Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 April 6, 2021 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES April 6, 2021 PRESENT: Mamadou Coulibaly, Margy Davey, Derek Groth, John Hinz, John Kiefer, Phil Marshall, Justin Mitchell, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp EXCUSED: Michael Ford, Jay Stengel STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Allen Davis, Community Development Director; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Steven Wiley, Associate Planner; Darlene Brandt, Grands Coordinator Chairperson Propp called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of March 16, 2021 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Davey) I. PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW 2021 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Staff report accepted as part of the record. Staff is requesting the Plan Commission review and accept the proposed projects/activities designed to meet one of the national objectives of the CDBG program and recommend Council authorize submittal of the 2021 CDBG Action Plan. Ms. Brandt presented the item. The City prepares and submits an annual Action Plan to demonstrate how estimated federal CDBG funds will be spent to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The 2021 Program Year begins May 1, 2021 and ends April 30, 2022. The 2021 allocation is $828,550. As proposed, over 70% of CDBG funds will benefit low to moderate income (LMI) persons during the program year. The City is currently accepting Public Service applications until April 9 and the applications will be reviewed by a Grant Committee consisting of representatives from Oshkosh Area United Way, Oshkosh Area Community Foundation, the Common Council, and the community. Ms. Brandt shared the allocations proposed by staff and recommended acceptance of the 2021 Annual Action Plan for the Community Development Block Grant Program, together with a determination of consistency that the projects/activities identified are not in conflict with the City of Oshkosh Comprehensive Plan, as amended, official maps or other planned activities of the City. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 April 6, 2021 Mr. Mitchell stated that he wanted to congratulate Ms. Brandt on her retirement, adding that she has been very effective and a joy to work with. It is a sad day for those who work in affordable housing, but he wishes her the best. Mr. Mitchell stated that at the last meeting there were one or two new developments being proposed on the west side of town and they discussed the possibility of somehow incorporating affordable housing. There ends up being a concentration of wealth in a small area which impacts the neighborhood and schools. He knows that it’s really important to invest in our essential city, but he is wondering if there might be an opportunity to explore ways in which CDBG funds can be utilized to expand the area in which affordable housing is available, whether that be lot acquisitions or supporting a development that has affordable units. He asked if there is a map showing where CDBG funds have been used over the last 15-20 years. Ms. Brandt replied that there is no such map. Mr. Mitchell replied that it might be an interesting thing to look at and maybe that’s a great job for a future intern. It may show that funds are being invested in areas with higher concentrations of poverty, but the investment of funds in some of the other areas might allow for a better mixed income neighborhood. Ms. Brandt replied that there was a map for housing improvement loans, but it wouldn’t be possible for public service because it’s too difficult to identify specific sites for that. She can see if Mr. Nau has time to update the housing improvement loan map. To answer his question regarding new construction for affordable housing, CDBG funds cannot be used for new construction. So any new construction would not be eligible for even potential consideration under CDBG. Mr. Mitchell replied that maybe there are other avenues in which those funds can be utilized, not necessarily brick and mortar construction. In the future it would be great for the reports to include what are they are trying to achieve with the allocations and a follow up with measurable outcomes that can be shared related to these funds. Maybe that already exists, but he hasn’t seen it in any of these presentations. Ms. Propp opened the public hearing. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed the public hearing. Motion by Mitchell to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Coulibaly. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 April 6, 2021 Motion carried 7-0. II. PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT 2020 ACTION PLAN - CARES ACT FUNDING ROUND 3; RECOMMEND ACCEPTANCE AND AWARDS FOR ROUND 2 FUNDS FROM STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION Staff report accepted as part of the record. Staff is requesting approval of an amendment to the 2020 CDBG Action Plan for Round 3 CARES Act funds and acceptance and awards for Round 2 funds from the State of Wisconsin Department of Administration (DOA). Ms. Brandt presented the item. Earlier this year the Plan Commission approved an amendment to the 2020 CDBG Annual Action Plan to increase the Action Plan and award funds in the amount of $494,757 under Round 1 of the CDBG-CV funding. Staff is now requesting approval of an amendment to the 2020 CDBG Annual Action Plan to increase the CDBG allocation to include Round 3 funds from HUD in the amount of $292,664. Staff is also requesting the Plan Commission recommend Council accept and award $210,269.89 in CARES Act funds from DOA to be awarded to three agencies to prevent, prepare for or respond to the COVID pandemic, as well as funds to administer the DOA grant. Staff solicited proposals from public service organizations in late 2020 to identify the needs in the community to address the pandemic. The Grant Review Committee re- reviewed the public service applications to consider awards under Rounds 2 and 3 and is recommending several organizations be funded with Round 2 funds from the State DOA and Round 3 funds from HUD. Prior to Council consideration, these plans are reviewed by the Plan Commission for consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, as amended, official maps, and other planned activities of the City and that the projects/activities proposed prevent, prepare for, or respond to the COVID pandemic. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Davey asked what the $22 is for. Ms. Brandt replied that the $22 is to round up the Round 1 funding for ADVOCAP. It is what the committee wanted to do. Ms. Propp opened the public hearing. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed the public hearing. Motion by Davey to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 April 6, 2021 Seconded by Groth. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp stated that she did not know Ms. Brandt was retiring and she wanted to acknowledge Ms. Brandt for the work she has done for the City. Motion carried 7-0. III. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW WINDOW CLOSURES ON THE FRONT FAÇADE AT 2328 HICKORY STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to allow window closures on the front façade at 2328 Hickory Street. Mr. Wiley presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The owner and applicant have proposed large scale remodeling work for the property. Work proposed includes a second floor addition, moving the front door, and moving window openings. The applicant will have to remove existing window openings in order to accommodate new openings on the front façade. Plan Commission review and a design standards variance are necessary because applicable ordinance prohibits window closures on front facades. After evaluating the petitioner’s application, examining the property and surrounding context, and discussing the property internally, staff is of the opinion that the proposed work will have a positive impact on the architectural integrity of the front façade and house overall. The proposed openings will contribute to a sense of symmetry on the façade while maintaining a very similar amount of overall window and door area to the previous facade. 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 finding as noted in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. Ms. Propp asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Ms. Propp commented that the garage shields most of the new home. It might have been a factor in allowing a variance. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 April 6, 2021 Jim Erdman D&J Quality Construction, stated it is an extensive remodel that went through Building Inspections first. The project will increase the overall appeal. Most of the garages in that neighborhood sit on the roadside of the property due to the shallow lots. The front facades of these homes are not always visible. 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 Mitchell to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. Variance is for the work as proposed and window closures necessary to complete the proposed work. 2. All siding on the home shall match and be consistent in appearance throughout. 3. All roofing on the home shall match and be consistent in appearance throughout. 4. 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. 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. IV. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN & SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPROVAL FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1745 OREGON STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. Groth 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. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 April 6, 2021 Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. In November 2019, the site was rezoned from Institutional District (I) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD) to assist in redevelopment of the property and provide some flexibility of zoning requirements. The applicant is requesting General Development Plan (GDP) and Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) approval to renovate the existing vacant school site for a multi-family residential use. The applicant is requesting BSMs related to land use, specific landscaping requirements, as well as setback reductions. To offset the BSMs, the applicant has exceeded the overall landscaping point requirement for the site. The materials used for the renovation will also serve to preserve the appearance of the original building. Staff is comfortable that the applicant has adequately offset the requested BSM and the overall site is complimentary to the surrounding area. Staff recommends approval of the General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan with the findings and conditions noted in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Groth asked what is in between the two entrances for the parking lot. He asked if it was going to be a play area because he knows there is a little park there now. Mr. Lyons replied it is a kind of green space or parklet type feature. Mr. Coulibaly asked if they are voting to accept the BSMs when they vote. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. Mr. Mitchell asked if this is the last time this will come before Plan Commission. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively, adding that it is approval of the GDP and SIP, which is the final approval process for the land use. Ms. Propp asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mr. Wesenberg stated that they already had the workshop, but they are excited to get the project going. It is going to be a high quality project and he is happy to answer any questions. Mr. Mitchell stated that he wanted to commend Mr. Wesenberg’s team on their project. These end up being some of the coolest apartments that contribute considerably to the community. He was hoping that Mr. Wesenberg could speak to the affordability as well as the accessibility or base features that make these units more accessible. Mr. Wesenberg replied that nothing has changed since last time, so what they’re doing is having one unit that meets Type A accessibility requirements and the rest of the units will be Type B. All of the units are accessible without elevators. There is an elevator there, but the second floor units and gymnasium are not accessible by elevator. There are also two units in the lowest level that you __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 April 6, 2021 need to go up about four or five steps to access. Other than that all of the units are accessible by wheelchair. Beyond that they are meeting all of the requirements for accessibility. Mr. Mitchell asked if he could talk a little bit about affordability and the population they are looking to serve. Mr. Wesenberg replied that everything is going to be market rate. He thinks they’re looking at an average of $1,100 for a two bedroom unit and $800 for a one bedroom unit. The range is close to affordable standards. 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 Coulibaly to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. Base Standard Modification to allow an apartment (21-36 units) use within the Institutional District (I). 2. Base Standard Modification to allow reduced street side setback (Oregon St.) to 13’ for parking lot and 18’ for garage, where code requires a 25 street side setback. 3. Base Standard Modification to allow reduced rear (north) setback to 12.4’, where code requires a 25’ rear setback. 4. Base Standard Modification to allow reduced street frontage landscaping devoted to medium trees along the Oregon Street frontage to 30 points, where code requires 250 medium tree points. 5. Base Standard Modification to allow 0.2 opacity buffer yard (west) at 15.4’ width and without 6’ tall solid fencing. 6. Minimum 100 evergreen tree/shrub landscaping points shall be provided along the rear (west) side of western garage to “break up” the wall. 7. Final lighting, landscaping and storm water management plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development. 8. Final signage plans shall be compliant with multi-family residential signage standards. 9. Base Standard Modification to allow front (south) entrance lighting to exceed 0.5 foot- candles at the property line. Seconded by Kiefer. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 April 6, 2021 Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Hinz stated that he is very proud of the workshops Plan Commission has had with developers because it makes it much easier when they come for approval. Mr. Wesenberg’s team has been great and implemented things that Plan Commission has discussed. Staff has also worked with the developers well. He lives in this neighborhood and the people he has talked with are overwhelmingly positive and excited about this. He wants to give kudos to everyone involved because it has been a great process. Ms. Propp agreed with Mr. Hinz’s statement, adding that this is going to be super. Motion carried 9-0. V. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM SUBURBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT (SMU) TO SUBURBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (SMU-PD) FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST SOUTH PARK AVENUE AND WEST 20TH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz, Ms. Propp, and Mr. Groth 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) for three properties located at the southwest corner of W. South Park Avenue and W. 20th Avenue (1603 W. 20th Ave., 1570 Ripon Ln., and 1590 Ripon Ln.). 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 this zone change to establish a Planned Development Overlay to provide flexibility to accommodate site constraints for future commercial redevelopment of the subject properties. The applicant has submitted preliminary plans for commercial development of the corner property (1603 W 20th Ave.) which will be addressed as General Development Plan (GDP) review under the subsequent item. This proposal was discussed at a Plan Commission workshop on February 16, 2021. Plan Commission voiced general support for the plans. Staff recommends approval of the zone change from Suburban Mixed Use District (SMU) to Suburban Mixed Use District with a Planned Development Overlay (SMU-PD) for properties located at the southwest corner of W. South Park Avenue and W. 20th Avenue (1603 West 20th Avenue, 1570 Ripon Lane, and 1590 Ripon Lane) as requested. Mr. Lyons stated that this is split into two separate requests on the agenda because the zone change goes across multiple property lines and the next GDP item takes into account some of those properties, but not all of them, which is why they are separated into two requests. The petitioner will also be going through the CSM process reconfiguring these properties. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 April 6, 2021 Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. Ms. Propp opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mr. Waller stated that they worked with staff to come up with their proposed site plan and the rezone was due to the fact that they’ve had to shift around some entrances and work with some zoning setbacks. It’s been a bit of a challenge with this odd configuration. He plans on submitting for the SIP in the next month or so. He is waiting on a third party in order to submit the required documents. He is happy to answer any questions. Ms. Annalisa Van Sisten stated that the staff report indicates the Packer Pub and La Sures locations only have frontage on 20th Avenue and South Park Avenue, which is incorrect. They have frontage on Ripon Lane also. She is curious what they are planning on doing with the driveway that comes out to Ripon Lane. Mr. Lyons replied that they will be able to show the site plans to explain that with the next agenda item. Ms. Propp stated that this is strictly on the zoning change. Ms. Van Sisten asked why there isn’t a rezone for the other properties. Mr. Lyons replied that the zone change is at the request of the petitioner. Other property owners could request zone changes for their properties as well, but these are the properties the developer has sought a zone change for. 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. Seconded by Kiefer. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 April 6, 2021 VI A. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST SOUTH PARK AVENUE AND WEST 20TH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a General Development Plan for commercial development at the southwest corner of W South Park Avenue and W 20th Avenue. 