Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES June 16, 2020 PRESENT: Margy Davey, Michael Ford, John Hinz, John Kiefer, Phil Marshall, Justin Mitchell, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp, Jay Stengel EXCUSED: Mamadou Coulibaly, Derek Groth 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; Brandon Nielsen, Assistant Planner Chairperson Propp called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of June 2, 2020 were approved as presented. (Ford/Hinz) I. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO REMOVE SHINGLES ON GARAGE ROOF AND REPLACE WITH RUBBER AT 905 IOWA STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey and 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 a partial re -roofing using exterior materials not the same as the materials used on the original building at 905 Iowa 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 would like to remove the shingles on his garage roof and reroof this area with a rubber membrane roof. The low pitch of the roof and current shingles cause issues with water leakage. According to the applicant, a number of roofers have told him that 3 tab shingles are not effective with anything less than a 4/12 pitch. A contractor quote provided by the applicant states that water backs up under the shingles on the current roof and that any roof with less than a 4/12 pitch should be done in rubber to avoid future leaks. The current roof pitch above the garage is approximately 1.5/12. Staff is of the opinion that a black roof membrane would mask dirt and other residue more effectively than a white membrane and would maintain its appearance more effectively. Staff examined the roof's location on the house and the low pitch means that it is not as visually prominent when someone is close to the garage. The applicant stated that his intention is to remove all of the pre-existing shingles, replace any rotted decking prior to installing 1/2" fiberboard and then adhere a 60 mil rubber membrane to the fiberboard. He said staff recommends approval of a variance from the City's Plan Commission Minutes June 16, 2020 Residential Design Standards to allow a partial re -roofing using exterior materials not the same as the materials used on the original building at 905 Iowa Street with the conditions and a finding as listed in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Stengel asked if the original permit in 1983 specified the 1.5/12 slope and if it was approved at that time. Mr. Wiley replied staff did look to see if that specific slope was mentioned but did not see it as part of the permit. Mr. Propp asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Shane Foxcroft (applicant), 905 Iowa Street, said he did not have any questions but was curious why staff would suggest the color white instead of black. He said the original shingles are gray and black not white. He mentioned it is difficult to find white rubber. He said when he first called, staff told him he did not need a variance if he used white rubber. There were no other public comments on this item. Ms. Propp 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. Conditions: Finding: The Design Standards Variance shall be narrow in scope and only for the re -roofing of the garage roof with a rubber roof membrane. Any future work concerning the roof or other aspects of the home not in compliance with the Residential Design Standards shall be filed as separate requests for Plan Commission review and approval. Due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. Seconded by Ford. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Plan Commission Minutes June 16, 2020 Mr. Hinz questioned if staff suggested white to start with. Mr. Lyons replied staff did suggest white at first. He explained white may fit better and for sustainability purposes, white would be a better roofing color. He said in working with the applicant and looking at the facts, staff agreed with the applicant that using black was the best solution. Mr. Hinz commented he was just curious where the white came from. Ms. Davey stated that came from her from a sustainability standpoint because she questioned why it was recommended to be black. Motion carried 9-0. II. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW WINDOW AREA CLOSURE AND REDUCTION ON THE STREET SIDE FACADE AT 48 WEST 12TH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz and 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 area closure and reduction on the street side facade at 48 W. 12th Avenue. Mr. Nielsen 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 removal of one window for installation of cupboards and a size reduction of another window to accommodate use of a sink. The applicant explained that the closed up areas will be sided with existing vinyl siding so the color will match and further explained how the current window placement and length do not allow for a functional kitchen design. Street side facades require at least 15% of its wall space devoted to windows and door openings. Currently this facade is at approximately 17%. After the proposed window removal and reduction, this facade will devote roughly 15% to that standard. This removal and reduction in widows will allow for improvements to the kitchen. He said staff recommends approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow for removal of one window and size reduction of one window on the street side fagade at 48 W. 12th Avenue with the conditions and findings as listed in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Kiefer asked if there was a window of similar size behind the pine tree. Plan Commission Minutes June 16, 2020 Mr. Lyons pulled up the picture of the front facade and explained where the windows are located. Mr. Perry said he knows staff ensures that the siding matches but questioned if staff asked the applicant if the siding was going to be cut to fit in the open spot or if it was going to stay a staggered seam. Mr. Lyons replied there is nothing in the code that would require it. He said the applicant is present and could give more information on what their plan is for siding. Mr. Marshall questioned if the seams located where the two windows are being removed were going to be covered. Mr. Lyons explained the photo was mocked up to show where the windows were being removed. He said the applicant can explain more about the plans. Mr. Hinz asked how much space there was between the driveway and the house. He also asked how much greenspace can be put in there. Mr. Nielsen replied staff guessed 3-5 feet. Mr. Lyons stated it is enough are for minor landscaping to grow in it. Mr. Hinz commented it probably won't be enough space for another pine tree. Mr. Lyons said 30 points of landscaping is much less than a pine tree. Mr. Propp asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Jerry and Brandy Perron (applicants), 1721 Talkeetna Road of Neenah, said they were the owners. Mr. Perron said he does not like a patchwork appearance for the siding plus it does not hold up for the wind. He said they have a contractor who will install the siding correctly for both windows. He said it would be difficult to have landscaping in front of the basement windows because the driveway is right in front of it. Mr. Lyons asked what the distance was from the house to the driveway. Mr. Perron answered it is about a foot. Mr. Lyons asked if there was any room on the left side of the driveway for landscaping. Mr. Perron replied there is room, about 2-3 feet. Mr. Lyons said staff would be comfortable with landscaping in that area. Plan Commission Minutes June 16, 2020 Mr. Perron asked what the recommendations were for garbage placement. Mr. Lyons said he will have staff follow-up with Mr. Perron tomorrow with what the recommendations are. There were no other public comments on this item. Ms. Propp 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. Conditions: Findings: Closed window areas shall be resided with matching vinyl siding to maintain the existing appearance with the rest of the home. Variance is only for window area closure and window area reduction mentioned in request. Future deviations from the residential design standards will require separate applications and plan commission review. Area adjacent to window closure needs to have a minimum 30 points of landscaping and a final landscape plan to be reviewed by the Department of Community Development. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. Seconded by Hinz. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. III. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM CENTRAL MIXED USE DISTRICT (CMU) TO CENTRAL MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (CMU-PD) & APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A WALL SIGN AT 500 502 N. MAIN STREET Plan Commission Minutes June 16, 2020 Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hinz and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Central Mixed Use District (CMU) to Central Mixed Use District with a Planned Development Overlay (CMU-PD). The applicant also requests approval of a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan for a new wall sign at 500 502 N. Main Street. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The applicant is requesting a zone change to allow for additional signage exceeding maximum area allowed by code. The applicant is proposing to install an 8' X 16' wall sign for the Boys and Girls Chub 50th anniversary on the south facade of the existing building. The south building facade is 120' linear feet and currently has two wall signs (Skis Meat Market and Winnebago Bicycle) for a total area of approximately 76 sq. ft. As the sign ordinance allows 1 sq. ft. of wall signage per linear foot of building frontage, the maximum allowable area for the south facade is 120 sq. ft. A Base Standard Modification (BSM) is required for installation of the proposed sign as it would result in a total sign area of 204 sq. ft. on the south facade where a maximum of 120 sq. ft. is allowed. No changes are being proposed to the use/site design, landscaping, lighting, storm water management/utilities or building facades. He said staff was just made aware that the applicant would like to keep the BSM permanently. If this was allowed, staff would like to offset the request by limiting the amount of signage. He said staff recommends approval of the rezone, General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan with the findings and a condition as listed in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Hinz asked if the Base Standard Modification (BSM) was permanent if there would a constant changing of signs every month like some of the bars in Oshkosh. Mr. Lyons explained if it were permanent, the applicant could submit for a face change of that sign at any time. He said it is a requirement to obtain a permit for face changes on a sign. Ms. Davey asked if it could be a changeable copy sign. Mr. Lyons explained the changeable copy sign is a one-time permit. He said once it is obtained, the applicant could change the message as frequently as they wanted. Ms. Propp asked if this was a temporary sign. Mr. Lyons said the original request was for the sign to be up though August and that is why staff is recommending removal by October 1st Mr. Mitchell asked if there were any issues with the sign being on a historical property. Plan Commission Minutes June 16, 2020 Mr. Lyons answered the Landmarks Commission is aware of the request but there is no requirement stating that the Landmarks Commission has to approve of it. Mr. Marshall asked how long the sign will be on the building. Mr. Lyons replied the original mural request from the applicant stated it would be up through August. He said staff is suggesting moving the date out further due to the extra timing needed for Planned Development (PD) approvals. Mr. Mitchell asked if there have been similar requests to this in the past. Mr. Lyons answered there have been BSM requests related to increased signage in the past. He explained if the BSM were to be permanent, staff would suggest offsetting it in some way like they typically do when they grant a BSM. Mr. Mitchell stated the sign looks great and it is for a great cause. He questioned if there were any limitations for what could be posted on the sign. Mr. Lyons replied it would have to be on premise advertising which means someone would have to have a physical presence in that building to have a sign on the building. Mr. Mitchell stated he was unaware the Boys and Girls Club was located in that building. Mr. Lyons said the Boys and Girls Club have an agreement with the owner to be in the building. Ms. Propp questioned if the sign would cause any damage to the building. Mr. Lyons explained it would not be painted directly onto the building. He said the applicant can answer how the sign will be attached to the building. Ms. Propp commented the Landmarks Commission gets very upset when signs are not installed properly on historic buildings. My. Lyons said it can be recommended how a sign is attached the building but there cannot be a requirement on how to do it. Mr. Ford asked if this was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lyons replied rezoning to a PD is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Propp opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Kris Larson (applicant), 502 N. Main Street, stated he does not have any intentions of putting any other sign up on the building. He said it would be great to have the sign up at the location of the Plan Commission Minutes June 16, 2020 Boys and Girls Club's first home. He stated there is no timeframe on the application that he submitted for the PD. He said he is not sure if it can be conditioned that he would not put another sign on that building. He stated it would be pointless to spend the amount of money to add a PD for a sign that would only be up for a few months and then have to spend money to remove the PD later. He said he would like the sign to go up and will go down the proper route to make it happen. He stated there is no reason for a PD to be there and he would have to reverse it later. Ms. Propp asked staff if there was a temporary PD. Mr. Lyons replied there is not. He said the City could initiate a zone change to remove the PD later if the City chooses to. He explained the only way to get increased signage through the ordinance is to go through the PD process. Ms. Propp asked if the sign was be affixed to the building properly. Mr. Larson confirmed it would be. He questioned in what ways Plan Commission could approve this request. Mr. Lyons explained they can approve it as they see fit, whether it involves removing or adding conditions. Mr. Larson stated he understands the process but does not want a PD. He said he does not want to spend the same amount of money and time to remove it in the future. He said the sign would only be up for 2-3 months and there is no prorated rate for a PD that is only going to be in use for a limited amount of time. He asked that Plan Commission to approve the request with no timeframe. Mr. Hinz commented the PD could hinder Mr. Larson in the future because any future changes to the site would have to come through Plan Commission. Mr. Larson said that is why he would come back to remove the PD later. Ms. Propp said on the other hand the PD could give Mr. Larson more flexibility. Mr. Hinz asked staff why this wasn't considered a mural. Mr. Lyons answered it does not meet the definition of the mural ordinance. He said Public Arts and Beautification weighed in on this item and agreed it was not a mural. Karola Jungbacker, 1215 Bay Shore Drive, stated she has lived in Oshkosh for a very long time. She said she was part of the original Landmarks Commission and ended chairing it for several years. She said as a business owner and as a family, they are very concerned about historic events, historic buildings and the whole image of Oshkosh. She stated she is here to advocate for Mr. Larson s position. She said to make it complicated for a business owner to do something civic is Plan Commission Minutes June 16, 2020 counterproductive. She said Mr. Larson is trying to help a celebration of a very vital part of this community. She said this is in celebration of something and the changes don't have to be forever. There were no other public comments on this item. Ms. Propp 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: BSM to allow wall signage on south facade to exceed 1 sq. ft. per linear foot of building frontage for Boys and Girls Club sign through October 1, 2020. The proposed Boys and Girls Club wall sign shall be removed by October 1, 2020. Seconded by Davey. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Perry commented this is a situation where something is falling in-between the cracks. He asked if the City could remove the PD with no cost to the property owner. Mr. Lyons confirmed the City could request a zone change as the applicant and there would be no fees to the owner. Mr. Perry questioned if it could be added as a condition for the City to revisit this item in November, December or January so it would not create a hardship for someone who is doing something good for the area. Mr. Lyons said he would have to do some research to find out who has the authority institute a zone change. He said staff understands the desire and would push for that. Mr. Hinz said he knows there can be a date set on the BSM but inquired about possibly setting a date on the PD. Mr. Lyons replied a zone change cannot have a sunset clause. Mr. Ford agreed with Mr. Perry that it would be great to be able to add a condition that staff could initiate the process of removing the PD on October 2nd. Mr. Mitchell asked for clarification on if there would be a cost to remove the sign. Plan Commission Minutes June 16, 2020 Mr. Lyons explained there is no cost to remove the sign but there would be cost to removing the PD. He said if the City were to initiate the zone change, there would be no cost to the owner. Mr. Perry asked if it could be added as a condition that it is the Plan Commission's intent to have a city initiated zone change. Mr. Lyons replied he does not think it can be conditioned. He said he understands the concern and explained the process if the city initiated the zone change. Mr. Hinz asked if a condition could be added that city staff would review this in October. Mr. Lyons explained it cannot be added as a condition for the city to initiate a zone change but it could be conditioned that staff review the zoning district after a specific date. Mr. Hinz said he would like to propose adding that condition. Plan Commission unanimously agreed on adding a third condition. Mr. Mitchell asked where the October 19, date came from. Mr. Lyons replied it is a date staff chose. He said the applicant originally indicated the mural would be up through the end of August. He said since the PD process takes more time, staff chose to extend the date to make up for the time the applicant may lose. Mr. Mitchell asked what Mr. Larson s thoughts were on the date. Tracy Ogden, 501 E. Parkway Avenue, said she is with the Boys and Girls Club. She explained the intent was to keep the sign up until August 31s' because the anniversary date is August 30t',. She said they wanted the sign on the original building through the summer and afterwards it would be moved to the Boys and Girls Club for a permanent home. Mr. Larson and Ms. Ogden said any date after August 3111 is fine with them. Final Conditions: BSM to allow wall signage on south facade to exceed 1 sq. ft. per linear foot of building frontage for Boys and Girls Club sign through October 1, 2020. The proposed Boys and Girls Club wall sign shall be removed by October 1, 2020. Staff to further review the Planned Development on October 2, 2020. Motion carried 9-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (I) TO INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (I-PD) Plan Commission Minutes 10 June 16, 2020 & APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A FIRE TRAINING FACILITY AT 221 N. SAWYER STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Institutional District (I) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD). The applicant also requests approval of a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan for a fire training facility. 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 is requesting a zone change to allow for future site modifications. The applicant plans to redevelop the existing site into a fire department training facility and office space. Phase I of the plan is to erect a training tower in the existing south parking lot. The training tower will be 38' 4" tall and located between the principal structure and public right-of-way. Base Standard Modifications (BSMs) are required for both the proposed height and location of the structure. The applicant states that the proposed location within the south parking lot is advantageous because the existing unused parking lot would allow fire apparatus and firefighters to perform training without concerns of other vehicles driving though and creating potential hazards. They also note that the proposed location is desirable as it has proximal access to a fire hydrant and is secured with existing chain link fencing. According to the applicant, the tower will not be suitable for live fire exercises and no burning will occur in the tower. Subsequent phases noted by the applicant include future redevelopment of the site within the existing footprint and include improvements to existing infrastructure, structures and grounds. There will be no changes to signage, landscaping, site lighting or building facades. Department of Public Works will review storm water management for the site as part of the Site Plan Review process. He said there could be a conditioned added for solid fencing if Plan Commission felt it was appropriate. There were also some questions that were sent to staff from neighbors with concerns. He said staff recommends approval of the rezone, General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Hinz said the City is amendable to adding the slated fencing but asked if the Fire Department was amendable to it due to the intense heat that would be generated. Mr. Lyons said that is something that needs to be discussed with the applicant. He mentioned one of the property owners asked if the screening could be turned into more of a solid screening. Ms. Davey asked how high the security fence is. Mr. Lyons replied it is 6 feet in height with 3 feet of barbed wire on top. Plan Commission Minutes 11 June 16, 2020 Mr. Slusarek clarified there will be no burning at the site so the heat would not be an issue. Mr. Mitchell stated he will not be voting on this item because he manages the property directly to the west of the site. He inquired about how the Fire Department acquired the building. He said it is a relatively quiet neighborhood that is in close proximity to a number of schools and parks. He said he is curious why it is not a residential area. Mr. Lyons said he would defer to the Fire Chief on how they came to acquire the property. Mr. Mitchell said to be clear, this wouldn't have been a decision outside of just the Fire Department and asked who was in charge of land use. Mr. Lyons said he was not sure when the city acquired the property but he could look it up. Mr. Mitchell asked where that decision lied. He asked who chose that the building would be used for the Fire Department. Mr. Lyons explained it is currently zoned as Institutional and was Institutionally zoned before the city acquired it. He reiterated he will let the Chief respond to how they became interested in the property. Mr. Mitchell questioned why Mr. Lyons was not aware about property that the city owns how it is used. Mr. Lyons said the site was vacant for a while but is not sure when the city took ownership of it but he could check the tax records. Ms. Propp commented the Fire Chief can answer these questions. Mr. Mitchell asked whose role it was to notify the Fire Department and let them know this property was available for use. Mr. Lyons reiterated the Fire Chief can explain how they became interested in the property. Mr. Mitchell asked for confirmation that Mr. Lyons did not know. Mr. Lyons confirmed he does not know when the city had interest in the property. Mr. Mitchell asked again how Mr. Lyons did not know how this happened. He said after the city acquires it they would at some point look at the different options for the use of the site. He demanded to know who makes the decision for what it