Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 July 6, 2021 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES July 6, 2021 PRESENT: Mamadou Coulibaly, Michael Ford, John Hinz, John Kiefer, Phil Marshall, Justin Mitchell, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp EXCUSED: Derek Groth, Margy Davey STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Kelly Nieforth, Economic Development Services Manager; Raymond Maurer, Director of Parks; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager / City Engineer; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Jeff Nau, Associate Planner; Brandon Nielsen, Assistant Planner; Chairperson Propp called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of June 15, 2021 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Coulibaly) I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Lyons explained the Plan Commission needs to vote for officers. He called for nominations. Mr. Ford nominated Mr. Hinz for Chair. Mr. Lyons called for other nominations. Mr. Coulibaly nominated Ms. Propp for Chair. Ms. Propp declined. Mr. Lyons made a final call for other nominations. No commissioners made other nominations. Declaration of Mr. Hinz as Chair. Plan Commission members unanimously approved Mr. Hinz as Chair, 7-0. Mr. Hinz nominated Ms. Propp for Vice-Chair. Mr. Lyons called for other nominations. No commissioners made other nominations. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 July 6, 2021 Mr. Lyons made a final call for other nominations. No commissioners made other nominations. Declaration of Ms. Propp as Vice-Chair. Plan Commission members unanimously approved Ms. Propp as Vice-Chair, 7-0. II. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A PERSONAL STORAGE FACILITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1300 S. KOELLER STREET ***This item was laid over from the June 15, 2021 Plan Commission meeting*** Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp, Mr. Perry and Mr. Hinz all reported visiting site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan to allow a personal storage facility located at 1300 S. Koeller Street. 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 petitioner is proposing to convert the existing vacant commercial building to a personal storage facility, which is not permitted within the SMU zoning district. The applicant also plans to divide the subject property into two lots to provide a separate lot for future development fronting S. Koeller Street. This will be addressed administratively through a CSM. The proposed plans were brought before Plan Commission at a workshop on April 20, 2021. Plan Commission was open to the concept, with the main concern being the appearance of the storage building on a major commercial corridor. Staff is supportive of the requested base standard modification (BSM) to allow the personal storage facility. Although not permitted within the SMU district, staff feels that the proposed storage use is appropriate given the significant distance of the building from the S. Koeller Street frontage and difficulty finding a new user of the vacant “big box” retail building. Staff is recommending a condition that the newly created commercial lot (Lot 1) is developed within 3 years. A commercial development fronting S. Koeller Street would serve to buffer the storage facility from the (S. Koeller) street frontage and would provide consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Recommendation of Interstate Commercial. This would be addressed under a separate SIP request in the future. Staff recommends approval of the General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 July 6, 2021 There were no technical questions on this item. Mr. Hinz asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Ed Bowen, Morgan Partners, & Josh Sullivan, True Storage LLC, said they were available to answer questions for the commission. They have revised renderings and updated site plans for the proposed concrete pavement area. Ms. Propp thanked True Storage LLC for responding to their requests. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Hinz 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 Mitchell. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Perry said he continues to remain opposed to the project. In the past when a similar project was brought to them, current and former board members voted against it because of the public view. It seems to be there is a concern that if this storage doesn’t go into this building that nothing will. Mr. Mitchell asked what will happen if the other lot is not developed in three years. Mr. Lyons said that it would need to be returned to greenspace. Mr. Mitchell asked if that meant a lawn. Mr. Lyons confirmed that. Ms. Propp said that this is a big box that we cannot see what’s inside. It will be an improvement for a vacant building. Mr. Hinz said that storage units are one of the easiest things for developers to come in and redevelop. If there is a successful business in here for 10-15 years, another business could easily come in and redevelop and won’t cost millions of dollars. He will be supporting this project. Motion carried 7-1. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 July 6, 2021 III. STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION AT THE 800 BLOCK OF W. PACKER AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests the acceptance of street right-of-way along the north side of the 800 Block of W. Packer Avenue. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The City of Oshkosh is requesting a small right-of-way dedication to square-off the western section of W. Packer Avenue. This is essentially a cleanup request as terminations of right-of-way are typically squared off and not stepped as is the case of W. Packer Avenue. The dedication will also rectify the issue of public sidewalk and street being located on private property. The proposed dedication will be 40 feet wide by 50 feet long and 2,000 square feet in area. The dedication is included on a draft Certified Survey Map (CSM) under review by staff. The owner of the property has been contacted and is agreeable to dedicating the land to the public. Once city staff approves the CSM it will be recorded at the Winnebago County Register of Deeds. The dedication will become official upon approval by the Common Council. Staff recommends acceptance of the right-of-way dedication along the north side of the 800 Block of W. Packer Avenue as proposed. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. Mr. Hinz 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. Mr. Hinz 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. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 July 6, 2021 Seconded by Propp. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 8-0. IV. ACCEPT SANITARY SEWER MAIN EASEMENT AND AMEND EXISTING SANITARY MAIN SEWER EASEMENT AT 2750 VINLAND STREET Site Inspections Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh is requesting acceptance of a sanitary sewer main easement to allow construction of sanitary sewer main and related structures through a portion of 2750 Vinland Street. The city is also requesting the amendment of an existing sanitary sewer main easement at the same property. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The proposed easement will be located on the southerly portion of the Nevamar Company property located on the west side of Vinland Street. The site is developed with numerous light industrial buildings and associated structures which produces surfaces for furniture, counters and similar items. Presently, the facility access city sanitary sewer which is in an easement granted in 1982 running south of and between existing buildings. An easement was used through the site as most of the properties located on Vinland Street were and still are located in the Town of Oshkosh. The close proximity of the easement and sewer to the buildings have made it impractical to allow for expansion of existing or construction of new buildings. The owners approached the city to request the relocation of the easement and sanitary sewer to allow for future expansions on the site. The applicant is also requesting an amendment to an existing easement recorded in 1981 (Document Number 565215, Winnebago County Register of Deeds) which allowed placement of the original sanitary sewer. It was discovered that the constructed pipe was not located entirely within the easement area and the description of the easement will be constructed to encompass the entire pipe. The site is generally surrounded by undeveloped or agricultural lands to the west, south and east with exception of four single-family homes encompassed by the site along Vinland Street. The north side of the property is fronted by a railroad right-of-way with spur line and a large scale __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 July 6, 2021 warehousing facility north of that. Staff recommends approval of the acceptance of the proposed sanitary sewer easement and amendment to existing sanitary sewer easement at 2750 Vinland Street as proposed. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. Mr. Hinz asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant. Mr. Gierach said at this time there was no plan to install sewer in the new easement. It’s there as a placeholder for as things develop. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Hinz 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. Seconded by Kiefer. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 8-0. V. APPROVE LAND ACQUISITION OF 143 IDAHO STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh Parks Department is requesting approval to acquire the property located at 143 Idaho Street. The property will be used for part of the proposed Parks Department Administration/Operations Facility site scheduled for construction from 2021 through 2023. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The subject property is rhombus-shaped lot located on the __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 July 6, 2021 west side of Idaho Street, immediately south of the Parks Department Operations Facility. The lot is 132 feet wide and 279 feet deep containing 36,828 square feet or 0.838 acres. The property is developed with a one-story, single-family house with detached garage and other accessory structures. For over a decade, the city realized the need to replace the existing Parks Administration and Operations Facility. A recent city building assessment confirmed this and concluded the Parks building should be the top priority for replacement. The existing building was constructed in the 1960s and can no longer host efficient operations and has outlived its usefulness. City staff has been in contact with the property owners about the possible acquisition. The owners have accepted an offer to purchase contingent on approval by the Common Council. This approval is the first step for the City to acquire this property. The City is required to follow the acquisition process as required by state statute. Staff recommends approval of the proposed property acquisition of 143 Idaho Street as requested. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Mitchell asked if there was a city policy in place that when they acquire a property with trees such as this lot, if they have a replacement provision. Mr. Lyons said there is no official policy but there are zoning ordinances requirements for landscaping. Mr. Mitchell asked if the city would have to conform to those standards. Mr. Lyons confirmed. He stated that in the next few meetings there will be a workshop presentation to the commission for the new parks building. Mr. Coulibaly asked if this site was chosen because it’s more appealing than others. Mr. Lyons said that this is the most efficient use of what they already have since Parks owns property below and above the lot. Mr. Hinz asked if there is a possibility of acquiring 225 Idaho. Mr. Maurer confirmed that only 143 Idaho is being acquired for this project. Mr. Hinz asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mr. Maurer said that the city did an assessment on all buildings and this building is the one in most need of a renovation. It’s a 1960s era building that was not constructed for municipal operation. There were no other public comments on this item. There were no public comments on this item. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 July 6, 2021 Mr. Hinz 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 Kiefer. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Ford stated that this is good project and the building is in woeful shape and will be a huge upgrade. Ms. Propp said it is sorely needed. Motion carried 8-0. VI. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW A ROOF- MOUNTED SMALL SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM AT 815 W SOUTH PARK AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz and Mr. Perry reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow placement of a roof-mounted small solar energy system on an existing single-family house located at 815 W South Park Ave. Mr. Nielsen 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 grid-tied solar array on the south-facing roof of the existing home. The system will include 20 black solar panels and be mounted to the roof using a Unirac SolarMount racking system. The submitted plan shows the placement of the proposed solar panels. Staff is of the opinion that this request does not satisfy any of the above criteria. The proposed placement is in the most logical location available. The array will be minimally visible from the street and southern exposure is most desirable to take advantage of the sun’s rays. The petitioner’s application states that the solar array will not negatively impact the health, safety, and general welfare of the occupants of the neighboring properties. Staff is in support of the proposed small solar energy system as the accessory use should not be detrimental to the surrounding area. Private energy producing systems are becoming increasingly common nationwide as there is growing public movement to become more sustainable and less reliant on commercial service providers. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 July 6, 2021 The Inspection Services Division has reviewed this request and noted that structural calculations will need to be provided for the panels on the roof to verify the roof can accept the weight of the panels. This is required prior to building permit issuance. Staff reached out to the applicant multiple times to inform them of the pending zoning code amendments regarding small solar energy systems, providing options on whether to move forward with this CUP or being refunded the CUP fees and waiting for the amendments to occur (zoning code amendments would permit solar panels by right). The applicant did not respond. Staff reached out to the property owner and explained the same options. The property owner understood the pending ordinance amendments but decided to proceed with the CUP process regardless because of the project timeline and the fees that he did not feel could be recouped due to a contractual agreement. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit for installation of a small solar energy system accessory use at 815 W South Park Avenue as proposed with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Mitchell asked if there are fees that they are being charged because of the current system that would go away in less than a month. Mr. Lyons confirmed that the conditional use permit fees was one of the items that was discussed with them. Mr. Mitchell asked if there was a way for that to be waived. Mr. Lyons said that no because of the costs associated with it including the legal publications and recording fee. Mr. Hinz 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 other public comments on this item. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Hinz 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. Seconded by Perry. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 July 6, 2021 Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 8-0. VII. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT & SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPROVAL FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JACKSON STREET & MARION ROAD Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp and Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a General Development Plan amendment and Specific Implementation Plan to allow for a multi-family residential development located at redevelopment site J, at the southwest corner of Jackson Street and Marion Road. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. On May 14, 2019, a General Development Plan (GDP) was approved for multi-use developments located at Marion Road Redevelopment Sites H, I and J. This request only pertains to Phase 1 development of Site J. The proposed Phase 1 development will include a 4-story, 74 unit apartment building with a total of 90 bedrooms (1.21 bedrooms per unit). Density for the site is approximately 28.2 units per acre. The RMU District allows for 1,200 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, which results in a maximum of 95 dwelling units for the site. The Phase I development is under the maximum of density for the entire site. The General Development Plan (GDP) for the site listed the Phase I building (Building 2) as a 5- story multi-use building. The proposed change to a 4-story multi-family use requires a GDP amendment. Staff is supportive of the GDP amendment as the proposed use still be compatible with the overall approved GDP as well as the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommendation of Center City. The site will have a single two-way access from Marion Road. A total of 90 parking spaces will be provided for the site (34 underground spaces, 56 surface spaces). The total number of parking spaces does not meet the minimum of 2 spaces per dwelling unit containing 0-2 bedrooms, plus 0.5 space per additional bedroom over 2 bedrooms per unit, and 1 guest parking space for every 3 dwelling units. The applicant is requesting a BSM for the reduced parking number. The applicant has noted that the proposed 90 parking spaces are consistent with the approved GDP, which included shared parking for Sites H, I, and J totaling 270 parking spaces. The applicant further noted that 117 parking spaces provided for Site H (Brio) along with the proposed 90 spaces on Site J and 94 expected parking spaces on future Site I result in 301 total spaces for the three sites will provide adequate parking given the typology of the mixed-use development in combination with residents mostly utilizing one vehicle unit (based on other similar projects). Staff is supportive of the reduced parking as each unit will be provided at least one parking space and the majority of the units will be one-bedroom or studios. Also, the site is __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 July 6, 2021 centrally located and the area is relatively walkable. Staff recommends approval of the General Development Plan amendment and Specific Implementation Plan with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Propp said that on the rendering there are different colors represented but the actual image shows one color. Mr. Lyons said it is hard to see on the rendering, but there are different products that will be distant in real life. Ms. Propp asked if this new material will be the main material for this building. Mr. Lyons confirmed that the primary cladding on the building would be ceramic lap product along with glazing. Ms. Propp asked if there are going to be three more buildings. Mr. Lyons confirmed. Ms. Propp asked if the total number of units that was approved in the general development plan will remain. Mr. Lyons said that if it changed from the original plan, it would have to be addressed when they come back. Ms. Propp asked about the amount of parking. The commission is granting a modification for reduced parking here but it doesn’t look like there is much parking for three buildings. Mr. Lyons said that the next item on the agenda is the parking lot that’s helping facilitate the parking for this. The parking they are proposing is 1.17 spaces per unit compared to similar developments they have done. Mr. Mitchell asked why there was a shift from their initial plan and what the size of the bedrooms were. Mr. Slusarek confirmed it was mostly studios and two bedrooms. Mr. Hinz asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Steve Miller, SlingShot Architecture, Joy Hanneman, Merge Urban Developments, and Pete Reed, CeraClad, were available to answer questions. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 July 6, 2021 Mr. Miller said that the upper volume is primarily the black cera cladding, windows and glass balconies. The whole first floor is either the stone or glazing. It’s accented by aluminum extrusions but they look like wood to warm up the building. On the right side, there is solar shading that is the same wood looking aluminum slates. There were some concerns about the fixtures the staff is proposing that match the Brio site. Mr. Lyons said that bringing it up to the plan commission would be most appropriate. Mr. Miller shared a handout with plan commission that shows alternative light fixtures other than what staff had recommended. Mr. Miller they were matching the parking lot light fixtures. The larger area shows a mix of fixtures in the area. For this site, the interior of the parking lot will be screened by buildings and won’t feel like it’s a part of site H. There’s additional technical reason the acorn fixtures don’t meet the Wisconsin energy code at night. They would have to line the property which would spill over. They are willing to look at different fixtures that would help bridge the gap. Ms. Propp asked which they were recommending. Mr. Miller said any on the second page of the handout. Mr. Mitchell asked about the units and the accessibility features are including rent. Mr. Miller said that Ms. Hanneman can help address most of the issues, but there are two type A units for fully accessible and the rest of the units are type B, which are accessible but not to the extent of type A. The building will also have an elevator. Mr. Hinz asked if the fixtures that they are proposing would be similar to the other fixtures in the area. Mr. Miller said that in Site J they are proposing the original fixtures they wanted, but whatever is selected will be consistent throughout the whole project. For Site I, it’s so close to site H, they were going to go with the acorn fixtures. Mr. Hinz asked if the tall parking lots would be different from the exterior lights. Mr. Miller said that depending on the location the lights would have to be one-sided or two-sided. Mr. Hinz asked if the light fixtures being proposed are just for the parking lot lightings. Mr. Miller confirmed and said this would include smaller scale lighting as well and pedestrian lighting. Mr. Lyons said that staff was looking at consistently in the area. Right now they are deficiently lit so they do have to increase the lighting plan. Staff did not know there was efficiency issues with __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 July 6, 2021 the acorn lighting. It is appreciated that they come up with alternatives that stay true to the area. From a staff perspective, they would recommend to select an alternative lighting. Ms. Hanneman said that like Brio, they have 33 one bedrooms, 7 waterfront walkups, which is one bedroom plus a den. There are 16 two-bedrooms. None of these are low income housing and there are not set asides for low income. The mix is to appeal young professionals who are able to afford or attain studio unit. The reason for switching from five to four floors is because they wanted to create the density to support new retail. The four story structure was the most efficient way for them to get the density. They have oriented the fitness room and community space that will face the future retail space. Based on the leasing activity at Brio, the parking will be close to one car per unit. Some studio units won’t have a parking space and some of the two bedrooms will have two spaces. Mr. Mitchell asked where the parking would be for future developments. Ms. Hanneman said that Site I is going to have a lot of parking stalls. The general development plan has town homes that would nearly face each other on Site I and J. Mr. Lyons said there is a ratio for commercial vs residential parking. It is in the parking overlay so commercial spaces do not require parking. Mr. Reed gave a handout to the plan commission about the CeraClad products. He said the back page of the handout shows the gravity of the product. It started about four years ago in Japan. CeraClad is a step up from competitive products. The ceramic finish is what makes CeraClad different. It helps it to last a long time and is fade resistant as well. It has a 50 year warranty with the structure and 20 years with the finish. The architects like it because of the varying looks you can achieve with the product. The sample has voids in the product to help make it lighter without losing strength. Mr. Mitchell said that it seems difficult to understand what the final product will look like from the rendering. Mr. Miller asked if it was possible to pull up Merge Developments website to see the web rendering of the product. The Brio building was a lot of the geological history of the site. This site is conceived from the lumber industry that was big in Oshkosh. The wood grain and black cladding was chosen from looking at historical photos. They are trying to go for a timeless look other than trendy. There were no other public comments on this item. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Hinz closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 14 July 6, 2021 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 Mitchell. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Ford said he is fine with any of the alternative lighting that the group suggested as well as the material being classified as class 1. Maybe longer term something to think about is if our code is still working in that regard. If it’s more efficient to have these materials come up one by one to this body or to build that flexibility into the code. Mr. Perry said the alternative lights are appropriate and the traditional lights do not match this development at all. The material is very strong and if you nick it, you see the same color all the way through. Mr. Mitchell said that there are local groups and architects who are more qualified to testify for the material and he suggested that a possibility of materials being submitted ahead of time to some sort of group or panel of local developers that could provide some feedback on the product. He said he appreciates what they are doing including the accessibility features and the underground parking. These nice new developments are great but can exclude people without the financial means and what you get is a consolidation of wealth that doesn’t provide any diversity but it’s understandable that its difficult and isn’t always practical. Ms. Propp said she also feels she is not qualified to attest to the lighting or the material and is taking other people’s words for it. Mr. Hinz said that when new materials comes before the body, he assumes that the staff does a lot of the research to make sure this is a viable product. The staff is there to help guide the decision and does perform a lot of the work. Mr. Lyons said that it would be great to have a group to help weigh in and the product they are suggesting isn’t dissimilar to a lot of stuff they are proposing on their buildings so that helped staff become comfortable with the product. It is new so it is relevant to have a discussion with the board. Motion carried 8-0. VIII. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PARKING LOT LOCATED AT NORTH SIDE OF MARION ROAD WEST OF JACKSON STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 15 July 6, 2021 The applicant requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan to allow for a surface parking lot located at redevelopment site I, at the north side of Marion Road, west of Jackson Street. 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 approved GDP for the site included nine two-story town home units and a surface parking lot. At this time, the applicant is only proposing to construct the associated surface parking lot. As proposed the parking lot will have 67 parking stalls. The applicant is proposing to construct the parking lot prior to the townhome buildings in order to utilize the parking lot for Site J tenants as their on-site parking may not be accessible due to construction phasing. As no other uses exist on the site, this will be considered an “off-site parking lot”, which is a permitted use in the Urban Mixed Use district. The site will utilize an existing shared access driveway with the Aurora site to the east. The parking lot will be located to the north of the future townhome buildings, which are to be built along Marion Road. Development of the parking lot will result in a total impervious surface ratio of 57% for the site, which is well under the maximum of 85% for the UMU district. The proposed parking lot meets all applicable setbacks. Staff recommends approval of the Specific Implementation Plan with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Kiefer asked if they are meeting the storm water management uses. Mr. Gierach said that he doesn’t recall what was being planned for the site. There are probably some cross access with east and north. Mr. Lyons said they will have to meet the city’s storm water management code. Mr. Hinz asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mr. Miller said that because of the way Site H is, some of the parking lot islands and next to the parking lot the landscaped areas are like bio swales to filter the water before it’s diverted to the storm system. There were no other public comments on this item. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Hinz closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 16 July 6, 2021 Motion by Coulibaly to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Marshall. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Mitchell asked if there was a timeframe requirement on the outlots. Mr. Lyons said that all three of these sites have time requirements and this is the last of the sites to be developed. Motion carried 8-0. IX. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT NORTH SIDE OF 1700 BLOCK OSHKOSH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz, Council Member Ford, Mr. Perry, Ms. Propp and Mr. Kiefer all reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner requests approval of Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) for a commercial development (drive-thru restaurant) at the north side of 1700 Block Oshkosh 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 proposed development consists of a 2,637 sq. ft. commercial (drive-thru restaurant) building on a newly created interior lot. A CSM will be required to be approved by the Department of Community Development for the new lot. The proposed plans were discussed at a Plan Commission workshop on April 20, 2021. Plan Commission voiced support for the proposed use, provided the site is located on an interior lot. Staff is supportive of the proposed drive-thru use on the site as the proposed interior location of the drive-thru should not be detrimental to the surrounding area, provided increased landscaping is provided along the Oshkosh Ave. frontage to buffer the view of the drive-thru lane. Staff recommends approval of the Specific Implementation Plan with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. Mr. Hinz asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 17 July 6, 2021 James Burkhardt, Excel Engineering, made himself available for questions. There were no other public comments on this item. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Hinz 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 Coulibaly. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Perry said that he appreciates the developer and how they have worked with them to get a quality building placed in the city. Mr. Hinz said that they went over and above on the class 1 materials. They have heard from other developers have difficult it is to comply with class 1 materials but this developer came in and said they were putting 100% class 1 materials and have set the standard with material use. Motion carried 8-0. XI. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT (UMU) AND URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (UMU-PD) TO INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (I-PD) FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CEAPE AVENUE AND BROAD STREET Mr. Mitchell excused himself from the discussion for items X and XI due to a conflict of interest. Site Inspections Report: Mr. Perry, Ms. Propp, Mr. Kiefer, and Mr. Ford reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Urban Mixed Use District (UMU) and Urban Mixed Use District with a Planned Development Overlay (UMU-PD) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD) for two properties located at the northwest corner of Ceape Avenue and Broad Street. 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 have both __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 18 July 6, 2021 subject properties zoned Institutional with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD). The applicant has submitted preliminary plans for combination of the subject parcels into one lot and development of a day by day warming shelter facility. The proposed warming shelter is considered an “indoor institutional” land use, which is not permitted in the existing Urban Mixed Use (UMU) zoning district and is a conditional use within the Institutional (I) zoning district. The proposed use and preliminary plans will be addressed as General Development Plan (GDP) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) review under the subsequent item. This proposal was discussed at a Plan Commission workshop as well as a neighborhood meeting on June 1, 2021. Both Plan Commission and the neighborhood residents in attendance voiced support for the plans. Staff recommends approval of the zone change from Urban Mixed Use District (UMU) and Urban Mixed Use District with a Planned Development Overlay (UMU-PD) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD) for properties located at the northwest corner of Ceape Avenue and Broad Street. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Ford asked what types of developments can be found in an Urban Mixed Use District. Mr. Lyons replied that Urban Mixed Use typically has commercial type developments like office, retail, commercial, and upper floor housing would be traditional. Mr. Ford asked for institutional use examples. Mr. Lyons replied that institutional uses typically government related like libraries, museums, parks, and service organizations. Mr. Marshall asked what is located to the west of the site. Mr. Slusarek replied that it is existing residential. Mr. Hinz asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant. Mr. Keith Wirch, 402 Otter Avenue, stated that they moved here from Minneapolis a year and a half ago, but they lived here previously and it is great to return. Their neighborhood has a railroad that sits right there, an amphitheater a block away, the large Court Tower low income housing, and the fire department. In their time in Minneapolis, they had multiple negative interactions with the homeless population such as harassment, miscellaneous crime, and panhandling. In their opinion the addition of this shelter will cause excessive loitering as the population waits for it to open causing an unsafe environment for his family, especially for his wife who walks their dog in the neighborhood. He understands that there is a need to assist the homeless population here. He frequently goes down to Riverside Park and he sees them there and the tents. He does not enjoy __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 19 July 6, 2021 being the “not in my yard” group of their neighborhood. They’ve made accommodations to live with the railroad nearby and they’ve reached out to their new neighbors at Court Tower who cycle in and out. They also have the music from the amphitheater nearby. The addition of this is another burden onto their neighborhood and he asks that they at least consider that as they make the zoning change decision. Ms. Amanda Wirch, 402 Otter Avenue, stated that the report notes that the neighborhood association had voiced support for this. What she received for this regarding the neighborhood association was that the core leadership had met with the warming shelter. As a neighborhood association member based on her location, she never received a letter in the mail about this specifically. She thinks it is slightly misleading, although not intentionally so to say that the neighborhood as a whole has supported this. Some of the neighbors who live across the street do not support it, but they are not comfortable speaking here. She has a few things she thinks should be taken into consideration. One is that there needs to be more discussion with the neighborhoods. The house right next door did not receive notification because they rent. They are going to have to live next a property with no knowledge of what it is going to become. A lot of the area residents are renters. If their landlord doesn’t let them know about this change, then they have no idea. In the report it says this is an overnight only shelter. Her concern is that they’re potentially forcing a population who may or may not leave the area during the day back out onto the street. It would be one thing if services were provided all day, but she doesn’t know that based on the report provided. The homeless population statistically has mental health needs making it difficult to retain employment and housing. If there isn’t going to be supervision and services provided all day, then she thinks they are allowing for some possible negative interactions within the neighborhood and with the needs of the homeless population. She is wanting the City to at least take this into consideration and provide more information about what’s going to be happening there, who is taking responsibility, and who is taking care of the populations’ needs both day and night. They should also make sure that the majority of the neighborhood is actually notified, including renters. She doesn’t know if anyone in Court Tower received any notification. She thinks it is important to know who is going to take responsibility for the potential change in dynamic in the neighborhood. Ms. Propp replied that she appreciates their concerns. She apologized and explained that procedurally they need to address their questions with the next agenda item. There were no other public comments on this item. Mr. Hinz closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Marshall. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 20 July 6, 2021 Mr. Ford stated that he is fine with the zone change given that it is consistent with the long term plans of the City and other uses in the area. Mr. Hinz replied that Day by Day had discussed staffing with Plan Commission during the workshop and they can address that in the next item. Motion carried 7-0. X. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN INDOOR INSTITUTIONAL USE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CEAPE AVENUE AND BROAD STREET Mr. Mitchell excused himself from the discussion for items X and XI due to a conflict of interest. Site Inspections Report: Mr. Perry, Ms. Propp, Mr. Kiefer, and Mr. Ford reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a General Development Plan and a Conditional Use Permit for an indoor institutional use at the northwest corner of Ceape Avenue and Broad Street. 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 subject area included in the zone change request consists of a vacant commercial lot and vacant residential lot with a total of approximately 1.64 acres. The vacant commercial lot has frontage on Ceape Ave., Broad St., and Otter Ave. The vacant residential lot has frontage on Broad St. The surrounding area consists primarily of residential uses to the north and east along with Riverside Park to the south and Court Tower Condominium to the west. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan recommends Center City land use for the subject properties. Staff is supportive of the General Development Plan as the site layout is generally compatible with the surrounding relatively high density urban area. Staff is recommending that all needed BSMs be addressed as part of the Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) review. Staff is also supportive of the request for a Conditional Use Permit as the proposed indoor institutional use is consistent with surrounding institutional and high density residential land uses as well as the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use recommendation of Center City. The proposed warming shelter will also provide a valuable service to the community. Staff recommends approval of the General Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 21 July 6, 2021 Mr. Hinz asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant. Ms. Courtney Sullivan, 406 Otter Avenue, asked where they are heading with this neighborhood and if it is more towards industrial and not residential. Mr. Lyons replied that this is a site that has long been owned by the Housing Authority and the expectation for this property was always for development of non-residential. That has no impact on the broader character of the area. They still encourage a viable and active neighborhood. Ms. Sullivan replied that this looks very institutional and does not seem to fit with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Lyons replied that they can let the applicants address the reasoning for the look of the building. Ms. Sullivan replied that she has had nothing but really negative experience from living close to a homeless shelter. She has already found drug paraphernalia outside of her home in her yard. They’re already there doing these things as it is now. She has young children and they play outside. What is she supposed to say when her kid finds a syringe on the ground? It’s insane. She chose to live in this neighborhood, but she didn’t choose to find these things or have people loitering around the area. Unless it’s an open all-day thing, it doesn’t help what’s happening during the day. This is great and they should have a place to go and she sees that and she’s sorry if she seems angry about this, but she is angry about it. She doesn’t think it’s helping the situation in the neighborhood. Homeowners like her did not receive a notification in the mail about the public meeting. They only got a letter from the neighborhood association and the City about how the neighborhood association core team met with them and she doesn’t even know who the core team is. She’s lived in River East for four years now and she thinks she’s gotten two letters in the mail about a neighborhood meeting. She feels like the neighborhood should have a little more information before it is brought here as a vote. As her neighbor said, the renters around the area weren’t even notified. She feels like they should have a say too. She also wants to know if there is going to be an increased police presence and if this is going to decrease the resale value of her home with having things rezoned. It’s not the best neighborhood in Oshkosh, but she would like it to be better. She doesn’t feel like this is going to help the neighborhood improve like it should. She is hoping that the petitioners have answers for her, but she really hopes the Plan Commission asks how the neighborhood really does feel and not just the core team. She doesn’t think anyone in the vicinity of this is in the core team. River East is a pretty decent sized neighborhood and she feels like they’re not being properly represented here. Mr. Coulibaly asked Ms. Sullivan if she is systematically opposed to the development or if she wants the issues addressed. Ms. Sullivan replied that she is systematically opposed to it. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 22 July 6, 2021 Mr. Brad Lasky, 1319 Bay Shore Drive, stated that he is really here to learn more about the project. Similar to the previous speakers, the first time he was notified was through the Oshkosh Examiner. He started talking to a number of people because the article stated that everyone thought this was a really good idea. He doesn’t think it is a good idea. He thinks it is well-intentioned, but in a very poorly located area for a number of reasons. He grew up in Oshkosh and has been here thirty five years and he is passionate about where he grew up. They’ve worked very hard to get their neighborhood to be more owner-occupied and this goes against that and the feel of the neighborhood. He also has concerns about what happens to their neighborhood when Washington School disappears. He is here to learn and he is interested to hear about the site selection and why this the right site for this development. There are other locations in the City that he feels are more suitable, but what those are is up for interpretation. He is here to learn because he doesn’t know much about this project. Ms. Carmen Scott, 521 Otter, stated that her home is directly in the line of sight of the building. She appreciates her neighbor’s viewpoints. She is on the core team. It is not a secret society. It is people who stepped up and said that they want their neighborhood to be a better place. If someone is not aware of the core team, they haven’t looked at flyers, been on Facebook, or come to any of the meetings. Two mailings are sent out annually for the fall and spring meeting and at each of these meetings there is a sign up. There is a lot of communication and she understand there’s a lot of chatter that goes on. She understands that everyone is busy, but those of them that chose to be on the core team and others in the neighborhood attended an informative meeting on June 1st that involved Day by Day, the architects, and the security. She lives six houses away from the train. She walks her dog four or five times a day and goes by that site several times every day. She goes down to the river about four times per week. There are homeless already there. She made a choice when they moved here four years ago that walkability and the amenities overshadowed that. Moving into River East, she knew the reputation and she knew it wasn’t pristine, but she also knew it would take individuals who wanted to make a difference. They moved here from a different state. She doesn’t know how many of them have been homeless, but twice they came very close to homelessness because of her husband’s terminal brain injury. She’s gone bankrupt and been an abused spouse. She can’t tell you how her heart hurts when she hears people saying that the homeless are all mentally ill and that they’re all have substance abuse issues. There is a large percentage of individuals who are actually working poor. She’s sure that Day by Day is going to address the security issues. Her understanding is that the homeless population will be doubling meaning fifty to sixty individuals. She imagines a high percentage are already hanging out in the library or living by the river. She thinks the site selection is awesome. The police and fire departments are nearby. It’s a locked unit, so they can’t leave at night. They do security checks every day on every individual. She would rather have this that a vacant lot. She think it actually helps the neighborhood since the four years she has been there. She has neighbors who are renters and they’re fantastic and active and in the core group. It’s really up to each individual to decide how they want to perceive this. “Not in my backyard” is something she understands and she understands property values and wanting to have a great neighborhood. She thinks they are a great neighborhood. She’s seen that that they are a compassionate neighborhood and she thinks this goes right in line with the kind of neighborhood that she bought into for a lot of reasons. It’s actually a great location that is close to the bus route. There are a number of people who are __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 23 July 6, 2021 homeless because they can’t work because they don’t have a car. So if they put this somewhere out where no one is going to see them and they aren’t going to bother anyone, they aren’t going to have transportation which is going to be a huge issue. It is a gigantic barrier. There are mentally ill individuals and individuals on drugs and alcohol, but it’s not everyone. She knows Day by Day will hopefully address these issues and it can be a discussion and not something that is shoved down someone’s throat. She can appreciate if people have not volunteered and been part of the neighborhood core group. They didn’t vote on anything as a neighborhood. Mr. Hinz closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Mr. Eric Spar stated that he is a member and treasurer of the Day by Day board. Currently the shelter is operating out of the basement of the church. It operates six months out of the year and that is the maximum it can operate with the permit it has right now. When it goes out of season when summer hits, then those individuals that stay at the shelter during the colder times are on their own. There isn’t an alternative place that will take all of them. There are other locations that are more restrictive than Day by Day. Essentially when summer hits, these individuals are all over the place. This is a population that is generally not very mobile. If the site is not in a location where the population it’s meant to serve is already located, they’re not going to be able to get there. That was one of the things that went into site selection. There were other sites that were looked at, including existing sites that would not have been new construction. Ultimately this site was selected as the most appropriate. As far as the number of police calls, the number of calls and police attention needed at the shelter while operational is far less significant than the same population when the shelter is not operational. Law enforcement is needed much more when they don’t have a place to stay at night. He understands that there is always concern about that and he understand the concerns about this is population having a higher instance of mental health and substance abuse issues than the average population. Those are things that the shelter attempts to address and there are services in place there. There is a counselor during the day to provide services to those utilizing the shelter at night. It opens in the evening for people staying there overnight. They are served dinner there and have breakfast available and are sometimes provided food during the day. It’s not a place where they’re staying 24 hours and they are leaving during the day. There are some classes provided there as well both in and out of season. There is a group that is part of planning the shelter right now that is specifically dedicated to security concerns. It is something that they think about also. Their group doesn’t want there to be issues for neighbors because that causes problems for them as well. Some of the other sites they were looking at had more than one story which created some problems for staff being able to monitor the individuals staying at the shelter. Considerations were given to how appropriately people can be monitored by staff working there. They try to provide the best monitoring that they can. Mr. Jason Havlik stated that he is a member of the Day by Day Board. In regards to the selection of the particular site, they had a team that was looking at this for quite some time and they basically based this on three main principles. The first principle was the safety and security of their guests and the community, the second one was geographic location related to amenities and transportation, and the third principle was financial. It would be significantly more expensive to renovate an existing space. They are funded through different volunteers and so when it comes to __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 24 July 6, 2021 looking at putting a building up, they have to be very cost-conscious to ensure that they’re making the best decisions for their guests and making sure they have a good program to be involved with. All of their principles around this building is making sure that they are caring for the needs of their guests. Ms. Propp asked if someone could speak more about the daytime services. Mr. Havlik stated that the best person to answer those questions is not here today, but they can get back to them on that. Mr. Lyons replied that based on the discussions they’ve had, it’s more beneficial to have them leave during the day to work or look for employment. At the same time, they provide needed services in the shelter. Although it is not 24 hours, there are services and classes available for the guests during the day. Based on the information provided, they have kind of a two sided approach. Mr. Spar stated that employees of the warming shelter are primarily there during the day. It’s not something where people are coming and going completely unsupervised. If someone is going to be creating problems and they want access to the shelter, it’s probably not the area they want to be creating problems because the employees are going to see that. They haven’t seen a significant history of guests causing problems in the area where it is currently located. It’s not as residential of an area as the proposal is now though. Ms. Propp stated that Day by Day obviously has a PR problem. She strongly recommends that board members have another meeting and figure out how to engage the neighborhood so a lot of these things can be resolved before it goes to Council. Mr. Mike Karrels from Karrels & Associates stated that he can understand the neighbor’s viewpoints and the unknown is scary. Regarding the building composition, it is a very efficient building. They may not agree as far as the aesthetics, but a lot of institutional buildings are like this. It is an institutional building by nature. It doesn’t serve the neighborhood in the same way a Victorian home would. That is why they are going through the rezoning process. They do their best to try and meld the ideologies of the buildings in the surrounding area. They have the masonry from Court Tower rendered there and they are trying to tie alike things together. It may not be perfect, but it is an efficient vehicle for this process. Mr. Coulibaly asked if the residents are allowed in the building unless there are some instructional activities. He asked how close they are allowed to be to the facility during the day or if there is a buffer area around the building. Mr. Havlik stated that the guests are able to come in at 6:00pm. Everyone is registered and staff completes a full background check each and every day on every guest as they come through. Once they are in the facility, they are not able to leave. Each guest has a series of chores to do and then they need to be out by 8:00am the next morning. They will get a bag of food to take with them and they will have programs in the day the guests can utilize. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 25 July 6, 2021 Mr. Spar replied that he is not aware of a specific buffer area or rule, but what they’ve seen with the current location is that they tend to stay in the vicinity of the shelter. Part of what the staff will do with them is to help them find other things to do during the day such a job or job searching. They end up naturally getting out of the area. Mr. Ford stated that his understanding is that they are increasing the number of guests they can have from the old place. He asked if the design meets that need or if the concerns voiced on Facebook about attracting people outside of the community and creating additional need are justified. Mr. Spar replied that there is no way to go over 25 currently, but it was fairly common in previous seasons that there would have to turn people away because they hit the cap. He can’t speak to Facebook comments suggesting that it’s going to draw people, but it’s not really a mobile population. There was a need for increased capacity. This will accommodate 50 with overflow for up to over 60 in the new facility. Mr. Havlik stated that a lieutenant is part of their board as well. They have been working directly with Karrels & Associates to develop the infrastructure for a security system within the shelter. Mr. Havlik and Mr. Spar thanked the Plan Commission for their time. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendations as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Perry. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp stated that she is discouraged that other members of the board have been unable to attend these meetings to address the neighbor’s concerns. She understands the concerns that have been mentioned. She thinks that this is a good location and there is a huge need. She knows people that have volunteered and they have nothing but positive comments about how the shelter is run in the evening, how volunteers are utilized, and positive interactions with the guests. She thinks there is a lot of hope and opportunity here and she’d like to see this move forward. She would also like to hear from another board member who better understands the services and what will happen with the facility. Mr. Kiefer stated that he is a former resident of that area and his mom still lives in that neighborhood. He was on the Housing Authority board when they first started talking about the possible use of the land. He had mixed emotions about what is was going to do to the neighborhood. The neighborhood is in great need of development and redevelopment. The Neighborhood Associations have done a wonderful job encouraging growth. He also understands the need and the need has probably grown with COVID. There’s more people who are unable to stay in their residences. He wanted to let the neighbors know that he understands where they are coming from and he hopes that this could be the beginning of further development and __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 26 July 6, 2021 redevelopment in that area. He is hoping that this area could be more targeted for redevelopment with the ARPA money the City receives. Mr. Ford stated that as a reminder, they are voting on whether or not this is an appropriate land use, which is a pretty narrow thing to look at. The larger question of whether or not it is a good idea is a policy question which comes up anytime they have institutional uses come up against residential uses. He understands where people are coming from. He hopes that before this gets to Council, some of the folks who are concerned about the location continue listening, asking questions, and articulating alternative plans. He hopes the folks at Day by Day continue their public education efforts to provide a better idea about what specifically will happen there. It would go a long way to reassure the City and the community that what’s going on there is what is supposed to be going on there. He hopes they are able to articulate how this plan for a specific project fits into the larger issue of addressing homelessness in the City. Those opposed and those in favor all agree that something needs to be done to address people experiencing homelessness in the community. It can’t just be a building. It needs to be a larger project. Mr. Perry stated that he is the leader of a non-profit and his office is in the Oshkosh Public Library. In being there, especially during the winter, he can assure the community that there are far more than 25 or 30 individuals who are homeless because they come to the library because it’s one of the only places to go. He knows many of them on a first name basis. It might surprise some people to know that two of his volunteers are individuals who are no-fixed address and they are volunteering with them to teach people how to read, write, and speak English because they want to give back to the community. They’re good people and they want to make a difference in the community, but they’ve fallen on hard times. This is one of these situations of “if not here, where?” They’re moving the existing shelter four or five blocks to this area. It will be more centrally located to the services that they receive and need. He’s strongly in support of it because this is a small part of a systematic change that needs to occur. Mr. Marshall stated that he agrees with the comments that have been made by commission members. He does appreciate hearing the positives and he also empathizes with those in the neighborhood because there is sort of a PR problem here and they need more communication to really get neighbors on board with this and answer some questions. He is really hoping that can happen sooner rather than later. Getting more information is going to help the process along even further. He is excited to see a useful service that can be anchored on this spot. It has been blighted and sitting there for so long. Having some targeted service for a very fragile segment of the population is going to be a really good use for it, so he will be supporting this. Mr. Coulibaly stated that once the guests start using the facility, they will be neighbors of those who are already established there. A hostile environment is not very good for either side. He really feels the concern of the neighbors and he particularly appreciates the fact that they voice it so vehemently so that if something can be done about that it is done. At the same time, he understands that it’s going to function essentially as dormitory for people who are being coached to improve their lives. He hopes that communication between the neighborhood association and some of the neighbors improves so that they don’t feel left out. They want to create a welcoming community for all the residents. If approval can be delayed for that purpose, that would be good. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 27 July 6, 2021 If some of us here don’t have a place to stay as a human the least they can do is make that happen. If other places were scrutinized and this is the best alternative, then sacrifices have to be made, but it should be in such a way so that the least number of people possible are against it. Mr. Hinz stated that this going to prevent a tent city from growing along the river. He would much rather have people in a building with supervision than tents starting to pop up over by the railroad bridge or over by the bridges downtown. This will not get voted on by Council for three weeks. He suggests that both sides meet between now and then to address the questions that the neighborhood has and create some good will. His last point is that they had a mini home project north of town that came before them specifically for people who are trying to reenter society. If that project goes through and they have this downtown, he’d say they’re doing a lot to address the problems that they have in the City. This is a minor step in improving the lives of their fellow community members. There are other things coming down the road where hopefully this turns into a temporary facility for these people and then they can move into the mini homes if that project goes through. It’s not just this one thing. This is a big thing and he’s proud to say that their City is working on it and he will definitely be supporting this tonight. Motion carried 7-0. XII. PUBLIC HEARING: TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh Department of Community Development requests review and approval of amendments to the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Nielsen presented the item. The City of Oshkosh adopted a new zoning ordinance which went into effect on January 1, 2017. The ordinance currently permits small solar energy systems conditionally as an accessory use and therefore requires a conditional use permit for them to be installed on a residential property. Concerns regarding this type of permitting procedure for solar panels have been brought to the attention of City Staff, the Sustainability Advisory Board, and Plan Commission. As a result, staff is recommending the following amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to permit small solar energy systems by right in all zoning districts. Staff recommends that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. Mr. Hinz asked if there were any public comments. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Hinz closed public comments. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 28 July 6, 2021 Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Coulibaly. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 8-0. XIII. AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT (ARPA) Mr. Lyons stated that since the last meeting, they received a single funding request for Lakeshore Park, Housing Fund, and Room Tax Revenue. If there is sufficient support from the body, staff will complete the form for Council. Mr. Mitchell asked if it was too late to add other ideas. Mr. Lyons replied that the deadline is July 9th and Plan Commission members can submit individual recommendations. Mr. Perry asked what the suggested dollar amounts for each item is. Mr. Lyons replied that Lakeshore Park is $2,000,000, Housing Fund is $2,000,000, and an amount was not provided for Room Tax Revenue. Ms. Propp replied that she pulled those numbers out of the air. She felt that COVID put housing right in their faces. The City never gets a chance to spend money on housing because it’s not their job and this is their one shot. That’s why she suggested these things. Mr. Kiefer replied that he thinks this is a good use of these funds. He’s seen other communities use other dollars from the state for something similar. This could turn into a loan program or revolving use fund too. They need to make it a priority to use existing funds to do that. Mr. Mitchell asked Ms. Propp if they could add lead paint as part of the housing fund. Ms. Propp replied affirmatively. Mr. Mitchell stated that it is a large issue in the community that is largely experienced by lower income families and it’s very costly. The City has some funds for it but anything shy of a grant is very prohibitive. Mr. Kiefer stated that he likes the park idea too. It takes so long to get things done because there are so many priorities, but this would be a huge community service. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 29 July 6, 2021 Mr. Ford stated that he will be voting present on these because he wants to avoid a situation where council members are territorial over the projects of their boards and commissions. Mr. Perry stated that he thinks the $2,000,000 for housing is wholly inadequate and he would increase that amount. Motion by Propp to approve the Lakeshore Park item. Seconded by Ford. Mr. Perry asked if a dollar amount is required. Mr. Lyons replied that he would recommend a dollar amount so that Council has some direction. Mr. Hinz replied that they could change it to $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 so that they have some wiggle room. Motion by Mitchell to amend the Lakeshore Park item for $2,000,000 to $3,000,000. Seconded by Kiefer. Motion carried 8-0-1 Present. Motion by Mitchell to approve the Housing Fund item. Seconded by Perry. Mr. Mitchell asked if they can delineate some of the concepts within the Housing Funds like the small homes project and lead removal, for example. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively, adding that he will incorporate their discussion into the form. Mr. Kiefer stated that he would like to see some of the fund used for redevelopment and rehabilitation for homeowners. Ms. Propp replied that her original idea was a low interest or no interest revolving fund. Mr. Hinz stated that they should suggest what the appropriate seed money for that should be. Mr. Perry replied that because there is a vast array of housing issues with limited funding, he would suggest $8,000,000 to $10,000,000. Mr. Mitchell stated that he does not want to direct them incorrectly but he thinks the Housing Authority will submit something for their child care facility. It is providing contract free daycare services for lower income folks residing in low income housing as part of the Waite Rug facility. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 30 July 6, 2021 Mr. Perry stated that what Mr. Mitchell is describing definitely fits within the housing fund. This is to improve housing and the community as a whole. The administrator should have no problem making the decision for something like that. Motion carried 6-0-1. (Present: Ford) Mr. Lyons stated that given the nature of this request, they won’t need to provide a specific dollar amount since administration is aware of that number. Mr. Perry stated that his concern is that this can be broadly interpreted and what ends up happening is that funds are shifted. His concern is that it won’t be used exactly as intended. Mr. Kiefer asked how the room tax is allocated. Ms. Propp stated that it is allocated to the Convention and Tourism Bureau. Mr. Kiefer replied that he doesn’t think it is a bad idea and tourism drives their City in a lot of ways. Motion by Kiefer to approve the Room Tax Revenue item. Seconded by Propp. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 6-0-1 (Present: Ford) There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 7:12 pm. (Mitchell/Ford) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager