Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 February 16, 2021 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 16, 2021 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; Lynn Lorenson, City Attorney; Brian Slusarek, 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 February 2, 2021 were approved as presented. (Ford/Kiefer) I. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW WINDOW AREA REDUCTIONS ON THE FRONT FAÇADE AT 1803 OSHKOSH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to allow window area reductions on the front façade at 1803 Oshkosh Avenue. Mr. Wiley presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The applicant recently converted an enclosed porch to a first floor bedroom reducing window areas on the Oshkosh Avenue (front) façade without permits or Plan Commission review. Staff does not support the completion of work without the appropriate approvals and permits. However, the applicant has worked with staff to address the no permit and window reduction violations. The percentage of façade area devoted to windows was reduced further below the 25 percent code requirement on the front façade. However, matching siding, landscaping, and a planter box can ensure that the reduced window area does not negatively impact the aesthetics of the property. If the applicant submits acceptable plans for landscaping and a planter box and places at least 50 points of year-round landscaping and the planter box on the section of façade in question, this can help address the larger blank façade area. It will also help offset the decrease in window area in the variance request. Staff recommends approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to allow for window reductions on the front façade with the conditions and findings noted in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 February 16, 2021 Mr. Hinz stated that he thinks they’re going to run into this issue a lot in the future because a lot of houses have porches with close windows and they’ve been developing them into rooms. Maybe they need to look into something like an add-on to the ordinance for these porches that have no space between the windows. He asked if they have anything like that or if anyone has thought about anything like that. Mr. Lyons replied that five or six months ago Plan Commission had a workshop about some proposed changes they’re working on for design standards to eliminate that single 25% windows requirement as the only option. They’re working on a point-based design standard system which will help in situations like this where they’re trying to encourage good design, but also give the applicant options on how to achieve the curb appeal that they’re looking for. Mr. Ford asked staff what the next steps are if those conditions for the landscaping and planter box are not met. Mr. Lyons replied that if permits are issued, they would be in violation of their approval and the City would send out citations like we would for any violation. Ms. Propp asked for 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 Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Condition: 1. Variance is for the window reductions already performed only and no additional front façade windows shall be reduced without Plan Commission review and approval. 2. All siding on the façade plane where windows were reduced shall match and be consistent in appearance with the existing siding on the home. 3. Applicant shall submit for Department of Community Development review a landscaping plan showing at least 50 points of year-round landscaping to be planted in front of the segment of façade where window areas were reduced. Landscape plan review and approval by staff is required prior to issuance of any building permits. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 February 16, 2021 4. Applicant shall plant and maintain the approved landscaping in conjunction with the siding work planned for spring 2021 on the front façade. 5. Applicant shall submit to Department of Community Development staff for review and approval an acceptable plan for a planter box below the new window. The applicant shall install the approved planter box in accordance with the approved plan. 6. All current and future work on the house shall meet the Residential Design Standards and any work not in compliance with the standards shall be filed as separate requests for Plan Commission review and approval. 7. Applicant/Owner shall obtain all required approvals and permits for this and any future work conducted at the property. Finding: 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. Seconded by Mitchell. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Perry stated that once again they have a situation where work is done before permits are obtained. Regardless of whether or not people are going to be converting their porches, if this application would have come to Plan Commission through the right channels it would have likely been approved because it’s not as bad as some of the things they’ve seen in the past. He will reluctantly vote yes, but they really have to get the word out that they just can’t continue to do this after the fact. Motion carried 9-0. II. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT EXTENSION AT 2728 OREGON STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to extend a temporary use permit for outdoor material storage. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. A Temporary Use Permit (TUP) was issued in 2020 for storage of materials/equipment used for street reconstruction. The Temporary Use Permit expired on 12/1/20. The applicant is requesting approval of extension the TUP through July 2021. The __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 February 16, 2021 applicant is using a 200’ X 180’ undeveloped grass area along W. 28th Avenue for the temporary storage of materials/equipment used for City of Oshkosh Contract 20-05 Oregon Street and W. 28th Avenue pump station reconstruction. The TUP extension is needed to provide a storage location for materials/equipment until the reconstruction projects are completed. The applicant has noted that the storage area will be returned to green space after the project is complete. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit for temporary use permit extension for outdoor material storage at 2728 Oregon Street with the conditions noted in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened up 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. There were no statements from the applicant. 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. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendations as stated in the staff report. Condition: 1. The Temporary Use Permit shall expire on July 31, 2021. 2. The site shall be fully restored to pre-use conditions including replacement of any damaged lawn areas after expiration of the Temporary Use Permit. 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: TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE Staff report accepted as part of the record. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 February 16, 2021 The City of Oshkosh Department of Community Development requests review and approval of amendments to the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Slusarek and Mr. Lyons presented the item. The City of Oshkosh adopted a new zoning ordinance which went into effect on January 1, 2017. The ordinance currently does not include provisions for “Transitional Residential Housing”. Concerns regarding this type of land use have been brought to the attention of both City staff and Common Council and were discussed at several Common Council meetings and a Council workshop. As a result, staff is recommending amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for a Transitional Residential Housing land use. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Ford stated that in the e-mail Mr. Lyons forwarded to Council, there was a concern raised about eight individuals living in Transitional Residential Housing under this ordinance being inconsistent with ordinances limiting unrelated inviduals living together to six individuals. Mr. Lyons replied that staff would be open to changes with the input of this body and Council. Staff originally started with six individuals, mirroring what they have with the boarding house ordinance. Inspections Services provided feedback and cited eight individuals as a typical cut off between the residential and commercial land use in terms of how the building code requirements impact this. Ultimately that is why the eight individual determination was made after comparing with similar land uses for the rooming and boarding houses in that range. Usually empirical evidence is required to differentiate between those two options, so they cited building code to determine where the cut off was. Mr. Ford asked if it the ordinance would be theoretically indefensible if it was lowered to six individuals. Ms. Lorenson replied that the reason they looked at mirroring it up with the rooming house and citing the requirements in the building code is because it is the most defensible. If they’re going to change from that, they’d be looking for an explanation for that other than perceptions of who may be living there. Staff couldn’t justify that without empirical data so they looked at the building code and rooming house and determined it was the most similar and the most defensible. Mr. Ford asked if that’s the same explanation for how the individual zoning areas like multi-family residential were chosen to be included. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively, adding that for multi-family districts they look at common uses and applicable codes. Mr. Mitchell stated that re-entry for individuals with criminal records or interactions can be a significant challenge and a barrier for any sort of community housing success. He is curious if there is anything present beyond the City looking at a zoning ordinance amendment on an isolated basis. He asked if there is any sort of re-entry plan for Oshkosh and Winnebago County or if there __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 February 16, 2021 is a committee working on this that would be able to provide a high degree of quality feedback from knowledgeable individuals to incorporate into a vision or plan. Mr. Lyons replied that he cannot speak to that larger issue. They were directed to look at the zoning code and land use aspect of it and determine how it could fit into their code. Mr. Mitchell stated that he feels like a plan is something that should be present. If they’re going to make decisions regarding the housing of individuals that have criminal records or have had that interaction, maybe the City could bring in some partners because it’s a serious problem across the nation. He would be curious to look at a map of these locations and asked if the possibilities that this amendment creates provide equal distribution across the City or if it isolates options to a few small pockets that would traditionally house lower income individuals. Mr. Lyons shared maps of different geographical areas within the City. He said that there are about 1,865 total lots and about 8,136 existing dwelling units within the zoning districts that they’re recommending for the conditional use permit. Mr. Mitchell stated that a lot of times this type of housing is referred to as re-entry housing or something regarding re-entry. It’s not that he thinks transition isn’t the proper description, but his concern is that words matter and what people associate with certain things matters a lot. They do have a need for transitional housing related to homeless individuals in the community and there are several efforts underway to develop those programs which serve different populations, although they can overlap. His concern is that there could be an issue at one of the homes adhering to this ordinance and the community associates the behavior at a transitional home for re-entry with efforts to provide transitional homeless services to folks because they don’t understand the distinction. They end up having a considerable hurdle in the community because things were not named clearly enough from the beginning. Transitional Residential Housing does not seem to be a typical name. He asked why it was selected and if it has to stay that way. Mr. Lyons replied that they looked at other existing zoning ordinances including HUD’s definitions. They also did some research on other ordinances like Green Bay, Milwaukee, and Madison in determining the name. Mr. Mitchell stated that the more common transitional housing refers to a step between homelessness and some form of more permanent rental housing or ownership and it is not typically limited to just individuals who are participating in some sort of corrections transition. He asked if the transitional homeless programming is squared away in the ordinance, meaning they’re not going to have to have a Transitional Residential Housing section and then a transitional housing section that excludes the word residential. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively, adding that they have two other land uses currently that meet some of those needs depending upon the services provided. The type of facility in their institutional residential land uses cover the vast majority or 99% of those. For this one, they were asked to look at a specific segment of it. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 February 16, 2021 Mr. Perry asked what four to eight bed CBRFs are zoned under. Mr. Lyons replied that one to eight CBRFs or community living arrangements are permitted in a number of districts. Nine to thirteen are CUPs. Mr. Perry asked if four to eight bed CBRFs are zoned as a rooming house or considered a rooming house. Mr. Lyons replied that the difference in the ordinance for CBRFs is that they use the community living arrangement land use if they are state regulated or licensed and they use the rooming and boarding house land use if they are not a licensed facility. Mr. Perry stated that he firmly believes that this is misclassified under rooming. It should probably be more under the CBRF statute simply because when you have a rooming house you have no services whatsoever and in Transitional Residential Housing, while services are somewhat limited, there are still services in the homes. He thinks this is an issue of being incorrectly classified and that perhaps it should be under more of the four to eight bed CBRF codes within the City. Mr. Lyons replied that when staff looked at it, the four to eight CBRF units are permitted uses in single family residential zoning districts. Based on the direction they were provided, staff looked at this as more of the intense boarding and rooming house land use, which is why they chose to go with more similar districts with that land use. Ms. Propp stated that she wanted to point out that they are not voting on locations today. They’re voting on a text amendment to the ordinance, so the maps Mr. Lyons provided were informational and they were not included in the staff report. She asked how many people are currently in a dwelling like this because they have some dwellings that don’t come under this kind of ordinance. Mr. Lyons replied that they have existing land uses that would be deemed legal non-conforming if this ordinance went into place. For example, the facility that prompted this discussion is eight individuals a duplex, with four individuals in each side, so it’s similar to what was proposed here. There may be other facilities in the City that this ordinance would not directly affect because they would be legal non-conforming. They cannot regulate out an individual property of a common zoning through zoning. They have to handle it by zoning district and use conditional use permits to evaluate specific sites. Ms. Propp asked if there were other such dwellings that might have four or six people. Mr. Lyons asked if Ms. Propp was asking if the dwellings had four to six people or four to six people who would fall under this placement of persons on parole. Ms. Propp replied placement of persons of on parole. Mr. Lyons replied that he does not know of another specific example off the top of his head. He would need to look to see what else the Department of Justice has in Oshkosh. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 February 16, 2021 Ms. Propp asked for confirmation that the Attorney and staff believe that they need to have up to eight persons in the ordinance. Mr. Lyons replied that more than eight persons would get bumped up into the institutional residential zoning district. It’s not that they’re not permitted, but that they’re categorized separately because it’s a more intense land use than those under eight individuals. Ms. Propp asked if this applies for up to eight residents then. Mr. Lyons replied that they are amending both at the same time. They’re adding the land use for one to eight individuals and also amending the institutional residential that would include more than eight individuals. That more than eight would constitute institutional residential is in the end part of the definition. Ms. Propp opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Mr. Lyons replied that staff tried to take the direction they were given, evaluate what was out there for other ordinances, and work with the City to come up with what they felt was a reasonable ordinance amendment based on the information available to them. Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendations as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Kiefer. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Mitchell asked if anyone in any sort of City planning role is looking at re-entry housing, the challenges that our community has, or best practices and that sort of thing. He asked if re-entry housing is going to be part of the housing study. Mr. Lyons replied that it is one of the elements of the housing study. Mr. Ford stated that he wanted to thank City staff and City Attorney Lorenson for their work on this. Staff stated this in the background, but they had a workshop on this at Council and it was Council that directed staff to come back with this. To Mr. Mitchell’s point, he does understand and it makes sense that they need to have a larger re-entry plan. Any failure to do that should not be __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 February 16, 2021 directed at City staff. It should be directed toward Council, himself included. To that end, they did articulate a goal for the City Manager to address issues of individuals experiencing homelessness in the community. At the very least, they’ve set a marker on that aspect of it. He knows that’s only part of it, but the point is well taken and he is happy to take the blame on that. He will certainly bring this up at Council when it comes to them for a vote. Mr. Perry stated that while he firmly believes this is being considered under the wrong category, he is comforted in knowing that it will still require a conditional use permit, so therefore noticing of the neighbors and neighborhood still applies. He can support it as it is now, but he would really love for it to be looked at in terms of services provided in a residential facility. Even if it is a small amount of services provided, it should be categorized as something other than rooming. Motion carried 9-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:45 pm. (Hinz/Marshall) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager