Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES August 18, 2020 PRESENT: Mamadou Coulibaly, Margy Davey, Michael Ford, John Hinz, Justin Mitchell, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp, Jay Stengel EXCUSED: Derek Groth, John Kiefer, Phil Marshall STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Allen Davis, Community Development Director; Kelly Nieforth, Economic Development Services Manager; Ray Maurer, Director of Parks; James Rabe, Director of Public Works; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager / City Engineer; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Jeff Nau, Associate Planner; Alexa Naudziunas, Associate Planner; Steven Wiley, Associate Planner Chairperson Propp called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of August 4, 2020 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Davey) I. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING AND SHUNTING AREAS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE FRONT YARD AT 900 N. KOELLER STREET Ms. Propp stated the applicant is requesting this item to be laid over until the September 15, 2020 Plan Commission meeting. Motion by Hinz to lay over the Specific Implementation Plan amendment far additional parking and shunting areas and accessory structures in the front yard at 900 N. Koeller Street until the September 15, 2020 Plan Commission meeting. Seconded by Ford. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 8-0. II. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW A WATERFRONT YARD SETBACK NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVAILING BUILDING SETBACKS FOR A NEW HOME ON AN INFILL SITE AT 0 (3074) LAKE REST LANE Plan Commission Minutes August 18, 2020 Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey, Mr. Hinz and Mr. Stengel 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 waterfront yard setback not consistent with the prevailing building setbacks for a new home at 0 (3074) Lake Rest Lane. Mr. Wiley presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. He gave a brief summary of the original request in October of 2019 and explained why it was denied. Since the denial, the applicants have shifted the house so that it is set back from the north waterfront property line by 52 feet instead of the original 30 feet. The applicants and their designer also altered the site plan to ensure that no part of the house extends into the utility easement on the east side of the parcel. The applicants stated that it would be impossible to build their home if the line-up provision in the ordinance was applied. The proposed placement of the home would allow for a driveway off of the private access road. At this time the applicants are only asking for a design standards variance for the placement of the house on the lot. They have submitted a site plan and elevations showing proposed window and door openings and materials for the home. He stated there have been numerous correspondences from the public on this item. He also noted the applicant may be asking for a 50' setback instead of a 52' setback but the applicant will have to formally request it. He said staff recommends approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow a front yard setback not consistent with the prevailing building setbacks for a new home on an infill site at 0 (3074) Lake Rest Lane with the conditions and a finding as listed in the staff report. Mr. Lyons commented all the correspondences related to this item have been e-mailed out to all the Plan Commission members and staff has also printed them for the meeting. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Mitchell asked staff to further explain the environmental basis for the setbacks and the requirements that are present for any sort of buffer or provisions that help to protect water quality when there is shoreline development. Mr. Lyons answered this area of the city is exempt from shoreline regulations under the County based on when it was construed into the city. He stated shoreline setbacks do not apply from the county level. He said in the Lakefront Residential Overlay District, there are setbacks established to ensure minimum water setback is maintained. He stated those setbacks are listed in the PowerPoint and staff report. He explained the request before the Plan Commission is based solely on the Design Standards Variance that require lineup provisions above and beyond standard setbacks. Mr. Mitchell said the County has a program to provide funding for native shore restoration and the State has a program with the DNR called Wisconsin Shoreline Management Program. He Plan Commission Minutes August 18, 2020 asked if staff ever receives information related to similar programs or if staff provides this information to the applicant/owner. Mr. Lyons replied at this time, the applicant/owner is not required to provide that information. He said the only thing the city requires is setbacks and floodplain documentation. He said typically the city does not provide that information until the permitting process to ensure the project will be able to move forward. Mr. Stengel asked where the original home was located on the lot. Mr. Lyons replied the owner should be able to answer that question. Ms. Propp asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Attorney Russ Reff (representing the applicant), 217 Ceape Avenue, asked staff to pull up the aerial photo. He complimented staff for doing a thorough job on the report and presentation. He said the proposed Sammons' residence would comply with the minimum 25' setback that the city has for shoreline. He explained the variance needed here is because it is an infill. He said the ordinance requires the new residence to align as much as possible with the existing residences. He pointed out on the aerial photo that the shoreline is not straight and in fact curves to the north very drastically. He said moving the home forward would mainly impact the view of the peninsula and not the lake. He said the Sammons have owned this lot for about 20 years. He said they removed the dilapidated cottage and have always hoped to build their retirement home on the lot. He listed various reasons why the lot is difficult to build on. He explained since the denial of the last Design Standards Variance request, the neighbors have been in discussion with the Sammons and both parties agreed to a 50' setback. He said the Sammons redesigned their residence based on the 50' setback agreed upon. He stated the Sammons would like to request a setback of 50' and not 52' as shown in the staff report. He explained since the application submittal, the Sammons reduced their home again to accommodate the concerns from Public Works related to the easements. He noted there were also concerns related to the overhang which has now been resolved. He stated the Sammons are requesting an alignment setback variance that would allow them to construct within 50' of the shoreline, the encroachment agreement is no longer needed and they are willing to accept a condition that no part of the foundation be located within the 5' of the temporary construction easement. He said the purpose of a variance is to address unique situations and this is a truly a unique situation. He mentioned the Sammons are also present to answer questions. Mr. Hinz asked how big the overhang would be. Mr. Reff replied two feet. He commented on this lot, two feet makes a big difference. Ron Wenzel, 3076 Lake Rest Lane, said the building and zoning restrictions are made for the purpose of having conforming buildings in a neighborhood and allowing the individuality but not adversely affecting the rights of the neighbors. He explained what a variance hardship is. He stated there is no demonstration of hardship here and the applicant needs to adjust the building Plan Commission Minutes August 18, 2020 plan to fit into the lot. He said the property would impact the sights and values of all the neighboring properties as well. Kathy Wenzel, 3076 Lake Rest Lane, clarified that the neighbors who approved of the setback are seasonal neighbors, are only there some weekends in the summer or live a distance away from the property. She stated all the neighbors that are directly adjacent to the property and affected the most are present. She said the State statute has made it very clear that the variance can only be requested if there is a hardship. She explained what a hardship is and stated there is no hardship for this request. She stated the applicants need to come up with a plan that meets the standards. Mr. Lyons explained this is not a zoning dimensional setback from the zoning code and that it is a Design Standards Variance. He said a Design Standards Variance does not contain those same statutory requirements. Ms. Wenzel thanked Mr. Lyons for the clarification. She said the home still needs to meet the setbacks and align with the existing homes. She pointed out the properties that would be impacted by the proposed home. John Samster, 3080 Lake Rest Lane, said he understands that one day something will be built on that lot. He said at the beginning, the neighbors thought the proposed home would be a single - story ranch for mobility purposes but now it is a huge two-story home which would block the view of the bay. He said the neighbors also have concerns about the decreased value of their homes due to the loss of the view. He stated three out of the five supporters for this request are not impacted by it, are not residents of the City of Oshkosh and they are seasonal dwellers. He said keeping the home aligned with the other homes will promote a more attractive subdivision. He said he depends on the City of Oshkosh's zoning committee to protect, develop and maintain proper values of the property. He read a statute related to hardships and stated no such hardship exists in this case. He thanked everyone for the opportunity to speak. Bruce Sammons (applicant), 1845 Walnut Street, stated this will not be a cottage because he already has a cottage. He said this will be his retirement home. He explained if he could've built last year, he would've have sold his residence at 1845 Walnut Street. He said they spend the winters in Arizona and the summers in Oshkosh so this would be their summer residence. He explained the multiple revisions they have made to the home in order to comply with the various regulations. He stated he just wants to build a house with his wife and live out there because they love it out there. He said the house will be