Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES April 21, 2020 PRESENT: Lynnsey Erickson, Thomas Fojtik, Michael Ford, John Hinz, Lori Palmeri, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp EXCUSED: Mamadou Coulibaly, Derek Groth, John Kiefer, Justin Mitchell, STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Allen Davis, Community Development Director; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager / City Engineer; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Jeff Nau, Associate Planner; Steven Wiley, Associate Planner Chairperson Fojtik called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of March 17, 2020 were approved as presented. (Propp/Erickson) I A. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT FROM LIGHT DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2600 BLOCK WITZEL AVENUE I B. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL — 5 (SR- 5) DISTRICT TO MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL —12 (MR-12) DISTRICT FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2600 BLOCK WIZTEL AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Fojtik and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Recommended Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan. The subject area is designated for light density residential use; the applicant is requesting a change to a medium and high residential land use designation. The applicant is also requesting a zone district change from Single Family Residential — 5 District (SR-5) to Multi - Family Residential - 12 District (MR-12) for the same area as the Comprehensive Land Use Map amendment. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The petitioner is requesting a comprehensive land use map amendment and zone district change of a 17.78 acre vacant parcel along with two adjoining 0.4 acre parcels. The petitioner is proposing to combine these vacant lots through a Certified Survey Map and construct a multi -family development for the subject property. The proposed multi -family use is not permitted in the SR-5 district and will require a comprehensive land use map amendment and zone change. Staff feels that the proposed map amendment will be Plan Commission Minutes April 21, 2020 compatible with surrounding land uses and will be consistent with development patterns in the surrounding area. Staff has received little to no interest in developing the subject site for single or two family residential uses. The MR-12 District is being requested as it will be an extension of the MR-12 district from the east. The MR-12 district allows multi -family uses by -right and is intended to allow for 12 units per acre. As proposed, the multi -family development will have a density of approximately 8 units per acre. He said staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Land Use Map amendment from a light density residential designation to a medium and high density residential designation and approval of the proposed zone district change from Single Family Residential 5 District (SR-5) to Multi -Family Residential District (MR-12) for properties located at the 2600 block of Witzel Avenue as proposed. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Ms. Palmeri asked if this request was consistent with the City's desire to increase density. Mr. Lyons explained this property was left under the low density residential designation during the Comprehensive Plan amendment because it was still owned by the hospital. He said staff did not know what the intent was for the property, therefore, staff left the zoning designation as is because there were some unknowns at the time. Mr. Hinz asked if there had been any discussion with the school board regarding the impacts on the school due to the request. Mr. Lyons replied the school board did receive all the documentation related the request and staff did not receive any feedback. Mr. Fojtik opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant. Mr. Lyons noted there was an e-mail sent from Patrick and Therese Rudolph in regard to this request. He said staff printed the e-mail for Plan Commission members and it will also be part of the public record. Michael Portz, 2628 Witzel Avenue, explained the area's history in terms of development proposals. He stated his main concern was how the area was going to be able to maintain/sustain that type of housing with that amount of units. He said the units behind him are almost vacated and have never operated at full capacity. Mr. Fojtik asked which units Mr. Portz was referring to. Mr. Portz clarified it would be the units to the north of his property. Mr. Perry asked if staff could pull up a map and show the location of Mr. Portz's property. Plan Commission Minutes April 21, 2020 Mr. Slusarek pulled up a map and pointed out the property. 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. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Palmeri to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report for the Comprehensive Land Use Map amendment. Seconded by Erickson. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Perry questioned if there was any indication from the developer on how they would meet the City's identified deficits in terms of bedrooms units and accessibility. Mr. Lyons directed that question to the applicant. Todd Barr (partner/owner), 1423 Planeview Drive, replied all the units will be 2-bedroom units with no wheelchair accessibility. He said the units are not set up for assisted living. Mr. Perry commented the elderly are not the only ones that use wheelchairs. He stated the City needs to look at developments that have a certain percentage of those types of spaces because it is a significant deficit in the City. Motion carried 6-1 (Nay: Perry). Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report for the zone change. Seconded by Palmeri. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Lyons explained a rezone request must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said for the project to move forward, the Comprehensive Plan amendment needs to be approved prior to the zone change. Ms. Palmeri said she forgot to mention this for item 1 A but asked how many residents were invited to the virtual neighborhood meeting. Mr. Barr answered 40-50 residents were invited to the meeting. Plan Commission Minutes April 21, 2020 Mr. Lyons commented the emergency might have impacted the attendance for the meeting. Motion carried 6-1 (Nay: Perry). II. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO EXPAND OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS AT 3300 MEDALIST DRIVE Site Inspections Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to expand outdoor storage areas on a previously developed lot. 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 Plan Commission has reviewed and made recommendations on three outdoor storage areas on this property. The petitioner is proposing to expand existing outdoor storage uses on the subject parcel. These expansions include conversion of existing parking and greenspace as well as designation of existing loading/access area and gravel expansion of the existing outdoor storage lot. Additional work proposed for the site includes removal of the existing outdoor storage, conversion of 14 spaces back to parking, addition of a new asphalt paved parking area with 156 new parking spaces, widening of the access drive off of W. 33rd Avenue and extending the drive to the location of the proposed parking area. Staff is in support of the proposed expansions of outdoor storage areas as the use should not be detrimental to the surrounding area, provided that the work will not alter any access drives or traffic patterns around the site, that the required solid (at least 90% opaque) 8' tall screening is installed completely around all storage areas and that the required paved area and yard landscaping points are installed on the site. He said staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor storage area at 3300 Medalist Drive with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Lyons commented this property also required a variance from the Industrial Review Committee related to the Covenants and Restrictions. He explained the zoning ordinance allows 70% impervious for the area while the Covenants and Restrictions allows 60% impervious and the property is at about 65% impervious. He said the variance was granted. He also mentioned there was an e-mail sent from the applicant, Richard Fisher, on this item that will be part of the public record. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Palmeri inquired about the impervious surface and the loss of greenspace. Plan Commission Minutes April 21, 2020 Mr. Lyons replied he did not have an exact number for loss of greenspace but said there will be a total of 65.1% impervious for the site which is about 5% under the maximum impervious allowed. He commented it is a relatively large expansion. Mr. Fojtik opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mr. Lyon reiterated that Richard Fisher, the applicant, did send an e-mail. He said the e-mail has been printed for Plan Commission members and will also be part of the public record. 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. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: All outdoor storage areas must be completely enclosed by 8 foot tall solid (at least 90% opaque) fencing. If fencing changes from the product originally proposed to staff and reviewed, applicant shall submit revised fencing specifications/details to stafffor Department of Community Development review. 2. Petitioner shall submit a revised landscaping plan with code -compliant species and code - compliant landscaping point totals for Department of Community Development review. 3. Petitioner shall submit a code -compliant photometric plan for the proposed parking Lot for Department of Community Development review. 4. No changes shall be made to the existing access drives leading to the site from Medalist Drive or W. 33rd Avenue, except for the widening of the W. 33rd Avenue access drive as shown on the site plan and the extension of this drive to the new parking area as shown on the site plan. Petitioner shall dimension the proposed width of the widened W. 33rd Avenue access drive on the site plan and resubmit the site plan for Department of Community Development review. 5. Petitioner shall remove the outdoor storage area and all associated fencing and gates currently in place to the north of the main building on the northwest portion of the site. Seconded by Hinz. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Palmeri noted this is the fourth Conditional Use Permit request for this site. She questioned if it should be coining to Plan Commission as a Planned Development as opposed to a Conditional Use Permit. Plan Commission Minutes April 21, 2020 Mr. Lyons replied not necessarily since the applicant has not asked for any waivers from the code. He said everything that has been done to this point has met the code requirement. He explained this request does replace their first Conditional Use Permit request. He said there have been multiple requests but they have all been code compliant. Ms. Palmeri asked if something like this would go to the Storm Water Utility. Mr. Lyons answered they typically do not if they fall under the maximum code requirement. He explained the process for each scenario. Ms. Palmeri commented she is having a difficult time supporting this item due to the large increase of impervious surface even with the additional landscaping points. Motion carried 6-1 (Nay: Palmeri). III. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT #14 MERCY MEDICAL CENTER REDEVELOPMENT Site Inspections Report: N/A Staff report accepted as part of the record. The Department of Community Development requests approval of Amendment No. 2 to Tax Increment District #14 Mercy Medical Center Redevelopment. The TID was previously amended in 2002 for the purpose of eliminating and/or preventing blighting influence in an older residential neighborhood by assisting in the rehabilitation/redevelopment of a vacant medical center and improvements of the infrastructure in the district. Mr. Lyons presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area. The purpose of the amendment is to allow excess revenues to be transferred to Tax Incremental District No. 16, or known as the 100 Block Redevelopment area. Excess revenues transferred from the District to TID No. 16 will be used to provide loans to business impacted by the COVID-10 pandemic. Business qualifying for assistance will be located within lh mile of TID No. 16. The City plans to transfer $250,000 of the cash balance from TID No. 14 to TID No. 16. Additional transfers may be made to the extent that funds are available and needed to support the City's efforts to combat the economic and potential blighting impacts of the pandemic. He said staff recommends approval of the Project Plan amendment for TID #14 as proposed. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Ms. Palmeri questioned if the financial aspect of this item was coming to Plan Commission because it is TID related. Plan Commission Minutes April 21, 2020 Mr. Lyons explained it is coming to Plan Commission because it is a Project Plan amendment and essentially follows the same process and creating a Project Plan. He said the original Project Plan did not include language for being a donor TID. Mr. Ford asked if this has been done in the past. Mr. Lyons replied donor TIDs have been done for various situations in the past. Mr. Fojtik opened up the public hearing. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed the public hearing. Motion by Erickson to approve the Project Plan amendment, recommending the amendment to the council and adopting the staff report as the findings. Seconded by Propp. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp commented she assumes this has been discussed with the Legal Department and that it was appropriate since it is for potential blight and not current blight. Mr. Lyons replied it has been discussed with the Legal Department. He said it does mention in the Project Plan that this is to help with reducing the chance that this may have a blighting effect on the community. He said staff also worked with the consultant to ensure the language met all the statutory requirements. Ms. Palmeri asked for clarification that it was to prevent further blight in other businesses. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. He said it was to prevent closure of businesses. He explained how the transferring of funds to TID No. 16 would help reach more businesses that may need the help due to COVID-19. Mr. Davis noted City Attorney Lorenson did include the attorney letter stating the TIF Plans do meet the statutory requirements for a TIF amendment. Motion carried 7-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT #19 NORTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PARK Site Inspections Report: N/A Plan Commission Minutes April 21, 2020 Staff report accepted as part of the record. The Department of Community Development requests approval of Amendment No. 1 to Tax Increment District #19 Northwest Industrial Park. The TID was originally created in 2003 for the purpose of facilitating the expansion and continued development of the Northwest Industrial Park. Mr. Lyons presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area. The first purpose of the amendment is to allow excess revenues to be transferred to Tax Incremental District No. 16, or known as the 100 Block Redevelopment area. Excess revenues transferred from the District to TID No. 16 will be used to provide loans to business impacted by the COVID-10 pandemic. Business qualifying for assistance will be located within 1h mile of TID No. 16. The second purpose of the amendment is to permit loans as an eligible Project Cost for TID No. 19. As with the transfer of excess revenue to TID No. 19, the purpose of including such cost is to permit the City to provide loans to business impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Loans may be made to businesses within the District or within 1/2 mile of its boundaries. The City plans to transfer $250,000 of the cash balance from TID No. 19 to TID No. 16. Additional transfers may be made to the extent that funds are available and needed to support the City's efforts to combat the economic and potential blighting impacts of the pandemic. He said staff recommends approval of the Project Plan amendment for TID #19 as proposed. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Ms. Palmeri stated some of the 1/2 mile buffer overlaps with the Sawdust District boundaries. She asked if that made some of the properties double eligible. Mr. Lyons said there are a number of other funding sources that are going into this. He explained when a business applies for funding, GO-EDC will look at what pool of funding is best suited for each situation. He said the 1/2 mile buffer gives a broader area to capture other businesses. Mr. Fojtik opened up the public hearing. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed the public hearing. Motion by Propp to approve the Project Plan amendment, recommending the amendment to the council and adopting the staff report as the findings. Seconded by Palmeri. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Plan Commission Minutes April 21, 2020 Motion curried 7-0. V. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW WINDOW CLOSURES ON THE FRONT FACADE AT 603 CEAPE AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Palmeri and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Mr. Wiley presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. This item was laid over from the March 17t" meeting to allow more time for the applicant and staff to work together on finding an alternative solution. The applicant removed the previous transom and sidelights that were around the front door on the front fagade. The applicant also removed and replaced the front door. The work was done without zoning or inspections approval or Plan Commission review. In the petitioner's application, he stated that he removed the existing door jamb, windows, threshold, replaced a 2x10 threshold, installed a 2x4 header, 7/16" plywood, new door and jamb and sided the area. The applicant did not provide much rationale for why the variance was necessary except to say that, "Replacement of front door is cause of variance." Staff is of the opinion that the completed work has had a detrimental impact on the architectural integrity of the front facade. The work is an example of the patchwork use of materials and trim that the ordinance intends to prevent. Staff is open to continuing to work with the owner and contractor to find a solution that is supportable. He said staff recommends denial of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow for window closures on the front facade with a finding. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Hinz asked if the applicant gave any indication that they were going to be doing more work to the property. Mr. Lyons replied to staff's understanding, it was a tenant that did the work without a permit. He said staff's main concerns are the patchwork appearance of the material used and the door itself because it is not consistent with the doors of neighboring properties or the character of the home. He explained staff delayed the item for a month to give more time for staff to work with the applicant but staff did not get a response from the applicant. He stated that is the reason why staff felt it was time to move forward with denial of the variance. Mr. Hinz agreed that the door did not match the character of the home. Ms. Palmeri inquired about the siding material. Mr. Lyons answered it is an older asphalt siding that looks like stone. Plan Commission Minutes April 21, 2020 Ms. Palmeri asked if it has been allowed for design standards variances to use faux windows/panels as a solution to situations like this. Mr. Lyons replied he could not think of a residential design standards where it has been done but said it would be a reasonable request. He said it has been used on commercial properties and said it could be a viable option for this request. Ms. Palmeri commented that option would help the applicant so they would not have to completely redo all the work. Mr. Lyons explained staff was looking for a way to blend in the area. He said staff brought up various options to the applicant who did not like the options or did not want to spend the money. He explained staff was trying their best to work with the applicant but ultimately the applicant was not willing to invest in materials to find a common ground. Ms. Propp asked what would happen if Plan Commission denied the request. Mr. Lyons replied staff would go through the violation process with the applicant. Ms. Propp asked if this item could come back to Plan Commission. Mr. Lyons replied it could come back if the applicant wants to come back and work on a solution. 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. Mr. Fojtik stated for any viewers watching to please call the city before planning to do any work. He said staff is willing to help out. Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Finding: The variance conflicts with the letter and intent of Section 30-241(B)(1) and Section 30- 241(D)(3)(c) of the Zoning Ordinance and the applicant has not provided sufficient justification for the variance request. Plan Commission Minutes 10 April 21, 2020 Seconded by Hinz. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Hinz stated he typically is on the side of the property owner. He said the ordinance was created to prevent patchwork appearance of this nature. He said he will not support the request but is hoping to see the applicant back and willing to work with staff on a solution. Mr. Ford agreed with Mr. Hinz. He pointed out on the application that there is not enough information to allow Plan Commission to grant the variance. Plan Commission and staff discussed the procedure on how to vote on the item. Motion carried 7-0. VI. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW WINDOW AND DOOR AREAS COMPRISING LESS THAN THE CODE MINIMUMS FOR FRONT AND STREET SIDE FACADES ON A PROPOSED HOUSE AT 1302 EASTMAN STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp 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 window and door areas comprising less than the code minimums for front and street side facades on a proposed house at 1302 Eastman 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 applicant plans to construct a new owner -occupied single-family home on the currently vacant corner parcel. The elevations as proposed fall just short of the minimum window/door area required for front and street side facades. Staff is of the opinion that though the proposed elevations do not meet the letter of the ordinance but they meet the ordinance's intent to prevent blank, monotonous areas on facades that face public streets. The home as proposed includes elements such as a covered front porch, decorative vent on the front facade and decorative shutters on both facades. The added window areas on the elevations help in preventing the monotonous fagade areas that the ordinances seek to avoid. The applicant worked to add window areas while maintaining the original floor plan. The additional architectural elements will offset the slight deficiency in window areas on the front and street side facades. He said staff recommends approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow for window and door areas comprising less than the code minimums for front and street side facades on a proposed house at 1302 Eastman Street with the conditions and a finding listed in the staff report. Plan Commission Minutes 11 April 21, 2020 Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Hinz asked if this was a single story home and if it had an attic. Mr. Wiley replied it has a basement and one floor above it. He said he was not sure if there was an attic or if it was accessible. Mr. Hinz asked if there were any bedrooms upstairs. Mr. Wiley replied there are not. Mr. Hinz asked for clarification that the applicant is willing to work with staff and is installing a large vent to help break up the fagade. Mr. Wiley confirmed the applicant was willing to work with staff. Ms. Propp inquired about the large garage and the location of it. She asked if it would be a problem if the garage were angled. Mr. Lyons and Mr. Wiley replied it would not be a problem. Mr. Ford questioned if the variance would lock in the percentages so it would not be lower in the future. Mr. Lyons answered it would lock in that requirement. Ms. Palmeri asked if there was any margin for percentages where items may not have to go to Plan Commission. Mr. Lyons replied right now there is not. He said staff is planning to work on that section of the ordinance because right now it is very black and white. He said builders/developers have brought it to staff's attention that though homes may not meet the percentages, they are still appealing and have a nice design to them. He explained about the point base system staff is working on that could potentially replace the percentages. He stated staff has had some positive feedback about the point base system which would give more flexibility. 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. Plan Commission Minutes 12 April 21, 2020 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 Palmeri to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: Finding: Home shall be constructed according to the reviewed and approved elevations. Any deviation from the reviewed and approved elevations for the front (Eastman St.) or street side (E. Tennessee Ave.) facades shall require a separate design standards variance application, Plan Commission review and Plan Commission approval. Design standards variance is narrow in scope, only for the window and door percentages proposed for the front (Eastman St.) and street side faptle (E. Tennessee Ave.) facades and shall not be construed as setting a precedent for further projects. Home as constructed shall comply with all other sections as outlined in the Residential Design Standards in the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. The variance approval as conditioned will not be contrary to the public interest. The facades as proposed meet the intent of the applicable sections in the Residential Design Standards. Seconded by Hinz. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Hinz commended staff for planning ahead and willing to work to make the ordinance more flexible. Ms. Palmeri commented the design standards were put in place to set a standard for homes but not to prevent people from making improvements. Motion carried 6-0-1 (Present: Perry). VII. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW A PROPOSED ADDITION ON THE FRONT FACADE OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE AT 330 SHORELANE STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Plan Commission Minutes 13 April 21, 2020 The applicants are requesting approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow a proposed addition on the front facade of the original house at 330 Shorelane 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 applicants have planned the construction of a garage addition. Due to the garage addition proposed for the front facade of the home, the applicants seek a design standards variance. If the work is approved, the applicants would shift the driveway access. The applicants will also enlarge the existing front entry. The intent of the work is to enlarge the attached garage to provide more storage. Due to the house's layout and orientation, the front yard is the only place the applicants could construct a garage addition. The applicants have changed the scope of work since submitting their design standard variance application. Instead of adding a new enlarged front entry as initially proposed, the applicants plan to expand the existing front entry. The existing metal lap siding would be removed and replaced with cedar shake siding that the applicants stated was original to the house. The cedar shake siding would be consistent on all exterior faces not currently brick. He said the applicant did e-mail staff yesterday stating they do not intend on using brick. He said staff recommends approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow a proposed addition on the front facade of the original house at 330 Shorelane Street with the conditions and finding listed in the staff report. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Ms. Palmeri read the e-mail and said it was a little bit confusing. She said it looks like the site plan and the elevations do not match. Mr. Lyons said that is one of the reasons why staff is asking the applicant for an updated site plan. He explained originally Mr. Wiley was supposed to make a site visit to look at the bricked area and if the new brick would match. He said the applicant has now decided they will no longer be using brick but only cedar shake. He said staff would like to uphold the applicant to the original proposal. He explained since the front plane will be closer to the street, the brick will help break up the monotonous front fagade. He said staff will leave that decision up to Plan Commission. Mr. Propp said there are other ways of breaking up the front facade such as landscaping. She stated she does not feel the applicant needs to use brick. 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. Plan Commission Minutes 14 April 21, 2020 Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. Applicants shall submit a dimensioned site plan including but not limited to: distances between the proposed driveway curb cut and the front property line, setbacks, etc. 2. If the applicants plan to deviate from the plans and elevations submitted, applicants shall submit revised plans and elevations for Department of Community Development review. 3. Variance is for the garage addition as proposed only and any further work proposed not in accordance with the Residential Design Standards shall be filed as separate variance requests for Plan Commission review. 4. All portions of house currently sided with lap siding shall be completely resided with cedar shake siding consistent in appearance throughout. 5. Any brick used for any work shall match the existing brick on the house. Applicants shall I nstall brick on west facade of the garage consistent in appearance with the existing brick on the house and as shown in the submitted elevations. 6. Applicant shall provide physical samples of the brick to be used to staff before any permits shall be issued. 7. Existing carriage walk in the front yard shall be entirely removed as part of reorientation of driveway. Finding: The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Seconded by Erickson. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Hinz asked staff if this item would come back to Plan Commission if the applicant decided to do the brick. Mr. Wiley answered it may or may not come back to Plan Commission depending on the conditions and if Plan Commission wants to amend the conditions. Mr. Lyons stated staff is recommending for the brick to be included but if Plan Commission wants to amend condition #5 or remove it, they are allowed to do so. He said he does have some concerns about the landscaping. Mr. Perry commented it is a little alarming to know the applicant did not want Mr. Wiley to do a site visit because homeowners should be proud to show their home to others. He said it is also alarming to see the applicant change the original request. He said the cooperation and sudden change of plans makes him leery that Plan Commission may not be getting the full story. Plan Commission Minutes 15 April 21, 2020 Plan Commission and staff discussed their options for amending condition #5. Mr. Perry clarified he does not have concerns with the brick vs cedar shakes. He reiterated that he is concerned with the cooperation and sudden change of plans which make him leery that Plan Commission may not be getting the full story. Ms. Propp said if it is all cedar shake, she would like to add landscaping as part of the condition. Motion by Ford to amend condition #5. Seconded by Palmeri. Motion carried 7-0 with final conditions to state: Final Conditions: 1. Applicants shall submit a dimensioned site plan including but not limited to: distances between the proposed driveway curb cut and the front property line, setbacks, etc. 2. If the applicants plan to deviate from the plans and elevations submitted, applicants shall submit revised plans and elevations for Department of Community Development review. 3. Variance is for the garage addition as proposed only and any further work proposed not in accordance with the Residential Design Standards shall be filed as separate variance requests for Plan Commission review. 4. All portions of house currently sided with lap siding shall be completely resided with cedar shake siding consistent in appearance throughout. 5. Any brick used for any work shall match the existing brick on the house. Applicants shall install landscaping along the west facade of the garage, landscaping plan shall be approved by the Department of Community Development. 6. Applicant shall provide physical samples of the brick to be used to staff before any permits shall be issued. 7. Existing carriage walk in the front yard shall be entirely removed as part of reorientation of driveway. Finding: The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. VIII. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW A DOOR CLOSURE ON THE FRONT FACADE AT 16 VIOLA AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Plan Commission Minutes 16 April 21, 2020 The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow a door closure on the front fagade at 16 Viola 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 for a front door closure on the front facade. To compensate for this front door closure the applicant plans to increase the total area of the front windows, add a 6' patio door on the east side of the home, add a new deck to the side yard, add new vinyl siding, add a new roof and build a new two car garage. Though the applicant will remove the door opening, the proposed two front windows will substantially increase in area. The increase in window area will more than compensate for the loss of the door. Staff is supportive of the variance request and believes that this work will not compromise the architectural integrity of the house. Staff believe the applicant provided sufficient documentation showing the overall plans for this project and believes that the overall remodel will enhance the curb appeal and value, when completed. He said staff recommends approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow for a door closure on the front facade at 16 Viola Avenue with the conditions and a finding stated in the staff report. Mr. Lyons added staff looked at the applicant's proposed total scope of work and the surrounding area to determine that the request was consistent with what was already across the street. He said staff also considered the overall general improvement of the property and its entirety to determine that this was a reasonable request. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Ms. Palmeri stated she was conflicted with this request because she does not know how she feels about houses with no front door. She asked if the address number would still be located on the front of the house for emergency purposes. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. Ms. Palmeri questioned if it would be harder to access the house by first responders due to the location of the door. Mr. Lyons explained there is a porch in the front that leads to the door which will make it easy to access. 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 17 April 21, 2020 There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Perry to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. Variance is only for the closure of the front door and the owner/applicant shall file separate design standards variance requests for any future window/door closures on the front facade. 2. Other work on the property including but not limited to siding, roofing, deck, etc. shall meet the Residential Design Standards. 3. Siding and roofing materials shall be consistent in appearance throughout and not patchwork. 4. All work shall be completed according to the plans and elevations provided. Finding: 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. design standards variance requests Seconded by Palmeri. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp stated this is a big improvement and she is going to support it. Mr. Fojtik agreed. Ms. Palmeri said while it is a big improvement, she still has concerns because there is already another house across the street that does not have a front door. She said not having a front door contradicts previous discussions Plan Commission has had and she won't be supporting the request. Motion carried 6-1 (Nay: Palmeri). IX. THIS ITEM HAS SEEN REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA X. ACCEPT WATER DISTRIBUTION EASEMENT AT 3851 JACKSON STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Palmeri reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Plan Commission Minutes 18 April 21, 2020 The City of Oshkosh is requesting acceptance of a water distribution easement located at 3851 Jackson Street. 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 proposed 16,164 square foot easement will be 30 feet wide, offset 20 feet west from the Jackson Street right-of-way, running north -south the entire 539- foot width of the property. The easement is centered on the existing eight -inch water main and will encompass other structures including hydrants and valves. The easement will allow the existing placement of the municipal water facilities, continued maintenance of existing structures and construction of new water distribution structures within the easement as needed. He said staff recommends approval of the acceptance of the water distribution easement at 3851 Jackson Street as proposed. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. 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 Propp. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-0. XI. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR BUILDING ADDITION AT 2105 S. KOELLER STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Palmeri reported visiting the site. Plan Commission Minutes 19 April 21, 2020 Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan amendment to allow for construction of a building addition for a bakery for a previously approved restaurant at 2105 S. Koeller 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. On May 28, 2019, Common Council approved a Specific Implementation Plan for a 34,423 sq. ft. building, which includes a restaurant/indoor entertainment venue (The Mineshaft). The request also identified an additional 30,000 sq. ft. for potential expansion. The applicant is now requesting approval of an SIP amendment for a 1,200 sq. ft. bakery addition. The Department of Public Works noted that full site plan review and approval will be required. The applicant has submitted a revised landscaping plan. The proposed addition triggers the need for additional building foundation and yard landscaping points from the approved plan. The applicant is proposing to relocate the previously approved Electronic Message Center pylon sign along Interstate 41 further to the east to be out of the drainage swale on the west side of the site. The exterior elevations of the addition utilize corrugated galvanized metal siding and stone veneer to match the originally approved elevations/materials. The three new exterior walls are relatively short in length and will blend in with existing approved materials and building height. He said staff recommends approval of the Specific Implementation Plan amendment with the findings and a condition listed in the staff report. Mr. Lyons noted the pylon sign is being moved closer to the paved drive access for ease of maintaining the sign. He said it would've been difficult to maintain the sign at the original location due to the grades. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Ms. Palmeri mentioned there is no external access to the bakery and asked if that may change due to the current situation limiting restaurants for takeout and delivery only. Mr. Lyons explained it is not a retail bakery. He said the bakery is for internal use to house additional equipment that is needed. 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. Plan Commission Minutes 20 April 21, 2020 Motion by Pahneri to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Condition: A minimum of 9 additional yard landscaping points shall be provided. Seconded by Hinz. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-0. XII. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT & SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPROVAL FOR A MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JACKSON STREET AND PEARL AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Erickson, Mr. Fojtik, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hinz, Ms. Palmeri and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a General Development Plan amendment and Specific Implementation Plan to allow for a mixed -use development located at redevelopment site H, at the southwest corner of Pearl Avenue and 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. On May 14, 2019, a General Development Plan was approved for multi -use developments located at Marion Road Redevelopment Sites H, I and J. This request only pertains to Site H. The applicant is proposing a 5-story approximately 57,000 sq. ft. mixed use building which will included 60 upper floor residential units and approximately 9,000 sq. ft. first floor commercial. The residential units will consist of 28 studio units, 16 one - bedroom units and 16 two -bedroom units. The ground floor will consist of 85% commercial space and 15% residential amenity and support spaces. Two associated outdoor patios are also being proposed along the Jackson Street sidewalk. The applicant is requesting BSMs primarily related to building height, reduced parking, landscaping and building materials. To offset the landscaping code deficiencies the applicant has exceeded the total landscaping point requirement for each category with the exception of yards. Given the challenges related to the unique lot layout, the applicant has provided sufficient overall landscaping for the site. Along with the increased landscaping, high quality proposed building materials provide for an attractive overall development. He said staff recommends approval of the General Development Plan amendment and Specific Implementation Plan with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Plan Commission Minutes 21 April 21, 2020 Mr. Lyons stated there is a full set of samples for the building materials. He showed them to Plan Commission and gave a brief overview of each one. He noted some of the samples may not reflect the exact color being used on the building. He said the renderings show a better job of the colors being used. He reminded Plan Commission that the site is a highly contaminated capped site which only allows for a specific building footprint. He said this is a very unique development and there hasn't been anything like this in Oshkosh yet. He explained the reason for multiple BSMs which is due to the zoning. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Ms. Propp inquired about the 3 redevelopment sites and where they were located. Mr. Lyons pointed out the location of each site on the map. 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 Erickson to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. Cross access agreement for shared driveways shall be filed with the Winnebago County Register of Deeds. 2. BSM to allow increased building height to 62 feet. 3. BSM to allow reduced number of parking spaces to 117 spaces. 4. BSM to allow dumpster enclosure closer to street than the building. 5. BSM to allow multi family use without outdoor recreation space. 6. BSM to allow increased parking row length without intermediate landscape island to 189 feet and 198 feet. 7. BSM to allow 3 parking row ends and 1 intermediate parking lot island without trees. 8. BSM to allow 0 street frontage landscaping points far Jackson St. frontage. 9. BSM to allow 0 street frontage landscaping points devoted to medium trees. 10. Final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development. 11. BSM to allow temporary fencing with signage during construction of the site. Plan Commission Minutes 22 April 21, 2020 12. Parking lot light fixtures shall be same style and height as parking lot light fixtures at neighboring Aurora site to the south. 13. BSM to allozo metal panels (Alpolic ACM) and fiber cement panels (Ribbed & Illumination Nichiha) as Class I building materials. Seconded by Propp. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Perry commented most of the units are studios and 1-bedroom units. He said he was hoping for more 2-bedroom units and units that are totally wheelchair accessible. He said it should be a requirement on developments of a certain size to have that available due to the extreme shortage in the area. Ms. Palmeri mentioned that was a request of hers at previous discussions. She said from her understanding, there will be a number of units that are accessible for visitation and for residents themselves. She said she is pleased the request is supporting density, going vertical and decreasing parking. She stated her concerns are the dumpster being close to the street, the removal of the trees, the removal of the outdoor recreation space and reducing the landscaping along Jackson Street. She stated she is torn on this request. Mr. Lyons addressed a few of Ms. Palmeri s concerns. Mr. Perry stated he has similar concerns as Ms. Palmeri. Ms. Propp stated it is an exciting development. She said it does not have everything Plan Commission wishes to see but it is a difficult site to develop on. She stated she appreciates Mr. Perry's concern about accessibility but said Plan Commission cannot require it. She said it needs to be changed in the ordinance to make it a requirement. Mr. Fojtik commented he does like the development but agrees the dumpster location is a legit concern. Mr. Lyons said the dumpster is located on the Pearl Avenue side. He explained staff worked with the applicant to find a location that could be easily accessed while not significantly impacting parking. He said it was a struggle to find something that worked without significantly impacting the parking. He explained the applicant is trying to integrate the dumpster into the corner to screen it the best they can. He said staff agrees with the dumpster location concern and typically does not agree with dumpsters in the front yard unless they are adequately screened and that there are no better options. Motion carried 6-0-1 (Present: Ford). Plan Commission Minutes 23 April 21, 2020 Mr. Lyons noted there will not be a May 511, Plan Commission meeting. He said there have been discussions about virtual meeting but nothing has been approved yet. Ms. Palmeri mentioned there was a Council Notice of Observation in the Plan Commission packet. She said it was due to some newly appointed Council members who currently serve on Plan Commission. She said that will change with the upcoming appointments to boards and commission. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:01 pm. (Hinz/Palmeri) Respectfully submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager Plan Commission Minutes 24 April 21, 2020