is used for if it is not Mr. Lyons. He stated he is surprised it is not Mr. Lyons and questioned again who decides what to do with the city's vacant lands. Plan Commission Minutes 12 June 16, 2020 Mr. Lyons said different departments within the city do occasionally acquire properties for different uses. He explained Plan Commission would not get involved until the site is getting redeveloped. Ms. Davey commented she did look up the information and it states that the city acquired the property in 2003 for $1. Mr. Ford asked for confirmation that this property was Institutionally zoned prior to the City acquiring it. Mr. Lyons confirmed it was. Mr. Ford asked if it was common practice that the city does not change the zoning once it acquires property. Mr. Lyons explained the zoning would only be changed once the use was changed. Ms. Propp opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mike Stanley (applicant), 101 Court Street, stated he is the Fire Chief for the City of Oshkosh. He thanked Plan Commission for giving him the opportunity to speak to this item. He said to Mr. Mitchell's comment, the person that ultimately makes the decision is the City Manager. He said the City Manager decides how the city allocates property that the city owns. He explained the city acquired the property when it is abandoned by the federal government. He said it sat vacant for a while and since then it has been used as a multipurpose facility by multiple departments. He said the Common Council directed the City Manager and the Fire Department to do a comprehensive needs study for the Fire Department which was completed in 2019. He said one of the things that has been a burden to the Fire Department is the lack of a training facility. He said it is something they specifically asked the consultant to look into and identify some solutions. He explained the processes the consultant used to finish the needs assessment. He said the firm's recommendation was that a training facility should be located at the armory site for multiple reasons. He said it was already a training facility prior to being acquired by the city and it would make sense to repurpose a training facility for a training facility again. He said it is a benefit to be in close proximity to schools because it can be used as a recruiting tool. He said the central location of the facility is also a benefit because it helps provide effective service and a quicker response time. He said being near these amenities makes this location very desirable. He stated the tower is not a fire rated building and does not have the functionality to do live burns evolutions in it. He explained this is a phased approached to becoming a fully operational training center and they never envision burning of Class A combustible materials. He mentioned just moments before he came to the meeting, he received the final draft from the architectural firm they contracted with to develop the phases and the training center for the Fire Department. He said it is their intention to better screen the property by using slating for the fencing and addition landscaping. He said he has already addressed a number of concerns from the neighbors. He urged Plan Commission to move forward with this item because it has some long reaching implication and explained what some of those Plan Commission Minutes 13 June 16, 2020 were. He said he is sensitive to the concerns by everyone involved but he is also sensitive to the 110 firefighters that he needs to make sure are trained to effectively and safely combat these emergencies. He explained that not having a training center in Oshkosh effects the service level they can provide, it increases the amount of overtime for the city and it decreases the Insurance Service Office (ISO) rating which impacts the insurance level for homeowners and business owners. He said it has many implications to the whole community. Mr. Ford asked if it currently being used as a training site because it was mentioned in the correspondence Plan Commission received. Chief Stanley replied they have historically used the parking lot for auto extrication training. He explained the process and said the training has been completed and the cars will be removed in the morning. Ms. Davey asked if there was training in the evenings. Chief Stanley explained ISO requires 8 hours of night-time training which is after business hours. He said the training would be wrapped up by 7 or 8 o'clock in the evening. He stated that would be the exception and not the rule. Mr. Hinz inquired about the maximum and average amount of people being trained on the site. Chief Stanley answered at the peak it would be a dozen or less and that would include instructional staff. He said most of the time it will be around eight with as little as three. Mr. Hinz inquired about the noise level. Chief Stanley said the noise level would be minimal such as power tools, chainsaws or other extrication tools. He said they will be very cognizant when using tools on the site. He said they will not be training with any loud explosives. He said they will also not be running the sirens or air horns during the training. Ms. Propp asked what the purpose of the tower was. Chief Stanley explained the ISO requirement and how the tower can be utilized for training. He said the tower meets virtually every training requirements that they need except for the ability to burn. Mr. Mitchell asked how many other sites in total were evaluated as part of the study. He asked if there was a cost benefit report and if there was, was reviewed by Planning or anyone responsible for land use. Chief Stanley said he cannot speak to that because the consultant worked directly with other staff. Mr. Lyons added the Council did weigh in on the facility study. Plan Commission Minutes 14 June 16, 2020 Chief Stanley said that is correct. He said Council also weighed in on the purchase of the tower with the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). He said Council has seen the study and reports and is very aware of the project because it is in the CIP. Mr. Mitchell asked for clarification if it was only for the tower. Chief Stanley replied it is for the tower and utilizing the armory for a training center. Mr. Mitchell asked for confirmation that no one present knows of what sort of site assessment work has been done in terms of possible options within the community for a training facility like this besides this site. Mr. Lyons reiterated there was a comprehensive facilities study done that was taken to Council. He said this was part of that facilities study. Mr. Mitchell asked if it looked at other potential sites as well. Chief Stanley stated the consultants told him they reviewed the options and this was the best choice that they came up with. Mr. Mitchell stated the consultants made the recommendation for the site and asked Mr. Lyons if his department was consulted at all. Mr. Lyons replied this is why they are here today to decide if it is appropriate from a land use perspective. Mr. Mitchell said that is what Plan Commission is doing but questioned why Planning was not involved in the land use decision of this. Mr. Lyons explained the Planning Department is not involved in facilities study. Mr. Mitchell asked what about land use. Mr. Lyons explained that is what they are doing today. Mr. Mitchell asked if Mr. Lyons had seen this before today. Mr. Lyons explained it does not get to Plan Commission without being discussed with the Planning Department first to discuss the process. Mr. Mitchell questioned why Mr. Lyons' department did ask to look at other possible options in the community instead of just going with the recommendation presented. Plan Commission Minutes 15 June 16, 2020 Mr. Lyons replied staff evaluated the request they received from the Fire Department and discussed the process with them as they would with anyone else who proposes a use to the city. Ms. Propp inquired about what the final site will look like. Chief Stanley said they would stay in the same footprint. He said they would renovate and repurpose the main armory building as well as the outbuilding to the north. He noted that this was a deteriorating structure and that site has not been maintained. He said if this isn't turned into a training center, it will most likely keep deteriorating. He said his intent is to make this a crown jewel for the city, make it something everyone will be proud of, raise the value of the property and so on. He said they want to beautify the greenspace, add a firefighter memorial and a nice sign. Ms. Propp asked if there would still be sufficient room in the parking lot for auto extrication training. Chief Stanley confirmed they would. He addressed the concern about off-street parking related to the fire apparatus/congestion and said this training center will give them enough room to move everything into the site. Ms. Davey said because this is so near to West High School, she asked if the property will be secure enough so that students cannot play on the tower. Chief Stanley replied it is gated and fenced. He pointed out it was a military building and has a 6- foot fence with razor wire on it. He said ultimately, they cannot keep the students out but it would be very difficult for them to get in. He mentioned there is lighting in the parking lot. Mr. Lyons showed the Google Street View of the parking lot. Mr. Marshall stated this is a great thing for the city to have and that everyone should be proud to have a training center. He said the question is how the vetting take place and if this is the right location for it. He asked where the access point would be for a firetruck to enter. He also asked if noise from the trucks, such as the air brakes, cause a disturbance to the neighborhood. Chief Stanley pointed out that there is a very large access gate on the National Avenue side. He said to access the parking lot, a vehicle would have to enter through that gate. He said he would consider the noise from the vehicles as routine traffic noise. Mr. Marshall said there are not many semis or big trucks that go down Sawyer Street. He said this is a quiet neighborhood and he doubts that there are a lot of air brakes that are going off in the area. He stated he is curious if the neighbors have been contacted and if they are kosher with this request. Chief Stanley stated this is the first time he has been through this process in the City of Oshkosh and is not familiar with planning and zoning. He asked Mr. Lyons if this item was noticed. Plan Commission Minutes 16 June 16, 2020 Mr. Lyons replied it was noticed and the Fire Chief has had conversations with the neighbors. Chief Stanley said there are neighbors who are present who would like to give their input as well. Mr. Mitchell inquired about the fire hydrant on the western portion of the property because it was listed as being an asset. Chief Stanley explained it is in the phased -out development that they will create a hydrant loop inside of the parking lot. He said the fact that there is already a hydrant there they can loop into is an asset. He said in the short term, they can still connect to that hydrant by installing a small access gate near the hydrant until the work is done to bring the hydrant loop into the complex. He said according to the Department of Public Works, the hydrant is an asset because the city would not have to put in the infrastructure. He stated there are a lot of other existing assets to this site already. Mary D'Angelo, 1223 National Avenue, stated she is in full support of the training center. She said all her windows on the north side of her house are looking directly at the tower. She stated there is a big gap where there are no trees. She stated her concern is the notice she received pointed out the subject site on the north side of the building where there are no houses. She pointed out there is also a hydrant at the end of Clayton Court. She said there is another parking area to the north and does not understand why the tower cannot be located in that area. She said she is not as concerned with the noise as much as the location of the tower. David and Janet Zerbe, 1217 National Avenue, asked if staff could pull up the aerial view and stated they are directly across from the gate. Mr. Zerbe pointed out the trees and said they are about 25 feet tall and the tower is going to be 38 feet tall. He stated that he supports the Fire Department and understands what they want to do. He said they have lived there for 32 years and have never had an issue until last year with the junk cars in the lot. Ms. Zerbe said as of today, the cars will have been sitting there for two weeks. She understands that they will be removed and supports the training but does not want it in her front lawn. She said any residential property wouldn't allow chopped up cars in the front lawn. She said her other main concern is the firetrucks and ambulances that come for the training. She said last week she counted 12 people and stopped counting after that. She said her street is lined with vehicles and does not understand why they cannot park in the parking lot. She stated she cannot back out of her driveway when there are vehicles parked on both sides of the street. She stated this tower is a horrible idea. She said her street is quiet and only one block long. She stated in broad daylight, there is neighbor who has already climbed the fence. Mr. Zerbe said he has worked on that structure for seven years and is an electrician for the City of Oshkosh. He stated he is very upset because he knows what is being housed in the buildings and how it is currently functioning and said there is no reason why the tower cannot be located on the north side. Ms. Zerbe pointed out there is also a fire hydrant on the corner of Sawyer Street and National Avenue. She said it would give more room for parking and is would not disturb as many residents. Mr. Zerbe said they were also confused by the notice they received. He said because of the tower, they would have to sell their house and the value would decrease greatly. Ms. Zerbe stated her daughter is a realtor and she is very concerned with how they would sell their house due to the tower and the commotion. Mr. Zerbe said it would Plan Commission Minutes 17 June 16, 2020 help if there were 35-foot trees lined up in front of the fence but there is not. He said there are a lot options for the location of the tower and suggested putting up the solid fencing before anything else. There were no other public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Chief Stanley asked staff to bring up the Google image. He said he was unsure about the map that was sent with the notice. Mr. Lyons explained it is the same map they do very every notice. He said the property is hatched and the arrow points to the property location not the location of the tower. He apologized because it was not intended to mislead the neighbors. He stated the arrow is strictly there to point to the property location. Chief Stanley pointed out on the Google map the parking lots and explained why the tower cannot be located on the north side. He said some of the reasoning is due to the layout of the parking lot and some of it is due to the proximity of certain rooms in the building. He said the building Mr. Zerbe is utilizing for work is housed in the building to the north and if the tower were located there, Mr. Zerbe would not be able to access that building. He said the geotechnical engineering survey also stated it should be located to the south. He said he fully understands the Zerbe's concerns. Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: BSM to allow 38' 4" tall accessory structure where code allows a maximum height of 18'. BSM to allow accessory structure in front of the principal structure. Seconded by Davey. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Perry stated there is an outdoor storage issue which has to be rectified. He asked what other uses would be allowed in the Institutional District if the city did not utilize the building. Ms. Propp left at 5:40 pm. Mr. Lyons listed some of the uses such as community living arrangements, daycares or churches. He also listed uses the conditional uses such as larger community living arrangements or institutional residential such as transitional housing. Plan Commission Minutes 1s June 16, 2020 Mr. Perry asked if it could be a group home, a youth detention or something similar. Mr. Lyons replied those could potentially be an allowed use with a Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Davey said she understands the concerns but also thinks this is a really good use of an existing structure. She said this is also a nice area for it because it will get recognition from the students. She said for the most part no matter where the tower is going to be located, there will always be someone living across the street. She stated Plan Commission should accept this request. Mr. Mitchell stated this process seems to be somewhat of a failure of municipal planning. He stated there was a decision made for the use of the building that did not involve the Planning Department, the Comprehensive Plan or any documents related to land use. He said none of that was consulted when the city considered what they should do with this 3.37 acre plot of land that is in walking distance from three schools or various parks. He stated Plan Commission should not have to say yes just because the Fire Department needs a training facility. He clarified that he fully supports their effort to get one. He stated the city is just going to give the Fire Department this plot of land without any evaluation of what the best use would be for the plot of land. He said the area could be used to achieve some of the goals of the city such as adding more density. He stated that is not a discussion that seems to have taken place. He stated that fundamentally this is a vast failure on part of the city. He said he asked about other sites and strongly disagrees with the notion wherever the tower goes that someone will be opposed to it. He said this is going to be located in a residential area and he hasn't seen this building used for about 15 years. He named other sites in the city the training center could be located. He said all this information should have been presented to Plan Commission to be able to make an informed decision but it is not what has been presented to them today. He stated he does not think the Plan Commission should vote on the item. He said no one wants to live with a 38 foot tower next to them and it is a hard sell. He said he understands that it has to go somewhere but does not know if this is the best place for it. He said the trees have been mentioned and pointed out that some of them are junk maple trees. He asked if the city is going to replace them if they die. He said the tall trees are not blocking anything and better screening would be needed right away. He said he strongly encourages the Plan Commission to consider if they were living next door to think about what they would hope for in terms of some sort of privacy barrier. Ms. Propp arrived at 4:44 pm. Mr. Hinz reminded Plan Commission that their purview is to decide if the land use fits the Comprehensive Plan. He said this property is zoned Institutional and is an acceptable use in this area. He said it is not Plan Commission's job to review different sites and where properties should be located. He explained Plan Commission's job decide on the request that is brought to them to decide if it belongs there. He said the slated fencing should help screen the property. He said this will be used for training for only the Fire Department. He commented the Fire Department is trained in so many ways that most people don't even know such as earthquake response or helping other communities with emergencies. He understands the concerns but said this is not going to be something that use used 24/7 365 days a year. He said there are not enough firefighters to train and to have them on staff. He said there is not a lot of staff due to the budget of the city. Plan Commission Minutes 19 June 16, 2020 He said it may be a nuisance from time to time just like it is during certain events in the city or living near a baseball park. He stated he will be supporting this because he thinks it is best for the community as a whole. Mr. Lyons reminded Plan Commission that they have the authority to add or remove conditions as they see fit. Mr. Ford noted the CIP did come before the Plan Commission on September 18, 2019. He said Council had a workshop on October 28, 2019. He said Council then approved the CIP on November 12, 2019. He said this project, the tower, is right on page 27. He said this item has been looked at for the funding purpose. He agrees with Mr. Mitchell that land use should be discussed and said this is the right place to discuss it. Mr. Hinz suggested adding a condition related to the slated fencing. Mr. Marshall said it seems like there are a lot of questions still and it would be a win -win to get some of the questions answered. He said he does not think anyone on the Plan Commission is against having a training center in the city. He said there are too many unanswered questions and stated he does not feel comfortable approving this due to that. Ms. Propp mentioned to Mr. Marshall that he can motion to lay the item over if he chooses to. Mr. Mitchell asked if the neighborhood association across the street was notified about this request. Mr. Lyons replied they were not noticed. Mr. Mitchell asked how Mr. Lyons' staff decides on what they are going to put in the staff report regarding planning documents. He said he is looking the February 22, 2018 future land use map. He said the area is listed as light residential development. He asked why that was not included in the staff's finding. Mr. Lyons said this is a staff report and it is staff includes information they feel is necessary. Mr. Mitchell asked Mr. Lyons why his staff did not feel in a land use decision that a table referencing the future land use of the area is relevant. Mr. Lyons said his staff evaluated this request, based on good planning principals, and thought it was appropriate to include a Planned Development. Ms. Propp said there is a lot going on in this site and wishes there were not a 38-foot tower on the site. She said National Avenue is narrow. She said she also understand this decision has moved forward in many ways. Ms. Propp explained that when Plan Commission reviews a CIP it is not their job to look at individual items. She said to have that authority, a person would have to run for Common Council. She said the location of the tower could be moved to the north but people Plan Commission Minutes 20 June 16, 2020 wouldn't like that either because there are apartments to the north. She stated she will approve this request reluctantly. She commented it is too much going on for too small of a site. Mr. Lyons said he pulled up the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and this parcel is called out for community facilities and not light density residential. Mr. Mitchell said the only land use map provided on the Planning Services Comprehensive Plan webpage is the February 22, 2018 land use map. He asked if there was a disagreement on what the land use of this area should be. Mr. Lyons said the Plan was adopted on October 9, 2018. Mr. Perry said he would like to call the question. Ms. Davey confirmed this vote would include the slated fencing condition. Plan Commission and staff agreed it would include the additional condition. Final Conditions: BSM to allow 38' 4" tall accessory structure where code allows a maximum height of 18'. BSM to allow accessory structure in front of the principal structure. Existing fence along National Avenue shall be altered to create a solid screening. Motion carried 7-1 (Ayes: Davey, Ford, Hinz, Kiefer, Perry, Propp and Stengel. Nays: Marshall. Abstain: Mitchell.) PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Cancellation of Tuly 7, 2020 Plan Commission Meeting Mr. Lyons explained that staff did not receive any applications for the July 7, 2020 Plan Commission meeting, therefore, Plan Commission will not meet. Mr. Perry requested for a future meeting to have some counsel to remind Plan Commission what their roles are and what the rules are for when commissioners intend to abstain. Mr. Lyons said staff can ask the City Attorneys to come in. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:01 pm. (Hinz/Ford) Respectfully submitted, Mark Lyons Plan Commission Minutes 21 June 16, 2020 Planning Services Manager Plan Commission Minutes 22 June 16, 2020