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 divide the subject parcel into two commercial lots. A CSM will be required to split the existing parcel and has been submitted to the Department of Community Development for review. As proposed, the two commercial sites will have a shared access off of West 20th Avenue and West South Park Avenue, which will require a cross access agreement. The plan also shows an internal driveway connecting to the future commercial development to the south. Access control variances will be needed for number of driveway approaches, driveway width, and lateral clearance. With approval of the rezone, the applicant is requesting base standard modifications (BSMs) for reduced front setback along W 20th Avenue for the parking lots on both sites to 10.7’ where code requires a 25’ setback. The applicant is also requesting a BSM to allow the dumpster enclosure on the western site to be placed between the building and public right-of-way (West South Park Avenue.). The site plan appears to be compliant with all other dimensional requirements. This proposal was discussed at a Plan Commission workshop on February 16, 2021. Plan Commission voiced support for the concept plans and preferred a single access off of West 20th Avenue. Staff recommends approval of the General Development Plan with the findings and conditions noted in the staff report. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Hinz asked if the driveway that is coming out on 20th was in line with the western most driveway. Mr. Lyons replied that it shifted a little west from the existing but it is similar. Mr. Hinz asked to talk about the left turn signals in future development. Mr. Lyons replied that they can have that conversation with Traffic. Ms. Propp asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mr. Waller stated that they are utilizing the existing curb cuts that are currently there to get further away from the light and have better through circulation through the light. Ms. Van Sistine asked about the Ripon Lane access. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 April 6, 2021 Mr. Lyons stated that the current proposal has no driveway accesses onto Ripon Lane. They will have to come back with this process when they try to development the southern half of La Sure’s property along with the house that was purchased which will include notifying neighbors. Mr. Waller said they have nothing at this time to propose for this site. Ms. Van Sistine asked what the time frame was for developing the site. Mr. Waller replied that there is no time frame for the La Sure’s site and that it is market dependent. For the properties in the current GDP request, it will be as soon as possible. Ms. Van Sistine asked if there would be a fence or wall between the residence properties and the proposed La Sure’s site. Mr. Waller clarified that they haven’t gotten that far in the La Sure’s site. Ms. Kristi Boushele asked if there will still be a sidewalk. Mr. Lyons replied that it will have to remain. Ms. Van Sistine asked if Mr. Waller owned the properties that La Sure’s and the car wash. Mr. Waller stated that it is in contract. Ms. Van Sistine asked if the neighborhood would be taken into consideration when developing. Mr. Lyons said that a neighborhood meeting will be required as this goes into development. Ms. Propp closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. A Certified Survey Map (CSM) shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development. 2. Approval of Access Control Variances for lateral clearance, driveway width, and number of driveways. 3. Cross access agreement for shared driveway shall be filed with the Winnebago County Register of Deeds. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 April 6, 2021 4. BSM to allow reduced front yard pavement setback to 10.7’ (north) for both commercial sites. 5. BSM to allow a dumpster enclosure to be located between the building and public right-of- way frontage (W. South Park Ave.) 6. Final landscaping plan shall exceed the minimum point requirement for street frontage landscaping and be addressed as part of the SIP request. Seconded by Marshall. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Mitchell stated that the neighborhood involvement is important and that there will opportunity for active involvement. Mr. Hinz thanked staff and the developer for the ease of the project thus far. Motion carried 9-0. VI B. ACCESS CONTROL VARIANCES FOR SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST SOUTH PARK AVENUE AND WEST 20TH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner is requesting access control variances to permit the following: 1. Reduced lateral clearance from W. 20th. to 28’ where code requires a minimum of 75 feet. 2. Increased driveway and curb cut width to 37’/40.67’ (W 20th Ave.) and 34’/42.8’ (W South Park Ave.), where code allows a maximum entrance width of 30’ and curb cut width of 40’. 3. Increased number of driveways to 2 (western parcel) where code allows a maximum of 1 driveway for parcels with less than 600 feet of frontage. 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 have one access driveway along West 20th Avenue and one along West South Park Avenue with both providing two-way access to the newly created commercial parking areas. In this particular case, staff does not have concerns with the requested lateral clearance reduction as the proposed 28’ lateral clearance provides for stacking of two vehicles, the proposed parking lot is relatively small with 60 stalls, and the site has two entrance/exists with left/right turn lanes to alleviate potential stacking concerns. Staff is also supportive of the increased driveway/curb cut widths as it provides three- lane access to the site with a separation of in and out lanes. This is necessary to prevent obstruction of traffic flow near the West 20th Avenue/West South Park Avenue intersection. The western parcel __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 April 6, 2021 will have both entrances to the proposed development, with a cross access agreement being needed for access to the eastern parcel. Staff is supportive of an access control variance to allow a second driveway on the parcel as it is shared between the two sites and is needed to allow for a connection to West South Park Avenue. Staff recommends approval of access control variances as proposed. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. 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. Seconded by Coulibaly. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:22 pm. (Perry/Marshall) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager