Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES January 7,2020 PRESENT: Lynnsey Erickson, Thomas Fojtik, Michael Ford,John Hinz,John Kiefer,Justin Mitchell,Lori Palmeri, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp EXCUSED: Mamadou Coulibaly, Derek Groth STAFF: Mark Lyons,Planning Services Manager; Kelly Nieforth, Economic Development Services Manager;Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager/City Engineer; Brian Slusarek, Planner;Jeff Nau, Associate 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 December 17,2019 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Kiefer) I. EXTRATERRITORIAL THREE-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF COUNTY HIGHWAY GG AND GIBS ROAD IN THE TOWN OF VINLAND Site Inspections: Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner is seeking approval of a three-lot land division/Certified Survey Map (CSM) from two existing lots located at the southeast corner of County Highway GG and Gibs Road, approximately 1.25 miles north of the Oshkosh city limits. The CSM will also dedicate right-of- way along County Highway GG and Gibs Road. Sizes of the proposed lots and right-of-way dedication are as follows: Lot 1 =42,808 sq. ft. (0.983 acres) Lot 2= 1,171,626 sq. ft. (26.897 acres) Lot 3=436,555 sq. ft. (10.022 acres) Right-of-Way Dedication=85,817 sq. ft. (1.970 acres) Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. Proposed Lot 1 containing the single family dwelling increases the size of the current parcel to match the historic occupation lines. Proposed Lot 2 will continue to have access to County Highway GG and Gibs Road. Lot 3 will have access only to Gibs Road. The application does not state a proposed use for the new 10-acre lot. It is presumed the majority of the lots will continue to be used agriculturally. The CSM also officially dedicates Plan Commission Minutes 1 January 7,2020 right-of-way along County Highway GG and Gibs Road. The dedication consists of a 33-foot wide strip along the south side of County Highway GG and the east side of Gibs Road. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the proposed three-lot CSM and did not have any concerns with the land division. He said staff recommends approval of the three-lot land division/Certified Survey Map at the southeast corner of County Highway GG & Gibs Road as proposed. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Ms. Palmeri inquired about the shape of the smaller parcel. She questioned if the carve out was based on the use lines. Mr. Nau replied typically they like the lots more square. He said in this case the lines may be following a drainage swale as well as the historic use lines. Mr. Mitchell said that there have been similar requests in the past that also state that the future intended land use is unknown. He asked if there was a way to amend the form to delineate that question. He questioned if the final land use would need approval from Plan Commission. Mr. Lyons replied staff can definitely ask for that answer but said they do not control land use in those areas. He explained if the applicant request a land use change it would go to the County, it would not necessarily come before Plan Commission. Mr. Mitchell asked what the purpose of the form was since it does not state the intended land use or goal of the land division. Mr. Nau replied the form has items that staff needs such as the owner's information, the surveyor's information and the location. Mr. Lyons reiterated it is information staff can asked for but said he is not information that is necessarily to determine whether or not it meets the subdivision standards. Mr. Nau said Lot 3 is currently zoned A-2 and is permitted to the uses allowed in the A-2 zoning district by right and the city does not authority over that. He explained if the applicant wishes to do a zone change to a more intensive use, the zone change would have to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lyons added it would have to be approved by Winnebago County. Ms. Palmeri asked if there was an assumption of other plans or sales due to the owner being represented by Martenson &Eisele. Mr. Lyons replied it is fair to assume that the current owner has plans for the property otherwise they would not be going through a lot split. Plan Commission Minutes 2 January 7,2020 Ms. Palmeri asked if applicants are usually represented though a planning firm like Martenson& Eisele. Mr. Lyons replied most of these are filed by a surveyor, planning firm or a company that has a surveying entity involved with it. Mr. Nau commented more recently these types of requests/surveys are coming in to settle estates. 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 Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Hinz. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 8-0-1 (Present:Mitchell). II. STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MERRITT AVENUE AND BOYD STREET Site Inspections: Report: Ms. Palmeri reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests the acceptance of street right-of-way at the southwest corner of Merritt Avenue and Boyd Street. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area. The City of Oshkosh is requesting a right-of-way dedication to expand the right-of-way to include a section of existing public sidewalk at the southwest corner of Merritt Avenue and Boyd. The dedication is included on a draft Certified Survey Map (CSM) currently under review by city staff. The CSM was Plan Commission Minutes 3 January 7,2020 conceptually approved by Plan Commission during review of the Conditional Use Permit request for the adaptive reuse of the former Cabrini School to senior housing apartments. The proposed triangular dedication lies 10.5 feet along both Merritt Avenue and Boyd Street and is approximately 55 square feet in area. Once city staff approves the CSM it will be recorded at the Winnebago County Register of Deeds. The dedication will become official upon approval by the Common Council. He said staff recommends acceptance of the right-of-way dedication at the southwest corner of Merritt Avenue and Boyd Street as proposed. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Mitchell clarified that it is the northeast corner and not the southwest corner. Mr. Lyons said it is the northeast corner of the property but also the southwest corner of the intersection. Ms. Palmeri inquired about the origin of the triangular-shaped sidewalk. Mr. Lyons replied these are found throughout the city where sidewalks cut the corner and went onto private property. He said this is a clean-up of the area and it is relatively common when it comes to redevelopment plans. Mr. Gierach concurred. He explained in many cases this happens at the intersections for the ADA compliant sidewalk ramps to make them slope appropriate. He said in this particular case he does not know the reason but believes it would have been to make it ADA compliant. Mr. Lyons commented it is a best practice to clean it up and ensure the entire sidewalk resides within the public right-of-way instead of partly on private property. Mr. Mitchell inquired about the project at the site and asked if there have been meetings with the Neighborhood Associations. Mr. Lyons said he was not sure but knows the developers are waiting to see the results of their Historic Tax Credit application, which is the driving force behind the project. He said until the developers know the results, they won't know if the project will be able to move forward. 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. Plan Commission Minutes 4 January 7,2020 There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Hinz 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. III. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION THAT INCREASES THE BUILDING'S HEIGHT HIGHER THAN THE HIGHEST ROOF RIDGELINE AT 51 W. WAUKAU AVENUE Site Inspections: Report: Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow an addition that increases the building's height higher than the highest roof ridgeline at 51 W. Waukau 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 requesting a design standards variance request to construct an addition that would create a second floor on the current one-story home. This addition would afford the owner more space if constructed. It would include a second story with a master suite, full bathroom and two bedrooms. The addition as proposed by the applicant is architecturally compatible with the existing home. The applicant would re-side the entire house and if the materials used for siding and window trim are consistent in appearance between the addition and existing structure, the addition will not be discernable from the original structure. The addition as proposed will not encroach into the street setback. He said staff recommends approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow for an addition that raises the building's height beyond the highest roof ridgeline at 51 W.Waukau Avenue with the condition and finding listed in the staff report. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Ms. Palmeri requested to see the street view of other homes in the area and asked if there were calculations for the windows on the addition above the garage. She stated the current renderings are showing more windows on the back than the front. Plan Commission Minutes 5 January 7,2020 Mr. Lyons stated there is a 25%requirement for windows on the front facade. He said without running the numbers, he would estimate a window percentage at 25%-30% on the front facade. He said staff can have the applicant run the numbers to make sure they meet base code. Ms. Palmeri asked if the door areas are part of the calculations. Mr. Lyons responded they are not and said only the window planes are calculated. Mr.Wiley pointed out two-story homes on Google street view. Mr. Lyons pointed out various homes on EagleView and said there is a mix of homes in the area. He commented there is no predominate housing style and the addition would be consistent with the area. Mr. Ford stated there are two letters of support from neighbors in the staff report and asked if other neighbors were notified of the variance request. Mr.Wiley confirmed they were. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Andy Carter (applicant), 166 Villa Drive in Neenah, said he is available to answer any questions. He said the front window sizes have not been finalized due to interior layout changes. He mentioned the front windows may be larger. There were no other 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 Kiefer to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Condition: 1. Siding and window trim used for the new addition shall match the appearance of the siding and window trim on the existing structure. Finding: 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Seconded by Palmeri. Plan Commission Minutes 6 January 7,2020 Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Fojtik applauded the applicant for willing to improve their home instead of buying a new one. Motion carried 9-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY 2 (SR-2) DISTRICT TO CORPORATE BUSINESS PARK—PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CBP-PD) DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1650-1660 OSHKOSH AVENUE Site Inspections: Report: Mr. Ford, Mr. Hinz,Ms. Palmeri and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Single Family Residential 2 (SR-2) District to Corporate Business Park-Planned Development(CBP-PD) District for the property located at 1650-1660 Oshkosh Avenue. 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 an L-shaped lot with frontage on Oshkosh Avenue and N.Westfield Street. The western portion of the site is currently zoned CBP- PD while the eastern portion of the site is zoned SR-2. The applicant is requesting this zone change to provide uniform zoning for the entire parcel (CBP-PD) and to have the property zoned appropriately for future redevelopment of the site. No changes to the site are being proposed at this time. The proposed zoning designation will be consistent with surrounding zoning to the west and north. He said staff recommends approval of the zone change from Single Family Residential 2 (SR-2) District to Corporate Business Park -Planned Development (CBP-PD) District for the property located at 1650-1660 Oshkosh Avenue. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Ford asked if the parcel would be subject to the higher building standards with the zone change. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. He explained the area was always intended to be part of the Corporate Business Park but the property was not secured yet during the initial zone change request for the area. He said staff has been working with the applicant on filing a GDP/SIP for the next meeting and the zone change is the first step to get the project to move forward. Ms. Palmeri asked if the zone change to CBP-PD would prevent the area from becoming mixed use. Mr. Lyons replied it does not prevent it. He explained the Corporate Business Park through the Planned Development would allow for mixed use type developments. Plan Commission Minutes 7 January 7,2020 Mr. Mitchell asked if there were any requirements that would be imposed for properties such as this when they transition and abut other properties. Mr. Lyons replied those are handled through the Planned Development process and not during the zone change requests. He explained there are bufferyard requirements which vary depending on the type of zoning districts. 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 Hinz 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. Mr. Ford thanked Mr. Lyons for helping him see the big picture of the area. Mr. Fojtik agreed with Mr. Ford. Motion carried 9-0. V. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REOUEST TO ESTABLISH AN INDOOR SALES USE AT 2837 BOWEN STREET Site Inspections: Report: Ms. Palmeri reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to establish an indoor sales use on a previously developed lot. 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 applicant plans to use the existing building for storage of items acquired by their business, "Clear the Clutter". They are also proposing to use the Plan Commission Minutes 8 January 7,2020 eastern portion of the building for resale of various items of value. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the indoor sales component of the proposed use of the building. The existing site has a shared parking lot with the neighboring commercial property to the west, providing sufficient parking for customers and employees. The building had previously been used for retail purposes. No exterior changes are being proposed for the site except for a face replacement on the existing pylon sign cabinet to the north of the building. No outdoor storage/display has been proposed. The proposed indoor sales use as the use should not be detrimental to the surrounding area, provided all sales and storage items are enclosed within the building. The Department of Public Works reviewed the proposal and did not note any concerns. He said staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit for an indoor sales use at 2837 Bowen Street as proposed with the findings listed in the staff report. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Mitchell asked if there were any requirements for lighting since there will be sales activities going on. Mr. Lyons replied since they are not making any exterior improvements, they would not be required to make any changes. Mr. Mitchell inquired about the timeframe for landscaping for the previously approved Conditional Use Permit at 2825 Bowen Street. Mr. Lyons replied it depends on the project and if the outdoor storage is implemented. He explained various scenarios and timeframes. 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 Kiefer to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Hinz. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Palmeri commented that she hoped that there would not be an accumulation of items if there would be an exterior storage. Plan Commission Minutes 9 January 7,2020 Mr. Lyons said the applicant is not currently proposing any outdoor storage. He explained there are code requirements in place if the applicant chooses to implement outdoor storage. He said by right, industrial properties are allowed up to 500 square feet of outdoor storage when meeting the screening requirements. He said anything over 500 square feet would require the proper approval process, including approval from Plan Commission. Motion carried 9-0. VI A. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A COMMERCIAL HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AT 1365 N.WESTFIELD STREET VI B. ACCESS CONTROL VARIANCES FOR COMMERCIAL HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AT 1365 N.WESTFIELD STREET Site Inspections: Report: Mr. Fojtik, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hinz, Ms. Palmeri and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Two actions are requested as part of this request: A. The petitioner requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan(SIP) for a hotel development at 1365 N. Westfield Street. B. The petitioner is requesting access control variances to permit the following: 1. Reduced lateral clearance from N. Westfield Street to 54' where code requires a minimum of 75 feet. 2. Reduced lateral clearance from N. Koeller Street to 54' where code requires a minimum of 75 feet. Mr. Wiley presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. He reviewed the 2018 GDP and GDP amendment approvals for the site. The submitted plans propose a 4-story, 60,483 sq. ft., 103-room extended stay hotel. The applicant has submitted a photometric plan but is deficient in various areas. A revised plan will need to be submitted. The signage proposed for this development consists solely of on- building wall signage. The applicants will need to submit an updated landscaping plan/landscaping information as part of the Site Plan Review process. Storm water requirements will be addressed during the Site Plan Review process. The applicants have submitted building plans and elevations. Ms. Palmeri asked staff to enlarge the elevation plans. She asked if it was a mirror image on the back fagade as the front facade. Plan Commission Minutes 10 January 7,2020 Mr. Lyons pointed out what facades faced each direction. He said they are largely a mirror of one another being similar in massing and using similar building materials but the materials are being used in a slightly different fashion. He stated all facades exceed the 75%Class I materials requirement. Mr.Wiley continued presenting and said the elevations submitted by the applicants propose a combination of EFIS,fiber cement panels, stone,brick, glass and aluminum. He reiterated that the elevations all exceed the 75%minimum fagade area required for Class I materials. Ms. Palmeri said she and Mr. Lyons discussed earlier in the day about a different property in a different part of the city and how the different materials were less than pleasing. She said she is having a hard time differentiating between the gray area and the stone area. She asked if it was three different surfaces. Mr. Lyons said it is hard to see from the rendering because there is quite a bit of depth change in the building. He reviewed the items on the Materials Legend and showed close-ups of each elevation. He said staff is impressed with this building because it probably has the most depth and relief change of any buildings they've seen which gives the building more of an architectural feel. Ms. Palmeri inquired about the location of the mechanicals and how they would be screened. Mr. Lyons replied they would likely be behind the false facades/parapet walls. He said they do require all roof mounted buildings units to be fully screened. He reiterated that the rendering makes it difficult to see the relief and depth of the facades. Mr.Wiley continued presenting and pointed out the section that would be protruding into the front yard setback. He said staff recommends approval of the Specific Implementation Plan as proposed with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. He presented the access control variance item. The proposed development will have one access driveway along N. Westfield Street and one driveway along N. Koeller Street with both providing two-way access. The requested lateral clearance reductions as the proposed 54' lateral clearance provides for stacking of three vehicles in each driveway and the two access drives are located on opposite ends of the subject parcel. Each of the two access drives serves a portion of the proposed parking. Both proposed driveway entrances for this property are located well over the 175 feet from intersections to comply with the required corner clearance. Ms. Palmeri asked if there was any scenario in which there would be a connection or access to Rath Lane. Mr. Lyons replied Rath Lane will eventually be going away but the two developers have been working together to find if there is an appropriate location from some shared access between the two developments. He said there is still some unknown to how the rest of the buildings are going to take shape but staff encourages both developers to stay in contact with each other to look for a common access point. He noted on the access control variances that the applicant couldn't get to the 75' code requirement but the 54' provided is more than most areas of the city. Plan Commission Minutes 11 January 7,2020 Mr.Wiley finished presenting and said staff recommends approval of access control variances as requested. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Hinz expressed his concerns regarding signage and asked if the applicant would have to get approval from Plan Commission for directional signage located by the access points. He said usually the applicant provides renderings for directional signage but he did not see any. Mr. Lyons explained that the incidental/directional signage is permitted. He clarified that no freestanding signage was only for monument or pylon signs. He said the applicant does not have the renderings yet for the incidental signs and would not have to come to Plan Commission for approval unless they propose something that is out of character with the current code requirements. Mr. Mitchell explained when the Sustainably Advisory Board was created, part of the underlining interest was that there would be some sort of review for a project's sustainability features. He asked if there was ever any information provided related to energy use, on-site water control for storm water or anything related to the overall sustainability of a particular development. Mr. Lyons replied for the storm water, they have to do a storm water management plan that is approved by the Department of Public Works. He said he is not familiar with anything that was formally passed for the Sustainability Advisory Board making it a requirement to get a full sustainability plan but it is something they could look into. Mr. Mitchell noted it is not something to slow this project down because things are looking great. He said there is a lot of time spent on visual aesthetic and not enough on things that really matter such as conservation of energy, reuse of materials, things that make a project environmentally friendly and things that make a project sustainable long term. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Steve Hoopman (applicant) 5105 I Ah May Tah Road, stated that the cross access and cross parking agreement already exists and have been recorded. He said it was a part of the survey plan when it was put together. He pointed out there are two architects from American Companies present as well to answer any questions. He said they may be able to address the sustainability portion and said they do not plan on applying for any specials grants for it as far as the design process. Ms. Palmeri mentioned they had an inquiry about another project downtown that related to whether or not a developer was looking at Energy Star certification,water conservations, etc. Scott Kintopf,3350 S. River Road in West Bend, said he is with American Companies. He said they send their buildings through Focus on Energy and receive recommendations on the heating Plan Commission Minutes 12 January 7,2020 system,water, plumbing and so on. He said they also use LED lighting and do what they can to make the buildings efficient. He said they do receive some incentives on most of their hotels. Ms. Palmeri asked inquired about passive solar in the design itself in terms of the southern elevation, Mr. Kintopf replied there is no solar aspect to it. Ms. Palmeri clarified not necessarily solar panels but passive solar in terms of the southern exposure. Mr. Kintopf explained it would not make a difference if the hotel was facing a different direction because the hotel has windows on every side. He said the mechanicals would be on the roof behind the parapets and would be hidden. There were no other 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 for the Specific Implementation Plan request. Conditions: 1. Base Standard Modification to allow 14 of the required 103 parking spaces to be located on Lot 2 (adjacent parcel) 2. Applicants shall obtain cross access agreements to allow shared parking/access between this property and the neighboring parcel. 3. Base Standard Modification to allow an increase in impervious surface ratio for this parcel from code maximum of 70% to 70.1%for the site. 4. Base Standard Modification to allow light trespass at the north property line to exceed the code maximum allowance of 0.5 footcandles. 5. Applicants shall submit a revised photometric plan for Department of Community Development review. 6. Base Standard Modification to allow signage far this property to be located with shared signage at the corner of Oshkosh Avenue and N. Westfield Street. 7. No freestanding signage shall be located at 1365 N. Westfield Street. 8. Final landscaping plan and information to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development. 9. Base Standard Modification to allow a reduction in front yard (N. Koeller Street)setback from 30' to 18'. Plan Commission Minutes 13 January 7,2020 Seconded by Palmeri. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp thanked the developer for his patients with the Plan Commission and staff over multiple workshops. She said this is a good outcome. She asked when the project would begin and when it would be completed. Mr. Lyons said in the project narrative it states intentions of breaking ground in spring with a fall 2020 opening. Mr. Mitchell read the verbiage from the narrative. He thanked Mr. Hoopman and everyone for all their time they have invested into this projects. He said with a project like this it is hard to gauge how it will really look like without seeing the landscape plan in place. He said from the aerial, it looks as there is a ton of concrete/asphalt. He asked how the 70%number came about for impervious surface. Mr. Lyons explained it is a commonly used number for commercial districts in order to accommodate sufficient parking and try to balance some areas for landscaping. He said for industrial districts and urban districts, there is even a higher impervious percent. He agreed that is was hard to gauge because the drawings are black and white and it makes it hard to visualize the canopy of the trees as they grow out. He explained the history of the Corporate Business Park and why the decision was made to push the landscaping to the edges Mr. Mitchell commented he appreciates the parking but hopes it has an attractive and professional look. He stated he has confidence in Mr. Hoopman. Mr. Lyons said that it is hard to picture because the landscaping is only shown on the hotel area. He said as they get to the other areas, they will make sure there is the same consistency. He explained the history of Plan Commission and Common Council's vision when they wrote the standards and staff will make sure the vision comes through. Mr. Ford agreed with Mr. Lyons and said he appreciates all the work that was done to get to this point. He said this is a good example of how they stayed within their land use body and maximized the impact with the help of city staff. Mr. Hinz talked about the beginning of the process and how Mr. Hoopman was not sure the project was going to be viable because the standards were being raised in this area. He said the hotel is very articulated and is like nothing else as far as a hotel in Oshkosh including the landscaping. He said he hopes this project will set the standard for future projects. Motion carried 9-0. Motion by Perry to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report for the access control variance request. Plan Commission Minutes 14 January 7,2020 Seconded by Erickson. Mr. Fojtik agreed with everyone and said the Corporate Business Park was a good idea. He said he realizes it was a little cumbersome to get to this but everyone has been patient and it paid off. Motion carried 9-0. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Lyons updated the Commission on the tablets. He said IT ordered the iPads but he does not know when they will arrive or be distributed. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:09 pm. (Hinz/Kiefer) Respectfully submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager Plan Commission Minutes 15 January 7,2020