around 2,100 square feet at completion. He stated he is very concerned about the construction easement and the current design for the house gives him a two feet buffer from the easement. He thanked everyone for their time. Ms. Propp inquired about the home, the original plan and the number of stories. Mr. Sammons explained originally, he planned for a second floor which would contain one bedroom, one bath and the remaining portion would be for storage. He gave a brief history of the modifications in the last year due to the various regulations. Plan Commission Minutes 4 August 18, 2020 Mr. Hinz raised a point of order and stated the request is only for the placement of the home on the site. He said the design of the home is not part of the request. Mr. Lyons confirmed it is only for the placement of the home. He noted if the design was code compliant, it would not need to come back to Plan Commission. Joan Ritmanich, 3072 Lake Rest Lane, said their house is a two-story home. She said at a previous neighborhood meeting, Mr. Sammons told her the home would be a 1,800 square foot two-story home. She asked if there had been a change from the meeting last Thursday to today. Mr. Sammon replied there has been a change. 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. Mr. Sammons said there was discussion about the old cottage. He explained the old cottage was a summer cottage that was falling apart so they tore it down. He gave a brief history about the location of the cottage and the easement. Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. Design standards variance is only for the placement of the home on the site and not for the design of the home. 2. Applicant shall submit the design of the proposed home to the Department of Community Development for staff review and approval. 3. Any variances regarding the design of the home shall be filed as separate requests for Plan Commission review and approval. 4. Applicants shall obtain any required encroachment agreements and departmental approvals before building permit issuance. Finding: Due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. Seconded by Davey. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Hinz inquired about the 50' versus the 52' setback since it is not in the conditions. Plan Commission Minutes August 18, 2020 Mr. Lyons answered Plan Commission could add that condition. He explained the original submittal stated 52' and if approved as is, the applicant would be held to that 52'. Mr. Mitchell commented the properties to the east of the site do not have front yards. He said this property has quite an expansive front yard. He questioned why the home could not be moved closer to the south to align more with the existing properties. Mr. Lyons explained when staff reviewed it, it becomes very narrow there to meet the easement lines and the required setbacks. He said in staff's opinion, it almost becomes an unreasonable width at that point. He said it can be done but it would be a very narrow structure. He stated when staff looked at it, the reasonable buildable width, staff felt it was reasonable to consider the variance. Mr. Mitchell asked if the applicant gave a reason for such a significant setback. Mr. Lyons replied staff was told the applicant wanted to maintain a certain width of building. Motion by Hinz to amend the conditions and add the following condition: 50' minimum waterfront setback from the north property line. Seconded by Ford. Motion carried 6-2 (Ayes: Coulibaly, Ford, Hinz Peru, Propp, Stengel. Nays: Davey, Mitchell.). Mr. Hinz said he understands there are issues with losing sight lines because he has had a similar experience in his neighborhood. He said he also understands there has been progress and Mr. Sammons has been trying to work with the neighbors. He said from what he has seen, the applicant has gone over and above. He stated he will be supporting the variance. Ms. Propp commented she appreciates staff, the applicant and the neighbors working together as best they could. Motion carried 8-0. Final Conditions: 1. Design standards variance is only for the placement of the home on the site and not for the design of the home. 2. Applicant shall submit the design of the proposed home to the Department of Community Development for staff review and approval. 3. Any variances regarding the design of the home shall be filed as separate requests for Plan Commission review and approval. 4. Applicants shall obtain any required encroachment agreements and departmental approvals before building permit issuance. Plan Commission Minutes August 18, 2020 5. 50' minimum waterfront setback from the north property line. Final Finding: Due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. III. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIDELIGHT CLOSURE ON THE FRONT FACADE AT 1027 MOUNT VERNON STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey 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 sidelight closure on the front facade at 1027 Mount Vernon Street. Ms. Naudziunas 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 sidelight closure on the front fagade. Though the applicant will remove the sidelight opening, the proposed front windows will have minimal change in size amounting in less 10% change. The door is proposed to increase in size and the area where the sidelights were will be covered with snatching siding material and white framing. Staff evaluated the project's impact on the design of the home as it relates to the purpose and intent of the residential design standards. After evaluation, 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. The new design will complement the architectural styles found in the neighborhood and add value to the home. She said staff recommends approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow for sidelight closure with the conditions and a finding as listed in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. Ms. Propp asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Peter Henkle (applicant), 1027 Mount Vernon Street, said he has been a licensed contractor in the State for years. He explained by removing the sidelights, they were able to put in shoulders that carry the weight of the porch. He said aesthetically, the neighbors love it because he has fixed up the house. He said this is one step closer to enhancing the curb appeal and turning it into a usable Plan Commission Minutes August 18, 2020 space. He explained they will put the five windows back in the front but wanted to remove the sidelight to give more structural integrity to the porch. 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 reconnnnendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: Finding: Variance is only for the closure of the sidelights and the owner/applicant shall file separate design standards variance requests for any future window/door closures on the front facade. All work shall be completed according to the plans and elevations provided. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Seconded by Stengel. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp commented this will improve the property and she appreciates that. Motion carried 8-0. IV. ACCEPT SIDEWALK, CURB, CONDUIT AND ELECTRIC PULL BOX EASEMENT AT 149 W. 24TH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey and Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh is requesting acceptance of an easement to allow placement of sidewalk, street curb and electrical facilities at the northwest corner of 149 W. 24th Avenue. Mr. Nau presented the item. The City plans to install public sidewalk, curb, electric pull box and underground conduit and wires within this easement. This work is related to Oregon Street reconstruction project currently underway. Afterwards, the City will have continued rights to access the easement area to maintain the facilities. The City has been working with the property Plan Commission Minutes August 18, 2020 owner which has agreed to grant the easement. The City Attorney's office has drafted the necessary easement documents. The Department of Public Works does not have concerns with the proposal and will work with the property owners to have the appropriate easement documents signed and recorded at the Winnebago County Register of Deeds upon Common Council approval. He said staff recommends approval of the acceptance of the proposed sidewalk, street curb and electrical facility easement at the northwest corner of 149 W. 24th Avenue as proposed. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. Ms. Propp 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. 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. Seconded by Hinz. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 8-0. V. AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY AND DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY NEEDED FOR STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND SIDEWALK INSTALLATION ON W. 9TH AVENUE FROM GRACELAND DRIVE TO LINDEN OAKS DRIVE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. This request is part of the city's proposed reconstruction of W. 911, Avenue from S. Oakwood Road to Linden Oaks Drive (including sidewalk installation) and sidewalk installation from Graceland Drive to Greenfield Trail. The city entered into an agreement with the Wisconsin Department of Plan Commission Minutes August 18, 2020 Transportation (DOT) to prepare a Transportation Plat to begin acquisition of land, dedicate public right-of-way and acquire Temporary Limited Easements required for the project. Mr. Nau presented the item. The proposed land acquisitions will be used to dedicate public right- of-way, widening the overall width from 66 feet to 80 feet where it is not already. This will allow the city to fill in the sidewalk gap on the north side of W. 9th Avenue between Graceland Drive and Greenfield Trail and reconstruct W. 9th Avenue between S. Oakwood Road and Linden Oaks Drive to a 4-lane roadway, consistent with the street east of S. Oakwood Road. The Subdivision Regulations and Comprehensive Plan recommends collector -classed street such as W. 9th Avenue to have an 80-foot right-of-way. The land acquisition for the sidewalk installation between Graceland Drive and Greenfield Trail involves three properties. The proposed land acquisitions for the W. 9th Avenue reconstruction between S. Oakwood Road and Linden Oaks Drive involves 26 properties. The proposed sidewalk installation on the north side of W. 9th Avenue between Graceland Drive and Greenfield Trail is planned for construction later this year. The reconstruction of W. 9th Avenue between S. Oakwood Road and Linden Oaks Drive is scheduled for 2021 and is included in the draft 2021 Capital Improvements Program. He said staff recommends approval of the property acquisitions and right-of-way dedications of sections of W. 9th Avenue between Graceland Drive and Linden Oaks Drive as proposed. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. Ms. Propp questioned if there was already enough right-of-way for the other properties (2234, 2240 and 2324 W. 9thAvenue) in the Graceland Drive section. Mr. Lyons confirmed there was and explained there is a bit of a saw tooth in the right-of-way which occurred throughout the years. He said some properties already had the right-of-way dedicated and others did not. Mr. Nau explained the history of the right-of-way dedication for the three properties. Mr. Lyons stated it has been a long range plan of the city to move this to an 80-foot right-of-way. He said the city is ready for reconstruction of W. 9t' Avenue and needs the rest of the dedications in order to start. Ms. Propp inquired about the construction timeline and if it would be ready when Council wants to put in a 4-lane road. Mr. Nau said that is for the section west of S. Oakwood Road. He explained when the city reconstructs the section, it will be a 48 foot wide roadway. He said initially it will have two lanes of traffic, a parking lane on both sides and a bike lane on both sides. He said as traffic needs increase, the city could make it a 4-lane roadway. Mr. Lyons reiterated there is enough right-of-way dedication to accommodate for both configurations. Plan Commission Minutes 10 August 18, 2020 Ms. Propp asked if there were any public comments. James Burkhardt, 2955 W. 9th Avenue, said right now the city is proposing a 10.5' terrace on both sides. He said Mr. Gierach told him it is to accommodate snow removal width of 48'. He explained the whole south side of W. 9th Avenue has very large trees. He asked if there has been any consideration to move the sidewalk closer to the street to avoid cutting down all the big trees and maybe saving cost. Mr. Rabe said the proposal for the right-of-way is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He explained when it comes to the actual construction and design, they do try and work around any large trees and adjust the sidewalk as necessary. Ms. Propp asked when it would happen in the process. Mr. Rabe replied it would be during the design phase. Ms. Propp asked when the property owner would know when to discuss it with Public Works. Mr. Rabe said at this time, the design phase is not far enough along to be able to give any of those answers. He reiterated it is common practice for them to work around things such as large trees. There were no other public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed public comments. Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Mitchell. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Mitchell asked if it was appropriate to add a condition stating staff will work with residents to maintain existing mature trees as possible. Mr. Lyons explained once the property is dedicated, it no longer has purview of Plan Commission to have conditions attached since it becomes the public right-of-way. He said staff understands they have to communicate with the property owners. Mr. Rabe added all of the design projects are coordinated with the City Forester who reviews the conditions of all the trees and makes recommendations to Public Works. Motion carried 8-0. Plan Commission Minutes 11 August 18, 2020 VI. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A COMMUNICATION TOWER AT 1620 PELTON PARKWAY Site Inspections Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for installation of a communication tower (cellular telecommunications tower). 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 proposing to install a cellular telecommunications tower which will consist of a 76' tall monopole (80' including lightning rod) which will include antennas and remote radio units. Other ancillary equipment including an equipment cabinet, back-up generator and tank and a utility frame will also be installed on the subject site. The proposed cell tower will be accessed from Foundation Road, which is a private road within the airport site. The tower and equipment will be enclosed within a 30' X 40' fenced in area. The proposed cell tower is meeting all applicable setback, impervious surface and height requirements of the zoning ordinance. The proposed tower height has been approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The applicant is not proposing any parking on the site. No lighting or signage is being proposed for the site. Finalized storm water management plans will be required and reviewed during the Site Plan Review process. Landscaping is not required for the site as no building or parking areas are being constructed and the site does not have public - right -of -way frontage. He mentioned there are a couple correspondences that he has received since the staff report was written. He said staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit for a communication tower at 1620 Pelton Parkway as proposed with the findings and a condition as listed in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Hinz asked if this tower will be able to be used by other services as well in the future. Mr. Lyons replied he believes they are required to allow some of that access. Mr. Slusarek added the applicant is present and can help answer that question too. Mr. Lyons reiterated they have to meet the typical FAA standards. He explained items like this are highly regulated through the federal government and the city's overview is relatively minor. Ms. Propp opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Andy Fitz (applicant), 1351 E. Irving Park Road in Itasca, complimented staff on doing an excellent job summarizing the specifics of the project. He said Andrew Flowers, a Senior Real Estate Manager with AT&T, is also present to help answer questions. Plan Commission Minutes 12 August 18, 2020 Mr. Hinz asked if other services would be able to use the tower. Mr. Fitz confirmed other services would be able to use the tower as well. Andrew Flowers, Schaumburg of Illinois, stated he is the Senior Real Estate and Construction Manager for AT&T Illinois — Wisconsin. He explained his job is to oversee this facility and many others within Illinois and Wisconsin. He said he has personally worked with EAA last year to increase capacity and needs for the events that they have on the property. He said there are several facilities in the area that have already been upgraded. He explained the facility at the site cannot be upgraded to be able to hold the sheer amount of antennas and equipment needed. He said this is a very unique site because of the huge volume of calls and people streaming videos at any one time. He explained the tower will be built with up to four RAD centers and AT&T will take two of the RAD centers on the tower because there is so much equipment needed. He said the other two centers will be available for others to use. He added they have an agreement with all the major carriers to lease out space if they so desire. Mr. Hinz asked how far out it would extend to since there are other residences in the area. Mr. Flowers explained most of the signal strength for the facility that is being built is going to stay on the airport and EAA property. He said it may not extend too much more than that but is mainly for the events on the property. He said there are several other facilities in the area that have been recently upgraded. Mr. Lyons asked if this would reduce the need for the temporary towers EAA typically has. Mr. Flowers replied typically they bring in a COW (Communication on Wheels) for the events. He said they will still need the COW but the location may change. Kevin Pollard, W178 N9912 Rivercrest Drive Suite 102 of Germantown, stated he is an attorney for SBA Communications. He said SBA owns one of the existing cell tower located at 525 W. 20tn Avenue. He said the existing tower is less than 50' away from the proposed cell tower. He stated SBA does object to the new tower for several reasons. He said there is no need for the additional tower. He explained AT&T has had their equipment on the existing tower since 2000 and the proposed tower would provide essentially the same radio frequency coverage. He said SBA did obtain permission from the FAA to increase the height of the existing tower to 79' which would enable additional equipment to be placed on the existing tower. He stated there is no need for a duplicate of towers especially in such close proximity to the airport. He said from a legal standpoint, they believe the application must be denied because it does not comply with the State Statute 66.0404. He read the State statute and the local city ordinance Section 30.83 and said to his knowledge, the affidavit has not been filed with this application. He added under the State statute the city may deny the application where the applicant has not evaluated the feasibility of co - location on the existing tower. He said they are not aware of the benefit of the new tower when the existing tower can provide the capability. Plan Commission Minutes 13 August 18, 2020 Ms. Propp asked if SBA is a competitor. Mr. Pollard replied they are not a competitor of AT&T and are essentially a cell tower landlord of AT&T. He said they are a competitor of Mastec the applicant. He said the State statute is designed to promote co -location and to avoid duplication of towers in close proximity of one another. Ms. Davey asked how close the new tower would be. Mr. Pollard answered by his calculation, it is .0029 miles. Mr. Lyons pulled up the map which shows the locations of the other cell towers. Ms. Propp said she was confused why there is an issue with a third tower. Mr. Pollard explained again the State statute and the requirements. He said the applicant is supposed to evaluate if they can put the equipment on an existing tower. Mr. Hinz asked if the City Attorneys had any input on this item. Mr. Lyons replied they do not but can ask for clarification before the Council meeting. Mr. Coulibaly asked staff to verify if legal requirements are met and asked who owned the other tower. Ms. Propp commented from her understanding, Plan Commission is severely limited in what they can do to deny a request like this. She said she would like to defer this to the Council because hopefully by then, there will be some legal advice on the item. Mr. Lyons mentioned Plan Commission does have a statement from AT&T Mobility that discusses some of the information. He handed a copy to Mr. Pollard. Mr. Slusarek said the statement was received late yesterday, therefore, it was not part of the staff report. Mr. Coulibaly said he concurs with Ms. Propp. 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. Mr. Flowers addressed some of the concerns. He said the proposed tower is approximately 200' north/northwest of the SBA existing tower. He said as the existing tower stands today is not capable of holding the equipment needed. He said there are specific antennas (MatSing) EAA is requesting to be installed and gave a description of the antennas. He said each antenna weighs Plan Commission Minutes 14 August 18, 2020 about 1,200 pounds and the tower needs to be able to accommodate the extra weight. He listed all the equipment that is needed and stated there are no suitable towers in the area that can handle all the equipment. He said the request to increase the capacity came directly from EAA. He explained the difference between the MatSing antenna and a regular antenna. He said originally they did not make a statement because they felt as though the technical issues that are required to build this facility were enough merit on their own but the financial implications of having to tear a tower down and build a new one is hundreds of thousands of dollars. He said the rent AT&T is currently paying at the facility is approximately 3-5 times the amount typically charged for a facility of that size. He explained the rent would essentially double on the existing tower because they would be utilizing two RAD centers instead of one. He said they were approved to build a higher tower but EAA did not want to towers to be that high due to the helicopter route that runs through there. Mr. Coulibaly asked if they looked into the possibility of putting the new equipment on the existing tower. Mr. Flowers replied the engineers did evaluate the existing site. He said it was not economically able to be remodified to be reused for what they needed. Mr. Coulibaly asked if Mr. Flowers could put that in his request so it is documented. Mr. Lyons said it is documented and in the affidavit that was e-mailed to him. Ms. Davey asked where the AT&T service was currently coming from. Mr. Flowers replied SBA tower and he believes their lease ends next year. Ms. Davey asked how long it takes to build a tower. Mr. Flowers replied this tower is on their schedule to be under construction by the end of this year into early January and will be live by next year's EAA event. He said it roughly takes six months from start to finish but only two of those months of actual construction. Mr. Fitz said Ms. Propp was correct in the fact that municipalities are limited to what they can do for requests like this. He explained the steps that are required for this type of request. He stated they did get approval from the FAA, County airport, a letter of recommendation from Steve Taylor (EAA), staff recommendation of support and the only objection is from SBA who would lose their revenue stream they currently have if the tower were to be built. Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Condition: Final fencing (screening) plan shall be approved by the Department of Community Development. Plan Commission Minutes 15 August 18, 2020 Seconded by Hinz. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Davey said she is not comfortable voting on this until it goes through the legal department. She stated she will not be voting at all. Mr. Mitchell said he did not see a letter of support from EAA and asked where it was. Mr. Lyons replied it was e-mailed to Mr. Mitchell and is titled EAA at the top. Ms. Propp repeated that Plan Commission is severely limited for what they can do with this type of request. She said she will be supporting it. Motion carried 5-0 (Ayes: Ford, Hinz, Mitchell, Perry, Propp. Abstain: Coulibaly, Davey, Stengel.). VII. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM SUBURBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT (SMU) TO SUBURBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (SMU-PD) & APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL AND STORAGE USES AT 2755 ALGOMA BOULEVARD Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey and Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Suburban Mixed Use District (SMU) to Suburban Mixed Use District with a Planned Development Overlay (SMU-PD). The applicant also requests approval of a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan for reconstruction of a commercial building and expansion of a legal nonconforming personal storage facility use. 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 expansion/modifications to the legal nonconforming personal storage facility use. The applicant plans to expand the existing personal storage facility use by adding a fifth personal storage building on the north side of the site along with additional pavement for access to the storage units. The plans also include renovation of the damaged retail building for office use in the front portion of the building and three commercial units in the rear portion of the building. The site will continue to be accessed via a single driveway entrance from Algoma Boulevard. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan. The proposed new storage building triggers the need for additional building foundation and yard landscaping points for the site. According to the applicant, the renovated commercial building will consist of partial height stone veneer (as existing) on the Plan Commission Minutes 16 August 18, 2020 street -facing facade. The existing wood siding on the remainder of the building will be replaced with vinyl siding with prefinished metal trim. Roofing will be asphalt shingles or possible metal roofing similar to the storage buildings. The exterior of the proposed new storage building will consist of vinyl siding, metal roof panels and painted steel overhead doors which will match the materials of the existing storage buildings on the site. 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. Davey left at 5:45 pm. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. Ms. Propp opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Tim Zillges, 8699 Neuman Lane in Larsen, said there have been workshops related to this request and he is available to answer any questions. Ms. Propp asked if Mr. Zillges was satisfied with the conditions. Mr. Zillges replied he was. He said he was a bit confused about the evergreens but if that is what staff is recommending, he does not have a problem with it. 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 Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. BSM to allozv expansion of a legal nonconforming use (personal storage facility). 2. Minimum of 179 building foundation landscaping points shall be provided around the new personal storage facility building and/or existing commercial building. 3. Minimum of 501 medium/tall evergreen tree landscaping points shall be provided along the street frontage. 4. BSM to allow new personal storage facility building with less than 15% of street facing facade devoted to Class I building materials. 5. Nezv personal storage facility building shall match the materials and colors of the existing storage buildings on the site. Plan Commission Minutes 17 August 18, 2020 Seconded by Perry. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Ford thanked the applicant for working with Plan Commission through the workshops because it has come a long way and it is a good project. Ms. Propp agreed and said she appreciates the applicant and staff working together. Mr. Hinz agreed with Mr. Ford. He said this was a great example of applicants working with the city in order to move a project forward. Ms. Davey returned at 5:48 pin. Motion carried 8-0. VIII. 2021 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Site Inspections Report: N/A Staff report accepted as part of the record. Staff requests review and acceptance of the 2021 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Mr. Slusarek presented the item. Staff requests review and acceptance of the 2021 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The purpose of this review is for the Plan Commission to make a determination of consistency of the proposed programs and activities in the 2021 CIP with the City's Comprehensive Plan, official maps, or other planned activities. He said staff recommends acceptance of the 2021 Capital Improvement Program with a finding that listed projects are not in conflict with the City of Oshkosh's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lyons mentioned there are a number of staff members present to help answer any specific questions. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. Ms. Propp asked if there were any public comments. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed public comments. Plan Commission Minutes 18 August 18, 2020 Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Davey. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Mitchell noted that the link provided in the Plan Commission documents was not a viable link. He said if anybody from the public was looking to see what Plan Commission was discussing, it is not exactly clear. He noted it is on the City's website. He said for such an important document, he felt more could have been done to make this information available. Ms. Davey said she was able to download it. Mr. Lyons said he was surprised the link wasn't working but staff will look into it. Ms. Propp said the link did not for her either. Mr. Ford asked if the link went to the dashboard. Mr. Lyons replied the link is supposed to go to the dashboard. He said the whole document is on the weblink. Motion carried 8-0. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Cancellation of September 1, 2020 Plan Commission Meeting Mr. Lyons announced there would not be a Plan Commission on September 1, 2020 due to no items being submitted. He said the next Plan Commission meeting will be September 15th and there are already a number of projects for that meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:53 pm. (Hinz/Davey) Respectfully submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager Plan Commission Minutes 19 August 18, 2020