Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 June 1, 2021 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES June 1, 2021 PRESENT: Mamadou Coulibaly, Margy Davey, Michael Ford, John Hinz, Justin Mitchell, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp EXCUSED: Derek Groth, John Kiefer, Phil Marshall STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Raymond Maurer, Director of Parks, Parks & Forestry; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Jeff Nau, Associate Planner; Steven Wiley, Associate Planner; Chairperson Propp called the meeting to order at 4:02 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of May 18, 2021 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Davey) I. PUBLIC HEARING: OFFICIAL MAPPING OF MOCKINGBIRD WAY FROM ITS WESTERN TERMINUS WESTWARD TO THE EASTERN TERMINUS OF WINDSONG TERRACE Site Inspections Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh requests approval to officially map right-of-way connecting the western end of Mockingbird Way to the eastern end of Windsong Terrace. Mr. Lyons presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The City requests approval to officially map additional right-of-way between the western end of Mockingbird Way and eastern end of Windsong Terrace. This will hold in-place sufficient area for an eventual street connection to Clairville Road. This will provide a much needed collector street access for the residential developments to the east. Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed official mapping of Mockingbird Way as requested. 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. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 June 1, 2021 There were no statements from the applicant. There were no other public comments on this item. 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 Ford. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-0. II. ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED PAVILION BUILDNG AT LAKESHORE PARK Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey, Ms. Propp and Mr. Ford reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting an architectural building plan review for construction of a pavilion building to be located at Lakeshore Park, 1725 Punhoqua 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 proposed structure is a four season pavilion building with associated vehicle and pedestrian access and parking. The architect has situated the pavilion building at the north end of the Punhoqua Street right of way, adjacent to the Lakeshore Park pond network and Fox River. The project site is located at the junction of Lakeshore and Rainbow Parks and would serve both parks. The proposed building would overlap the former golf course maintenance building to leverage existing in-ground infrastructure according to the architect’s narrative. Staff recommends approval of the architectural design of the pavilion building as proposed. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 June 1, 2021 Ms. Propp asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Ms. Propp asked if this was the same plan that Plan Commission saw at the workshop. Leigh Allen, Smith Group, confirmed it is. There were no other public comments on this item. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Mr. Ford asked if the Sustainability Board had any comments about the project. Mr. Maurer said that they had comments about alternative energy sources for heating and cooling and discussion about using native plantings. There was comments about electric charging in the parking lot as well. Ms. Davey asked if the native plantings and charging stations were now a part of the project. Mr. Allen said that the native plantings have always been a part of the site plan for the project and currently they are going to have five EV charging stations in the parking lot. Ms. Davey asked if the infrastructure will be under the parking lot. Mr. Allen said that the infrastructure will be in place as part of the phase one development. Mr. Perry asked if they would be able to estimate the amount of space between the ground and the bottom of the deck. Mr. Allen said it is just under five feet. Mr. Perry said that it would be enough space for children to get under. Ms. Propp asked if there is a way to screen off the area. Mr. Allen said that yes after the fact, but there is not screening incorporated in the plan. Mr. Mitchell asked about heated restrooms and handicap accessibility of the restrooms as well as changing tables. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 June 1, 2021 Mr. Maurer said that the two exterior restrooms are gender neutral and there are two interior male/female restrooms. Mr. Allen said all four restrooms have changing tables and are all ADA compliant. There were no closing statements from the applicant. 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. Mr. Perry stated that he is concerned about the open space between the deck and the ground but it will not affect his vote. Motion carried 7-0. III. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 12 DISTRICT (MR-12) TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 12 DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (MR-12-PD) AT 2750 MINERVA STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Multi-family Residential 12 District (MR- 12) to Multi-family Residential 12 District with a Planned Development Overlay (MR-12-PD). 