really make sense because this or that or because it is not seen from the road. He said this would mean that staff is giving a discussion that they would require it but it is not visible from the road. Mr. Lyons explained the section is referencing the fact that it is a Planned Development. He said staff looked at the base code and the base code does not require it. He explained that anytime it is a Planned Development,the City is given the option of valuating it. He said staff valuated it and did not think there was anything in the request the necessitated asking. He reiterated the ask is usually based on the amount of Base Standard Modifications requested. He said when someone makes an ask, staff will offset it and it is a compromise between the two bodies. He said in staff's opinion, there is no justification for the ask. Mr. Mitchell asked if it would be different if the building was facing the highway. Mr. Lyons replied it would because foundation landscaping and some of the street frontage landscaping would then come into play. Mr. Mitchell asked if there were ordinance requirements for landscaping based on if the building were visible from the street or not. Mr. Lyons replied correct. He explained some of the foundation landscaping requirements and street frontage plantings are related to proximity from the street. He said this is the same for exterior requirements for building materials and the visibility from the street. Mr. Ford asked if Mr. Wiley discussed landscaping with the applicant. Mr. Wiley replied correct but it was particularly for the south side of the building. Mr. Ford asked what the rationale was. Plan Commission Minutes 6 November 5,2019 Mr. Lyons said staff wanted to evaluate the impact to the south and ability to fit landscaping. He said staff thought the south side would make the most sense for landscaping. He explained the intent of landscaping is to mitigate impact on neighbors. He said Mr. Mitchell is correct that yard landscaping points are added to help beautify the site and change the environmental impact. He said staff did not see any value in adding landscaping to the south and did not have justification for the ask in forcing the applicant to do it. Mr. Ford thanked Mr. Lyons for clarifying the process. Ms. Palmeri asked if during the site plan review of the storm water management plans, if there was a possibility of having to add bioswales to the site or storm water mitigation that would lend itself along the lines of environmental consideration. Mr. Lyons said he does not believe there will be much change because this is changing from impervious surface to another impervious surface but said Mr. Gierach would know more. Mr. Gierach said in this specific case, the applicant will be removing street, parking or drive aisles and adding a building. He stated under Chapter 14, the requirements would be them needing to treat the street, parking or drive aisles not rooftops under reconstruction so there would be very minimal requirements,not necessarily even bioswales or anything like that for this project. Motion carried 5-4 (Ayes: Coulibaly, Groth,Mitchell, Palmeri, Perry. Nays:Fojtik, Ford, Hinz, Propp) to add a second condition. Motion carried 9-0 to approve first motion. Final conditions to state: 1. Petitioner shall submit an updated photometric plait with information verifying code compliance for illumination levels at the south property line as part of the Site Plan Review process. 2. Final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development and shall include an additional 80 points of landscaping around the new building. III. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (I) TO INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (I-PD), GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN ADAPTIVE REUSE OF A FORMER SCHOOL TO A SENIOR LIVING APARTMENT LOCATED 619 MERRITT AVENUE Site Inspections: Report: Ms. Palmeri, Ms. Propp and Mr. Mitchell reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Plan Commission Minutes 7 November 5,2019 The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Institutional District (1) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (SMU-PD) and approval for a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan for an adaptive reuse of a former school building to a senior living apartment. 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 requesting to add a Planned Development (PD) Overlay over both parcels due to the existing nonconforming conditions of the site and proposed redevelopment. The applicant is proposing an adaptive reuse of the former school building to senior living apartments. Per the submitted narrative, 35 units are planned to be constructed within the former school. The applicant is also proposing to raze an existing garage/storage structure used jointly by the school and church. In its place, two garages will be constructed to serve the residents of the senior living facility while a new garage will be constructed on the church property for storage of lawn and other related equipment. The applicant is proposing to divide the parcel, separating the church structure from the school building. The applicant states that they are coordinating with the State of Wisconsin Historical Society and will maintain the exterior finishes of the historic school building. The applicant is asking for multiple Base Standard Modifications. He said staff recommends approval of the rezone from Institutional (1) to Institutional with Planned Development Overlay (I-PD), General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan with the findings and conditions as stated in the staff report. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Hinz asked for Mr. Nau to go back to the elevations of the garage. He said staff is requesting for the knee wall to be on the front and sides. He said there is not much room on the front to make an impact due to the doors. He asked if staff would prefer the knee wall to be placed on the sides and back. Mr. Lyons explained in staff's review, they thought it would be more of a consistent look to have the knee wall wrapped around the building. He said the southern garage is heavily landscaped from the south. Mr. Hinz said there is going to be such a small area for the knee wall between the doors. He suggested it may be overkill on the front. Ms. Palermi said given that this is going to be senior housing, she asked if there were any thoughts as to the dumpster or shoots to prevent tenants from having to go outdoors to dispose of waste. She said the dumpster enclosure may be something that may be problematic. Ms. Palmeri also questioned the accessibility of the site in terms of automated doors or other universal design type features. Mr. Lyons stated the applicant is available and can answer those questions. Plan Commission Minutes 8 November 5,2019 Mr. Mitchell stated he knows Plan Commission does not necessary deal with traffic but is concerned with it. He said there is an addition of about the 35-70 elderly people to the new location besides the already 150-200 folks at Marion Manor. He said that is a good senior population in the area. He said children and seniors generally seems to be slower but not always. He stated the intersection of Merritt Avenue and Boyd Street and the intersection of Merritt Avenue and Monroe Street are very difficult to see. He said the setbacks form Merritt Avenue make it very difficult to see. He recommends improving the visibility. Mr. Perry asked if this was a 55 and older facility and not an age in place facility. Mr. Lyons responded he believes it is 55 and older but would need the applicant to confirm that. Mr. Perry said his concern is the parking spaces. He said Gen Xers do not like giving up their vehicles. He said couples moving into the apartment will be coining with two cars. He said baby boomers have one car. He feels the thought process in reducing parking is somewhat flawed based on the generational difference between the two. He asked if parking overnight is allowed in the angle parking on the street. Mr. Lyons replied that is street parking so it could not be counted towards the development. He said the street parking would have to follow the city street parking regulations. He said this is one of the reasons why staff is asking for an agreement for parking between the two parties. He said this will ensure that overflow parking is available. He stated these are always tricky situations every time they get into multi-family development in an urban setting. He said parking always seems to be one of the largest considerations. He explained typically when it comes to these types of developments, staff looks to the applicant to justify their parking needs. He stated the applicant has developed similar sites and feels the parking is sufficient. He said initially staff had the same concerns about the 1:1 parking ratio but at the same time the location is in an urban setting and parking is an issue in urban settings. He noted it is hard to balance parking vs the potential reuse of a building. Mr. Perry stated if this was 65 and olderibaby boomers, then the 1:1 ration would be pretty close. He reiterated there could be Gen Xers and there is a difference between the two generations. He said the two generations don't even like each other. He stated his concern is still the parking because the parking agreement is only as good as the other property exists. He said if the church is ever redeveloped, the extra parking could be eliminated. He said he is also concerned with the 2.7 candlelight at the entrances and was not sure if that was sufficient. Mr. Lyons replied it is significantly more than what is required. He said the requirement is 0.4 candlelight and the proposed is about 7 times more then the required. He said in this case, the light is also helping to light up the public right-of-way. He said if the property were adjacent to another property, then staff would have great concerns. Ms. Propp said she is interested in the traffic circulation on the property because it is not totally clear to her. She asked who would be parking in the interior of the site by the Merritt Avenue access drive. Plan Commission Minutes 9 November 5,2019 Mr. Lyons replied that would be the church parking. Ms. Propp said she would be concerned about parking creep and the church not having enough parking spaces. Ms. Propp questioned if there was a sufficient amount of room to back out of the stall in the interior parking area. She asked what was located at the south of the interior parking. Mr. Nau replied the south is not an exit but a pedestrian path. Ms. Propp asked what the gray area was in the interior parking area and asked about the parking stalls to the north. Mr. Nau replied the gray area is a drop-off area for the apartments. He said the parking stalls in the interior belong to the church. Mr. Nau pointed out the proposed lot line. Ms. Propp asked if the drop-off location was the main entrance. Mr. Nau replied he believes so. He said the narrative states that the area will also be where the elevator is located. Ms. Propp said if a tenant is being dropped off, the driver would then have to go back onto Merritt Avenue then to Boyd Street to park their vehicle on a surface parking area or park in the garage. Mr. Lyons commented he would assume like most multi-family units that each apartment would be assigned their own parking stall or garage. Ms. Propp stated she supports this type of reuse because it makes sense. She said she is less concerned with the parking for tenants because if they have two cars, they would choose to go elsewhere. Ms. Palmeri asked if there was enough room for parking in front of the garage and still allow access to others. Mr. Lyons replied there is not. He said it is 30 feet and 28 feet. He explained there needs to be a minimum of 24 feet for two-way traffic and generally a parking stall is 20 feet. He said they would need a minimum of 44 feet to have a parking stall in front of the garage. Mr. Fojtik opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Andy Dumke (applicant), 2062 Menominee Drive, explained the church wants to demolish the building and they are trying to prevent that from happening. He said they are trying to solve two issues which is to keep a historic building and to provide some affordable housing in the community. He explained there are two stalls to the north of the circular drive that the church will be giving them an easement to them. He said typically they try to do building shoots and dumpsters but in this case they could not make it possible. He said that they usually place the Plan Commission Minutes 10 November 5,2019 dumpster location further from the building but in this scenario, the location they chose is the best place to put it due to the exit doors on Boyd Street. He explained as far as parking requirements, they build a lot of senior housing in Wisconsin including the two in Oshkosh;Rivers I and Rivers lI. He said Rivers lI has 32 parking stalls for 40 units. He said on any given day, there are only one or two cars parked in the visitor parking area. He stated they feel very comfortable with one car per unit and a couple extra for visitors. Mr. Mitchell asked if this was going to be for 62 and older or 55 and older. Mr. Dumke replied they do not get to set the age but it is 55 and older for independent living. He said in his experience with similar projects, most people that are 55 are still working. He said most of the tenants are 65 and older. Mr. Mitchell asked if they are going to be accessible housing and inquired about the bedroom sizes. Mr. Dumke replied every unit is handicap accessible. He stated some units are fully handicap. He said every unit can be accessed by a wheelchair. He said there will be 16 one bedroom units and 19 two bedroom units. Ms. Palmeri said she appreciates the fact that Mr. Dumke is decreasing the amount of impervious surface. She said even though it is not meet the standard, it is still a substantial decrease. Mr. Fojtik said he echoes what Ms. Palmeri said. He stated it takes courage to take on projects like this because of some of the site restrictions. He thanked Mr. Dumke. Mr. Mitchell said it has been discussed for the last couple years on how the building could transition into housing. He stated he is really excited to see it being done as well as Historic Credit Tax application. He said lack of accessible housing is considered by Community Development an assessment for the city for fair housing impairments as the number one barrier to people accessing housing. He said it will be great to have more accessible housing and the project will be an asset to the neighborhood. Ms. Propp asked Mr. Dumke if he had any issues with the suggestion of the knee walls. Mr. Dumke replied he does not have any issues with it and is good with all the suggestions. Cheryl Jacklin,408 Monroe Street, said she owns the property(two lots) abutting the back of the parking lot. She said the property was recently purchased. She stated some of the neighbors could not make it to the meeting. She explained between her husband and her,they walked the neighborhood and called neighbors to get feedback about the project. She said they are present to represent the neighborhood. She asked if there was a representative from the church. She explained they were planning on building their one level retirement home on the vacant lots. She stated she installed a custom fence along the north of the lots and planted vines. She stated the neighbors can see the shrine and really like that. She inquired about what is going to happen to Plan Commission Minutes 11 November 5,2019 the priest house that has been vacant. She suggested relocating the garage because she does not want to be looking at the back of a garage. She suggested moving the garage to the corner or Boyd Street and Merritt Avenue. She handed out pictures of the garages that were built in the back of Washington Street apartment house and explained they were modern and did not match. She also handed out pictures of an article which she got off of the Northwestern and the Herald relating the Smith School to the Cabrini School. Jerry Jacklin,408 Monroe Street, inquired about how far the shed would be form the property line. Mr. Lyons answered the shed is 18 feet away from the property line. Ms. Jacklin stated the two crosses have been removed. She said the storage could be closer to the church. She said she paid to remove a telephone pole by her fence line to make it aesthetically appealing. She said the whole neighborhood is on the upswing including the Howard and the YMCA. She said Marion Manor is well kept up. She inquired if the apartments would be for low income housing and had some concerns if it was. She said she hopes the applicant would add landscaping so the area does not look Institutional. She said she also has lighting concerns and concerns about the windows because she feels they should be restored. She stated the building should be on the historical register. She said she does not want the garages to look like a storage unit and that the windows should be restored on the building. She said she was told at the beginning this was going to be high-end apartments. She said the garage will cut off airflow. She stated during funeral, wedding or holidays, the church is packed full and there is a lot of overflow. She said the parking and plan needs to be thought out more. Mr. Mitchell asked for confirmation that Ms.Jacklin stated that Marion Manor was well kept up. Ms. Jacklin replied she did. Mr. Mitchell said Marion Manor is also affordable housing. He explained with elderly housing, a lot of the folks are receiving social security or minimum pensions. He stated it does not necessarily connotate to a derogatory thing. Ms. Jacklin stated she is concerned with the amount of senior living in the area because there are so many on the north side. She said her neighborhood needs to be protected. Mr.Jacklin stated he and the neighborhood likes the idea. He said he would prefer more be spent on the project to make sure it is right the first time. He said they should try matching the storage shed to the church as much as they can. Ms. Jacklin questioned if there was going to be a senior smoking area. Dennis Ruedinger, 1434 Hazel Street, said he is with the general contractor for this project. He said he cannot speak for the church but knows the statue is very important to the church and it will not be touched. He said as far as the rectory,he is not sure what their thoughts are on that. Plan Commission Minutes 12 November 5,2019 There were no other public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Mr. Dumke stated they will be using historic tax credits and will be doing everything to the historic standards which includes the windows. He said in his conversations, the shrine is staying as well. He said putting an access off Merritt Avenue would not be realistic because there is not much area for people to pull up in. He said it made the most sense to do the circle drive. Ms.Jacklin asked about the trees and lighting. Mr. Dumke replied the covered the lighting and trees in the lighting and landscaping plan. He stated he is open to suggestions if Mr. and Ms.Jacklin have any. He told them to contact him. Mr. Hinz inquired about the restoration of the crosses on top of the building. Mr. Dumke replied he was not sure what the situation was with that. Mr. Fojtik commented after 15 years of being on the committee, there has always been challenges when it comes to multi-family development. He commended Mr. Dumke and all developers that have to face the challenges when it comes to developing multi-family. Mr. Mitchell noted the property is still 14,000 square feet short for the impervious requirements. He pointed out that the terrace on Boyd Street is extra wide and said it would be a great area to plant terrace trees. Mr. Lyons said they can work on it as staff and is glad that Mr. Mitchell pointed out it out. Mr. Perry asked what the minimum setback was for the tow car garage to the property line. Mr. Nau and Mr. Lyons both replied three feet. Mr. Lyons explained that area is similar as if it were a residential use and discussed the setbacks. He said staff originally had concerns about the garage but the garage is a residential garage and should match the surrounding areas. He said it would be no different if it were a house with a residential garage. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. A Base Standard Modification for the proposed multi family use within the Institutional Zone District, 2. A Certified Survey Map is required for reconfiguration of the proposed parcels; Plan Commission Minutes 13 November 5,2019 3. A Base Standard Modification for a zero (0)foot side(west)yard setback for the former school building, 4. A Base Standard Modification for a three (3)foot street front yard setback for proposed paved area along Boyd Street, 5. A Base Standard Modification for a 50% reduction in off-street parking requirements (70 stalls to 35 stalls)for the proposed senior living adaptive reuse, 6. A cross accesslshared parking agreement between the church property and proposed senior living adaptive reuse property; 7. Landscape plan shall include foundation planting calculations for the proposed school/senior living redevelopment, 8. Landscaping is required for the new proposed garage on the church property as approved by the Department of Community Development; 9. A Base Standard Modification to allow a maximum of 2.7 foot candle light level at the property line near the building entrances along Boyd Street of the and proposed senior living apartment building, 10. Lighting plan shall expand to include all of the church property to ensure adequate lighting levels are provided to the proposed senior living adaptive reuse property; 11. A masonry knee wall shall be added to the front and side facades of all three proposed garages/storage structures using materials similar or complimentary to the church and school building. Seconded by Mitchell. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Perry asked if it was a lot with the same garage,if it would be allowed. He said because it is on the church's lot, if Plan Commission could require landscaping behind it. Mr. Lyons replied it would be allowed if it were its own lot. He said through the Planned Development, they could request for additional landscaping. He explained if it were a residential garage, staff would not be asking for any landscaping. Mr. Perry asked if the city was willing to work with the applicant on adding landscaping to the back of the garage Mr. Lyons said he would be willing to work with the applicant. Mr. Dumke said he did not have any issues with landscaping back there and would be willing to work with the city. Motion carried 9-0. IV. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN UPDATE Plan Commission Minutes 14 November 5,2019 Site Inspections: Report: N/A Staff report accepted as part of the record. The Community Development Department is requesting approval of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update, which describes the future goals and objectives for alternative transportation options including bike routes and pedestrian access improvements. Ms. Naudziunas presented the item. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update was developed in partnership with city staff and East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission with the intention to provide updated information on current planning goals for the bicycle and pedestrian transportation network. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee oversaw the update process and recommended that Plan Commission and Common Council adopt the plan update at their October 17th, 2019 meeting. The Master Plan will help in planning and implementing the future transportation network in the area. The appendices includes a variety of maps displaying the existing routes,recommended routes, route usage counts and crashes. The recommended routes are consistent with the Winnebago County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee facilitated implementation of the 2011 master plan, which has resulted in the addition of over 45 miles of routes and off-street trail facilities. The committee hopes to continue implementation using the new strategies found in the updated plan. She said staff recommends approval of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update as requested. Mr. Lyons added this is a bit of a success story. He said there was a Bike and Pedestrian Plan in place in 2011 and the city has systematically made improvements and kicked off a lot of the recommendations that were on the map. He said the city is now ready for the next set of recommendations. He said Ms. Naudziunas worked with Ease Central Wisconsin and took the plan to the next level and have built off the success they already have. He commended Ms. Naudziunas, Ease Central Wisconsin and the Bicycle and Pedestrian committee for continuing to keep it in the forefront and taking it to the next step. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Fojtik pointed out in the Plan, it specifically states that the plan was based on the typical bike rider. He said this Plan as well as the 2011 Plan does a great job at understanding the typical bike rider and creating routes for the typical bike rider. He said he also likes how they systematically tried to avoid very main streets when it was possible. He thinks it makes it safer. Ms. Palmeri asked Ms. Naudziunas to highlight some of the differences between the 2011 Plan. Ms. Naudziunas highlighted some of the differences such as the reduced number of pages, more visualizations including pictures/charts, addition of new types of facilities, streamlined the maps, etc. She said a lot of the routes stayed the same. She explained the old maps specified what types of facilities whereas the new map shows where facilities should be. Plan Commission Minutes 15 November 5,2019 Mr. Lyons commented there has been a philosophy change that was undertaken. He said the 2011 maps specified each route and the types but it was not always feasible depending on the road. He explained the new way of thinking is to mark where the facilities should be and decide on the facility type later in order to fit it to the street appropriately. Mr. Perry commented some roads may have to be completely improved. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. Ms. Naudziunas added the goals and objectives were also updated and are not more specific. Mr. Perry said he is fortunate enough to be on a city server and receive all the information from the boards on a weekly basis. He said this group has been so through in their work and it has been pretty amazing. He stated the work has been amazing in the short amount of time. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments. Jim Michelson, 1515 Northpoint Street, said he is Chairman of the Bicycle and Pedestrian committee. He said was involved in the 2011 Plan and ever since the start. He stated the committee has worked really hard for over two years. He thinks they ended up with a really good plan and was amazed by the final results. He thanked all the people on the Bicycle and Pedestrian committee. He said they really do have a good group and they are very thorough. He thanked Kim,Melissa and Tanner from East Central Planning and also thanked Ms. Naudziunas. Mr. Fojtik asked if Mr. Michelson was as happy about the accomplishments as everyone else in terms of checking things off the list. Mr. Michelson said he is. He said the plan came along great and they did a lot of nice updates. Plan Commission thanked Mr. Michelson. There were no other public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed public comments. Motion by Perry to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Coulibaly. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Mitchell noted this type of document is beautiful and it makes living in Oshkosh an intriguing thing. He said Oshkosh has become more bike friendly. He said the development of the bike lanes on Irving Street has been amazing and his family uses it often. He said this was a great improvements. He said one of the concerns in 2011 was that there were not a lot of bikers. He said Plan Commission Minutes 16 November 5,2019 one of the arguments that was made was until some of the supporting infrastructure was in place, there won't be people getting comfortable enough to bicycle. He mentioned the Slow Roll and commented there are now a lot of people biking. He asked if there was a timeline for items for be accomplished. Mr. Lyons replied every year Bicycle and Pedestrian committee put out a set of recommendations to work towards. He said it is done on a year to year basis. Mr. Mitchell said he really appreciates the bicycle and trail crash maps but asked if there were any plans in place to reduce the numbers. Mr. Lyons said they are currently working on the Jackson Street corridor study that will analyze that information. Mr. Mitchell said the original plan had two lanes with lots of pedestrian traffic which may not be the plan anymore. He stated there is a lot of concern there. He asked if there were any plans in place for Murdock Avenue,Witzel Avenue or Ohio Street. Mr. Lyons said he could not think of one. Mr. Michelson stated Jackson Street is a big concern. He said the committee is trying to find a safe crossing. He said the study will be good. He said a member from the DOT came to one of their meetings for an hour. He stated they still do not feel comfortable with the roundabout at Murdock Avenue and Jackson Street. He said there will be a trail developing by the new Oshkosh Corporation and Rainbow Park. He said Oshkosh Avenue and Sawyer Street is a major area for bikes and pedestrians and they need to find a safe crossing. Mr. Coulibaly asked if the committee held any educational workshops or how they publicized the information. Ms. Naudziunas explained the 6 E's. He said one of this is Education which is a big goal within that. She mentioned some of the things they have already done such as the two roundabout safety days. She said they were at the 9t''Avenue and Witzel Avenue roundabouts with police present. She said the police were giving out warnings and may have also given out tickets. Mr. Michelson commented it is an eye opener. He said he participated in it a few times and tried to get all the committee members to participate. He stated the roundabout on 9ti'Avenue and Witzel Avenue are eye opening. Mr. Fojtik agreed that it is crazy. Ms. Naudziunas said they also have other programs such as BikeOSH that help educate bikers on safety and the types of infrastructures throughout the city. She said it is an ongoing thing to educate the public. Plan Commission Minutes 17 November 5,2019 Mr. Lyons said in Chapter 3, it discusses the education and outreach programs that the city undertakes. He said the Police Department also does some of them on their own. Motion carried 9-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:52 pm. (Hinz/Palmeri) Respectfully submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager Plan Commission Minutes 1s November 5,2019