Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 17,2020 PRESENT: Margy Davey, Michael Ford, Derek Groth,John Hinz,John Kiefer,Justin Mitchell, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp,Jay Stengel, Phil Marshall EXCUSED: Mamadou Coulibaly 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; Alexa Naudziunas,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 November 3, 2020 were approved as presented. (Ford/Kiefer) I. STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE 4200 BLOCK OF STATE HIGHWAY 91 Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Ms. Davey joined the meeting at 4:04 pm. The applicant requests the acceptance of street right-of-way along the south side of the 4200 Block of State Highway 91. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area. The City of Oshkosh is requesting a right-of-way dedication to widen a section of the south half of the State Highway 91 right-of-way from 45 feet to 50 feet wide. The subject property is the site of the proposed Swiderski multi-family development. The proposed development consists of 14 apartment buildings totally 172 units and associated amenities. A drainage ditch is located along the south side of State Highway 91. To accommodate eventual sidewalk installation along STH 91, an additional five feet of right-of-way is needed to ensure correct elevations at the right-of-way line and proper grading between the ditch and sidewalk. The additional right-of-way will also provide more area to reconstruct State Highway 91 to a four-lane highway should the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and/or city determine a need for increased traffic capacity. The proposed dedication will be five feet wide by approximately 663 feet long and 3,315 square feet in area. He said staff recommends acceptance of the right-of-way dedication along the south side of the 4200 Block of State Highway 91 as proposed. Plan Commission Minutes 1 November 17,2020 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. 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. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. II. ACCEPT TWO STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AT THE SOUTH 4200 BLOCK OF STATE HIGHWAY 91 (SWIDERSKI MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT) Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh is requesting acceptance of two storm drainage easements on an undeveloped property located at the south 4200 Block of State Highway 91. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area. The City is requesting the easements to allow for eventual installation and maintenance of drainage structures. The structures will connect to site drainage from the Swiderski development to the ditch line on State Highway 91 once public sidewalk is constructed. The need for the easements was determined during review of the site's grading and drainage plan for the Swiderski development. The two easements are located at the northwest and northeast corners of the property and will be sized 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep and 400 square feet in area. The locations of the easements take into account the proposed right-of-way dedication. The easements are included on the draft CSM that will also be used to dedicate additional right-of-way along State Highway 91. The CSM also describes conditions and restrictions for use of the easement which has been reviewed by the Department of Public Works. He said staff recommends approval of the acceptance of the proposed storm drainage easements as requested. Plan Commission Minutes 2 November 17,2020 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. 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. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. III. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN & SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPROVAL FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE 4200 BLOCK OF STATE HIGHWAY 91 Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval for a General Development Plan(GDP) and Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) for a multi-family development. 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 proposed development will include 14 apartment buildings with a total of 172 units (60 one-bed, 72 two-bed,40 three-bed). A property management office will also be included on the site. The site will be accessed via a single entrance/exit from State Highway 91. The total impervious surface ratio for the site will be about 49%,which is well under the maximum of 70%. Parking for the site will consist of 100 detached garage spaces, 72 attached garage spaces and 277 surface spaces for a total of 449 parking spaces. The final storm water management plans will be approved during the Site Plan Review process. Overall the landscaping plan meets or exceeds point requirements. A sign plan has been submitted which includes a 5' tall, 21 sq. ft. monument sign along the STH 91 frontage. The photometric plan appears to meet lighting standards. Final building elevations have been submitted for the project. The applicant is requesting a BSM to the multi-family residential design standards to allow for A/C units that are not flush-mounted to the building. The applicant is also requesting a BSM to allow Plan Commission Minutes 3 November 17,2020 reduced door/window area on the street-facing (Huntington)building ends to 3%where code requires 20% of street-facing facades be devoted to door/window area. The site plan includes a total of 5 dumpster enclosures that meet dumpster enclosure requirements. Staff is comfortable that the applicant has adequately offset the requested BSMs and the overall site is complimentary to the surrounding area. He said staff recommends approval of the 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 asked if staff talked with the applicant about more articulation on the north ends that directly face the highway given they're allowed less window and door coverage,noting that the ends looks really plain and he doesn't believe that's what the ordinance is trying to get at. Mr. Lyons replied that it is 3%elevation. Staff did have some discussions with the applicant and they were struggling with some design elements. They did encourage the applicant to look at alternatives to bump the elevation up. Ultimately the applicant felt that with the layout of the site, they needed that specific number on that specific elevation. He said the applicant can elaborate more on it,but staff did have discussions with the applicant about ways to enhance the 3% elevation. Mr. Mitchell asked if this was recently used as farm land and if so, if it is something that is tracked. Mr. Lyons replied that he does not know the last time it was farmed. He said the site was brought into the city about a year and a half or two years ago. Ms. Propp asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Ms.Jackie Miller, on behalf of S.C. Swidesrski, stated that they have been working on this site with staff over several months. They feel that they have laid out the building so that the most attractive buildings are on the outside of the development.The buildings that provide lower rent rates, which they really wanted to bring to the area, are on the interior of the site. On the Huntington building, they enhanced with extra brick on the sides and they also tried to provide some changes in the frontage so it's not a flat side. They are using a lot of landscaping on the site, so she thinks overall with the design elements you're really looking to make sure the site is attractive and by adding the extra landscaping, they are hoping it offsets the request to have the modification approved on the one side of the building. The front and back of the building do meet the requirements, so they are hoping it is considered and approved based on adding the extra landscaping. You can see where the sides of the building are facing the highway there is extensive landscaping along both sides so the side also will be buffered with a lot of trees so you're going to see those as well. Ms. Propp asked about circulation and the road system through the site, specifically if there was more than one way to get in and out of the site. Plan Commission Minutes 4 November 17,2020 Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. He said one entrance is off of Highway 91,but then you can circulate all the way within the site. Mr. Mitchell asked if Ms. Miller could respond to some of the accessibility questions that she received and if she could provide clarification about what services or support the City offered specific to accessibility features at the property. Ms. Miller replied that both Mr. Lyons and Mr. Slusarek discussed accessibility on the site with them on several occasions, encouraging them to look at their current practices and add to their current practices. At this site in particular, 50% of the units have low-threshold entries. In addition to that, 29% of the units are one-level living and accessible with the bedroom and bathroom on the main floor, so they feel that offers a lot of great options on the site. All of their units have the 32 inch door width and they also use the 42 inch hallway throughout all of the units. As far as the tubs and showers, they do have four units on the site that they call "Type A" units that have all of the ADA requirements and some additional things to make sure they are accessible. Those four units have doorbells and smoke alarms with the visual indicators. They have front loading washer and dryers, the kitchen ranges with front controls, and the clearance for under the kitchen sink, so one can remove those cabinets and roll into that. They finish the floor in those units under the cabinet space, so there is finished space if one were to remove the cabinets. This is also done in the bathroom,which is not required. They use lever doors instead of the turn handles on all of their units,which they found to be accessible for more people. All of the units have elongated and raised toilets,which is also a feature people are looking for. All of the lower level units have the backing so they can add the grab bars as needed by the tenants and the grab bars are custom installed to their height requirements. They are managing the site long term, so their maintenance staff installs the grab bars at the request of tenants. The backing is in all of the main level units. All of the living areas are luxury vinyl plank, so they do not have carpet in transition areas, which is easy for walking and wheel chairs. A lot of the sidewalks have the wider width around the property management office which has the mailboxes on the side of the building. They also work with tenants if they have extra requests, so although the four units or 2% of the units have the "Type A" requirements met, they would also install the doorbells and smoke detectors with visual indicators as needed by tenants. She said that they really try to be friendly for accessibility issues and they enjoyed the conversations with the staff related to accessibility because it helps them continue to improve. Mr. Mitchell thanked Ms. Miller. Mr. Ford stated that wanted to commend Ms. Miller and her company for answering these questions. He said that he thinks it is a model for how every development should approach this in the future. Mr. Lyons stated that this developer has really been great to work with in terms of meeting accessibility demands and incorporating accessibility features. He will look to this presentation as the City works with developers in the future to demonstrate how staff and developers can have a productive dialogue to ensure the commission has what they need. He thanked Ms. Miller for doing a great job. Plan Commission Minutes 5 November 17,2020 Ms. Miller thanked Mr. Ford and Mr. Lyons. Mr. Mitchell asked if Ms. Miller could speak to the affordability levels for the units. Ms. Miller replied that they are trying to provide several price points. The buildings that are in the middle are one bedroom units and the units are on the end are three bedroom units. They include heat, water, cable, and Wi-Fi in their rent rates, so the rates are all inclusive. The one bedroom units are around$800,which is on the lower side. In the Huntington building, there are four different floor plans including some smaller two bedroom units on the upper level that are less expensive and then some townhome style units that are around $1,300. The range is$800-$1,300, with most utilities included other than the electricity. She said their heat is hydronic heating so that is part of the rent rate. Mr. Mitchell thanked Ms. Miller. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Ms. Miller stated that she appreciated staff working with them. It is a large project and they've been working on it for a long time and staff has gone back and forth with them quite bit, so they do appreciate their attention and support of the project. Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. Base Standard Modification to allow a multi family residential land use in the Suburban Mixed Use District (SMU). 2. All signage shall be compliant with multi family residential district signage requirements. 3. Base Standard Modification to allow street facing building ends (Huntington) with 3% of the facade devoted to doorlwindow area, where code requires 20% of street facing facades to be devoted to doorlwindow area. 4. Base Standard Modification to allow air conditioning units not flush-mounted to the building. 5. Air conditioning units and wood porches/balconies on the structures'facades shall be painted/stained or colored to match or compliment the building's exterior fagade color. 6. Final landscaping and storm water management plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Mitchell. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Plan Commission Minutes 6 November 17,2020 Mr. Mitchell asked what considerations or provisions are in motion or will possibly be put in place in conjunction with this development for either recreational activities around the area or pedestrian traffic opportunities that allow for non-vehicular access to somewhere outside of the site. Mr. Lyons replied that recreational open space was provided in a couple spaces and they also have a recreational path going through and around the site including going around the pond. That is something that staff felt was important due to the remoteness of the site. He said staff really wanted to make sure they built in some opportunities for recreation with the open spaces and the walking path. Mr. Mitchell asked if there was consideration for connecting to city sidewalks in the future. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. They have had discussions about how to connect this area to the greater City sidewalk system. There is bit of a gap between this area and where sidewalks reside within the city. One thing they are dealing with presently with Ms. Naudziunas,who is our Bicycle and Pedestrian Planner, Council, and Engineering staff is to begin long range planning connections for sidewalks of this nature. He said they know the City dollars only go so far and only so much sidewalk can be installed annually, so instead of taking a single step request each year, they are looking at the City in its entirety and putting forth a five or seven year plan for connecting the sidewalks. Mr. Mitchell asked if there was any discussion with city transit for potentially serving this area which may have several hundred residents and some lower income families. Mr. Lyons replied that there have been very preliminary discussion at this point, but more discussion are needed to incorporate this into their current route planning. Mr. Gierach stated that there are currently bus stops along the corridor, although not directly adjacent to this site. There are stops along W.Waukau crossing Highway 41 onto Highway 91 as well as S. Oakwood,which is around one thousand feet or so away from the site. He said there are bus stops in the vicinity of the area. Mr. Hinz stated that he wanted to commend staff and the petitioner on this because it has been in the works for a really long time. The commission has had a significant turn over and aka city staff including the Planning Services Manager since this started. There was a somewhat lukewarm response when the applicant first came through with this,but they continued to work with staff and did everything that the commission would hope for. He said he wants to make sure that everyone gets their recognition for this because it was a long time coming and the thinks it will be very good for the City. Ms. Propp stated that she has a mild concern about the exterior,but it is not a serious problem that she has. She said she appreciates all the accommodations they have for accessibility. Plan Commission Minutes 7 November 17,2020 Motion carried 9-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REOUEST FOR A NONRESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE EXCEEDING 10,000 SQUARE FEET AT 2676 S. OAKWOOD ROAD Site Inspections Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner requests a Conditional Use Permit for a nonresidential accessory structure exceeding 10,000 square feet at 2676 S. Oakwood Road. Mr. Wiley presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. Muza intends to construct a detached accessory building for the storage of raw materials used for the production of sheet steel products. The storage building as proposed will include approximately 30,000 sq. ft. of enclosed area. The storage lot expansions and new parking lot (previously approved) along with the proposed storage building will increase the amount of impervious surface area on the site to approximately 42.27%of the lot area. The proposed impervious surface coverage falls below the 70%maximum impervious surface ratio permitted. The petitioner has stated in the narrative that accompanied the CUP application that the materials stored in the proposed outdoor storage area will not be hazardous materials. The new storage building will not have an impact on vehicle or pedestrian circulation within the site. Additional landscaping is required for the addition of the accessory building. The petitioner submitted a photometric plan as part of this CUP request. Based on the plan provided the point values meet code. The petitioner provided building elevations for the proposed accessory building. The accessory building will be clad in steel paneling. The Industrial Design Standards do not apply to accessory buildings. Storm water management will be reviewed during the Site Plan Review process. He said staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit for a nonresidential accessory structure exceeding 10,000 square feet at 2676 S. Oakwood Road with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. 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. Mr. Derek Gruber, on behalf of McMahon Associates, stated that it was summarized well by Mr. Wiley. As they were developing the site, they realized it would beneficial to add a storage building as well. It is a steel frame, non-combustible building, mainly used for storage of their materials and it will be used directly in the outdoor storage area. He said it is a fairly straightforward and simple metal building. Plan Commission Minutes 8 November 17,2020 There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Mr. Gruber thanked staff for working on this with them. Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. Petitioner shall submit a revised landscaping plan and landscaping schedule with code- compliant species and code-compliant landscaping point totals for Department of Community Development review. The plan and landscaping schedule shall illustrate which plants and point totals will be added specifically as part of this CUP request. 2. Petitioner shall provide at least 300 points of yard landscaping for the proposed storage building. Seconded by Perry. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Mitchell stated that it looks like the back property is rented out for farmland use and this is cutting in. He asked if this is something that gets tracked somehow and added to some sort of inventory of lost farmland. He said he is not certain because they have not had that topic come up in a while,but he is just curious if it is tracked. Mr. Lyons replied that this has been part of the industrial park for a significant amount of time and he does not know the last time it was farmed,but it has been part of the industrial park for a significant amount of time. Mr. Mitchell asked if reductions in farmland are monitored and tracked somewhere. Mr. Lyons replied that it is not monitored or tracked in situations like this where it is an industrial park governed by covenants and restrictions beyond the City's control. Motion carried 9-0. V. APPROVAL OF THE ENVISION NORTH JACKSON PLAN Site Inspections Report: N/A Staff report accepted as part of the record. Plan Commission Minutes 9 November 17,2020 The Community Development Department is requesting approval of the Envision North Jackson Plan, which describes the future goals and objectives for land use and development in the plan area. The plan focuses on the area surrounding Jackson Street,north of Murdock Avenue to Highway 41. Ms. Naudziunas presented the item. The Envision North Jackson Plan was developed in collaboration with consultant RDG Planning&Design, city staff and stakeholders. Public input was received through a series of public meetings starting in December 2019. Staff hosted the final public input meeting on September 21st, 2020, which included approximately 30 attendees from the public. The purpose of the plan is to provide guidance for the plan area as redevelopment opportunities present themselves. The plan includes existing conditions/community preferences, markets for North Jackson, corridor urbanism and North, a Framework Plan and implementation. Approval of the plan will continue the commitment to elevating the corridor and promote high level development and design in this area of the community. She said staff recommends approval of the Envision North Jackson Plan as requested. Mr. Lyons stated that staff did have joint workshop with Council, Plan Commission, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Transit, and Traffic and Parking Advisory Board a couple weeks back and now they're taking the pieces to each one of those boards and commissions that are associated with the different parts of the plan. He said it will be going to Council in December after the boards and commissions have had the chance to review their respective elements. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Marshall stated that he knows that they looked at the area of Jackson Street between Church and Murdock and it sounded like they were looking at a number of options,but it didn't sound like they had landed on any particular option yet. He asked if someone could explain what the next step would be for something like that if they're looking at options. Mr. Lyons stated that Plan Commission looks at land use, so we're actually just looking at the north side of Jackson. The traffic safety analysis went to Traffic and Parking Advisory Board last week and they recommended approval for an option. It is going to Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee on Thursday and they will also make a recommendation. The bulk of the plan as well as the traffic safety study will go to Council in December. He said that the portion we are looking at today does not include the Murdock to Church section. Mr. Mitchell asked if the citizen participation comments are available or linked somewhere where they can be reference for future review. Mr. Lyons stated that all the comments they received during the public information meeting were collected and kept. He said that they keep everything including all the documents they receive from the public, so as projects move from planning to implementation they can go back and address those comments if it is possible to do so. Plan Commission Minutes 10 November 17,2020 Ms. Propp asked if there were any public comments. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed public comments. Motion by Mitchell 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. Mr. Ford stated that he wanted to thank staff for putting together a great study. He said that Jackson is kind like the forgotten gateway to the City that doesn't get much attention, so he is excited to see where this goes. Mr. Hinz stated that he wanted to commend staff for putting this together. He was really happy to see how they broke everything down by the numbers, making it clear where the City has some shortcomings and things like having too many gas stations. It will help the commission and staff immensely moving forward. He said the income levels on housing will help developers know what to build and he thinks this will really help the City moving forward. Ms. Propp stated that she wanted to reiterate the comments that other commissioners have already made,but also state that she thinks it is one of single best plans that they have ever had in the City, and they have had some very good plans. There is lot of meat in the plan and she likes the way that it is linked in some respects to the Jackson traffic study. The plan is exciting and the public input was excellent. She thanked staff for doing this. Mr. Lyons stated that it is the first time the City has used this consultant team with RDG Planning &Design and Ayres Asscociates. He wants to commend them for the effort they put into making sure there was a lot of public participation and everybody was heard. He said did a nice job and he is really happy with the document they helped produce. Motion carried 9-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:03 pm. (Hinz/Kiefer) Respectfully submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager Plan Commission Minutes 11 November 17,2020