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 future development of the subject property. The applicant has submitted preliminary plans for expansion of the existing multi-family use, which will be addressed as General Development Plan (GDP) review under the subsequent item. Staff recommends approval of the zone change from Multi-family Residential 12 District (MR-12) to Multi-family Residential 12 District with a Planned Development Overlay (MR- 12-PD) as requested. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Ford asked if there was any issues approving this item if they do not approve the next item. Mr. Lyons said that they reason they have these separated is because of the nature of the next item. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 June 1, 2021 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 other public comments on this item. 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. Seconded by Perry. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR EXPANSION OF A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT 2750 MINERVA STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of General Development Plan to allow for expansion of 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 applicant requests approval of General Development Plan to allow for expansion of a multi-family development. Staff recommends Plan Commission recommend the appropriate scale of development for the proposed General Development Plan with one of the following options: 1) Denial of the proposed two 8-unit buildings. 2) Approval of the proposed two 8-unit buildings. 3) Approval of one 16-unit building. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 June 1, 2021 4) Approval of one 12-unit building. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Hinz asked the difference in green space between the options. Mr. Lyons said there is a 2% difference. Mr. Ford asked if there would be a need for the BSM for the green space. Mr. Lyons said it will depend on the SIP. Mr. Mitchell asked if Plan Commission requires the same recreation space for similar buildings or is there flexibility. Mr. Lyons said that the code requires it on any multi-family with three buildings or more and that would be per lot. Mr. Mitchell asked if there was any possibility of park fees for the developers. Mr. Lyons said that parkland dedications requirements are only triggered during new CSMs or Plats. Recreational space and parkland are different and recreational space cannot accept any fee in lieu of. Mr. Mitchell said that the model had front yard space has recreational space and wanted to know of similar developments. Mr. Lyons said that this is unique to this area. Recreational space can between the front building setback line and the front of the building. There are not a lot of buildings that exceed the setback like this. The ordinance does talk about preferred uses of recreational space. This would not apply to front yard recreational space. They can achieve total recreational space from multiple spaces. Mr. Mitchell asked if there was a way to permit a playground or swing set in the front yard. Mr. Lyons said that it could go through plan development of BSM to allow in front yard. Ms. Propp asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Chet Wesenberg from Wesenberg Architects and Homes said they came up with an alternate plan for 16 units. There was discussion about a 12 unit plan, but it would not be efficient. This will help with the recreational area and parking spaces. Mr. Wesenberg said originally there was an 18 unit plan approved for this site. Zoning was changed to the current zoning it is today. The original zoning would’ve allowed 34 units. The new __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 June 1, 2021 16 unit plan will be moved approximately 24 feet which will provide additional recreational lawn as well as enhanced landscaping along the shared property line with the shared single family home. Ms. Propp asked to describe the 16 unit plan. Mr. Wesenberg said the new plan will be 8 one bedroom units and 8 two bedrooms units. Mr. Hinz asked what the enhanced landscaping would include. Mr. Wesenberg said spruce trees and arborvitaes would be a part of the plan. Mr. Hinz asked how deep the water for the retention pond would be. Mr. Wesenberg said that wasn’t determined yet. Mr. Mitchell asked about the handicap accessibility in the units. Mr. Wesenberg all the first floor units will be handicap accessible. The code requires one unit to be type A accessibility which is a higher need of accessibility and the remaining units will be type B. Type B requires clear floor space in front of plumping fixtures and all first floor units have zero step entry. Mr. Mitchell asked about the rental range. Mr. Wesenberg said it will be between $800-900. Mr. Mitchell asked what the vision is for the recreational area. Mr. Wesenberg said the front will be mowed lawn. The area to the north will have swing sets, sandbox something to that nature. There were no other public comments on this item. 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 with option 1A which includes the revised 16 unit option. Seconded by Hinz. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 June 1, 2021 Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Coulibaly asked if there was a difference in approving the 16 unit building versus the two 8 unit buildings. Mr. Lyons said that there is a greater degree of recreational space for the revised 16 unit building versus the two 8 unit buildings. Motion carried 7-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:52 pm. (Hinz/Mitchell) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager