Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 July 20, 2021 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES July 20, 2021 PRESENT: Margy Davey, Michael Ford, John Hinz, Phil Marshall, Justin Mitchell, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp, EXCUSED: Mamadou Coulibaly, Derek Groth, John Kiefer STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Kelly Nieforth, Economic Development Services Manager; Sean Fitzgerald, Economic Development Specialist; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Jeff Nau, Associate Planner; Brandon Nielsen, Assistant Planner Chairperson Hinz called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of July 6, 2021 were approved as presented. (Propp/Davey) I. GRANT PRIVILEGE IN THE STREET FOR A GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL AT 3530 OMNI DRIVE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Winnebago County Solid Waste Management Board is applying for privilege-in-the-street to allow for installation and monitoring of one groundwater monitoring well in City right-of-way. 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 petitioner will coordinate with the Department of Public Works to ensure no conflicts with City utilities. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the request and has no concerns with the proposed installation that cannot be addressed with the standard privilege-in-the-street conditions. Staff recommends approval of the request for privilege-in-the-street with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Mitchell asked how someone could find out what pollutants may be entering the groundwater. Mr. Lyons said that depending on the type of ground monitoring well it could be Public Works or DNR but he will find out. Ms. Hinz asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 July 20, 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. 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 Mitchell. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-0. II. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FRONT DOOR OPENING REDUCTION AT 1811 OSHKOSH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to allow a front door opening reduction at 1811 Oshkosh Avenue. 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 subject property is a residential lot located at 1811 Oshkosh Avenue is approximately 22,980 square feet in area (.5275 acres). The property is located on the south side of Oshkosh Avenue, in between N Westfield St and N Koeller St. The property contains a 2116 square foot 2 story two-family residential structure (duplex) with a detached garage, which were built in 1920 and 2000 according to the City of Oshkosh Assessor website. The surrounding area consists primarily of single-family uses, with the exception being to the north. The property to the north, across Oshkosh Ave, is a current corporate business park redevelopment area. The subject property and the properties on the south, east, and west are zoned Single-family Residential-5 (SR-5). The properties to the north are zoned Corporate Business Park – Planned Development (CBP-PD). __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 July 20, 2021 The owner plans to install a new front door that is smaller in size than the original front door. A replacement door that is the same dimensions as the original is no longer a common option and would require a custom order. Applicable ordinance prohibits front door opening reductions on front facades and this work would involve a front door opening reduction. Therefore, Plan Commission review and a design standards variance are necessary. Staff recommends approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to allow for door opening reductions on the front façade with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Hinz asked if the ordinance says that if it’s a 10% or more reduction then it comes to Plan Commission. Mr. Lyons said that 10% or more only applies to windows. The section doesn’t apply to door openings. It is something that they have discussed to change the language for doors in the code. Mr. Hinz asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Ronecka and Donald Brunner, 1811 Oshkosh Ave, said they were available if the commission had 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 Perry. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Mitchell said that they could have a resource for homeowners who would like to maintain that door opening. Mr. Lyons said that it would be great to have a contractor that would be a resource to homeowners. Motion carried 7-0. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 July 20, 2021 III. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A SIGN AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF CLAIRVILLE ROAD & TRANSIT DRIVE Site Inspections Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a sign. 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 City of Oshkosh Community Development Department is requesting approval of a monument-style sign along Clairville Road, north of Transit Drive, identifying the City’s rail transload facility. The sign is considered a “neighborhood sign” under the sign ordinance, which requires a Conditional Use Permit. As proposed, the sign will be 6’ tall and 62 sq. ft. per side. The sign meets setback requirements for the HI district. The sign will be constructed of fabricated aluminum and vinyl with a faux ledgestone finish at the base. Staff is supportive of the CUP as the proposed monument sign will meet all applicable signage standards and will provide for an attractive entrance to the Industrial Park. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit for a sign at the northeast corner of Clairville Road and Transit Drive with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Mitchell said that there are mixed emotions on the signs. The signs are needed but we have a healthy creative community and we might have missed an opportunity with having a participatory process for designing a creative unique type sign. The bottom of this sign looks like authentic stone. Hopefully, the materials they are using are legitimate real materials. Mr. Fitzgerald said the contractor they are using is Creative Sign out of De Pere. They had won the request before his arrival. It is faux stone but with the company's experience, it is durable. A revision of the signs on 44 are in the process of being revisited and there will be some attention brought to it. It is a durable product that stands up in the elements. Mr. Lyons said it is a class 1 material so it would meet the materials standards. Mr. Marshall asked about the authenticity of the material. The durability is important too but the signs that Mr. Mitchell had referred to, it is easy to tell that they are not real materials. Mr. Fitzgerald said they look authentic and are a veneer stone material. The material just feels different and is lighter. Mr. Hinz asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 July 20, 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. 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 Propp. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR EXPANSION OF A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT 2750 MINERVA STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan to allow for expansion of 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 subject area consists of an approximately 2.44-acre parcel located on the east side of the Minerva Street (north) terminus. The site currently has two 8- unit apartment buildings, built in 2005, and associated surface and garage parking areas. The surrounding area consists of multi-family residential uses to the south, single-family uses to the west, and vacant/agricultural lands to the north and east. The 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends medium and high-density residential use for the subject area. On June 22, 2021, a General Development Plan (GDP) was approved for expansion of the existing multi-family use to include an additional 16-unit building. 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. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 July 20, 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. Corey Wallace, Wesenberg Architects, said he was available to answer questions. Mr. Mitchell asked what the timeline of the project is. Mr. Wallace said that they are ready to submit for site plan which would take two weeks. The bidding process will get them in the beginning construction stages in September or October and will finish in the spring of next year. 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 Propp 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. Hinz said that it’s another one of these opportunities to be able to work with the developers in workshops before it comes to commission. It speaks volumes that they are trying to work with the developers. Motion carried 7-0. V. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A MULTI-FAMILY USE LOCATED AT 851 SOUTH MAIN STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner requests an amendment to the Specific Implementation Plan approval for a multi- family use located at 851 South Main Street. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 July 20, 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. The petitioner is proposing only minor revisions to the approved site design, which include the removal of outdoor patio areas and a rear (west) addition for a lobby and elevator. According to the plans, each unit will have a balcony or patio. On April 22, 2008, the Common Council approved a Planned Development for the block bounded by South Main Street, West 8th Avenue, Nebraska Street, and West 9th Avenue for a multi-family development on the western portion of the site and renovation of the existing 4-story building (formerly Miles Kimball) on the east side of the site. The multi-family development to the west of the subject site was constructed in 2008 per the approved Planned Development. The Miles Kimball building was never renovated, but the surrounding facility was razed in 2006 according to prior building permit records. The approximately 0.83-acre site includes a 4-story structure built in 1900, according to City Assessor information. The site was formerly used for light manufacturing/industrial purposes (Miles Kimball) and is now vacant. The surrounding area contains a mix of industrial, commercial, and residential uses. The subject property is located within the South Shore East redevelopment area which is generally located on the south side of the Fox River from the west side of South Main Street to Lake Winnebago with the southern boundary of 16th Avenue, and is immediately west of the area being identified as the "Sawdust District." On May 22, 2018, Common Council approved a Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) amendment to renovate the building to include two restaurant or retail tenant spaces on the first floor, two patios on the south side of the building, office spaces on floors 2-4 and the addition of a rooftop bar and patio area. In August of 2019, the SIP was amended to remove the rooftop bar and patio. The plans for the offices, restaurants/retail spaces, and ground-level patios remained the same. Additionally, the petitioner proposed various revisions to the approved site design. Along with removing the rooftop addition from the plans, the glass-enclosed stair and elevator tower on the west end of the building and glass-enclosed stair tower on the south side of the building were removed from the plans. The mechanical room on the northwest comer of the building was also removed. Staff recommends approval of the Specific Implementation Plan amendment with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Mitchell asked what the project timeline is for this project and if the city imposed a “required by this date”. Mr. Lyons said that if it is done, it is done through the developer’s agreement. Zoning and planned developments do not have time requirements unless they are added as an additional condition. Mr. Mitchell asked if when the city sells to the developers, can the developers hold it for 25 years and not do anything with it. Mr. Lyons said private property like this is different from Redevelopment Authority properties. RDA usually puts time requirements on a property. If they have an option to purchase a property __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 July 20, 2021 through RDA they always have a time frame on the property. If it's not developed with a year, 18 months whatever the option is, it would revert to RDA. Mr. Mitchell said that there were time restrictions on other projects like the storage unit or ShopKo and then the U-Haul. He was looking for clarification on the differences between the projects. Mr. Lyons said those projects were about green space and to make sure we get rid of those seas of asphalts from the landscaping zoning side of things. For example, the U-Haul site. If they had gotten approval and just never done the project, they wouldn't have been required to do that removal after 3 years. Ms. Nieforth said this site had not been owned by the RDA. It was sold by the RDA in the early 2000s and there was another developer that held onto it for a while. The current developers had purchased it. In the current TIF there is a timeline in there that it should be substantially completed by September 1, 2022. Ms. Propp said she did not see a rendering of what the building is going to look like. It’s certainly not going to be painted white brick because there are going to be windows put in with a whole different look. Mr. Lyons said they are just punching windows into the current façade and giving it a facelift. It’s not going to be re-clad and they want to maintain that similar look just with the added windows and balconies. Mr. Hinz asked if the “Miles Kimball Lofts” sign that is part of the development is going to be on the side of the building. Mr. Lyons said they will have to submit signage separately. Right now there is no request for a Base Standard Modification in there for signage. Generally looking at this, the sign may be oversized and it would need to be reduced to be code compliant before permits could be issued but the applicant has not requested a BSM related to signage. Joel Ehrfurth, Mach IV Engineering, said he was available to answer site questions and Chet Wesenberg, Wesenberg Architect, can answer building-related questions. Ms. Propp asked what the building is going to look like. Mr. Ehrfurth said the intent is to restore the existing brick and punch in the windows and some metal accents to keep the look of the building. Mr. Wesenberg said the plan is to repaint and stain the brick white so they are going to be adding black metal windows, black metal attached awnings, and the addition is going to be a mix of grey CMU concrete blocks as well as white metal. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 July 20, 2021 Ms. Davey asked what they were going to do with the brick that is coming out where the windows are going in. Mr. Wesenberg said that is up to the contractor and they don’t have a plan for it. Ms. Davey stated that it would be great if it would be getting reused and not going to a landfill. She asked what kind of bricks they were. Mr. Wesenberg said they are a cream city brick. A lot of times that infill brick is just kind of whatever they had leftover. Ms. Davey stated that it might not be worth much then. Mr. Wesenberg said the bricks are all going to be full of mortar. They don’t expect them to be reclaimed but he can find out. He noted that they didn’t ask for the sign but if they had known they needed a BSM, they would’ve asked for that. He asked for any feedback about the sign. Architecturally that is a spot where there will be a stairwell on the interior so there won’t be any windows. Mr. Lyons said the code for CMU is going to allow a 1:1 ratio of building wall signage. 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 Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Perry. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-0. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 July 20, 2021 VI. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (I) TO INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (I-PD) AND APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 240 W. 9TH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp and Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests to add a Planned Development Overlay to the existing Institutional District. The applicant also requests approval of General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan to allow for the creation of a new lot from the parent church lot with an existing single-family structure (former parsonage) which will result in substandard setbacks for existing structures. This request will also remove current nonconforming conditions affecting the entire subject site. 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 applicant is requesting to add a Planned Development Overlay for the subject lot. This request is intended to provide some flexibility to the zoning ordinance as site constraints result in difficulties meeting zoning requirements, especially regarding the proposed land division. Staff is supportive of the proposed rezoning as it will help to accommodate the land division and eliminate several nonconforming conditions affecting the site. The subject area consists of a single lot, totaling 1.865 acres in size, bounded by W. 9th Avenue to the south, Minnesota Street to the west, and W. 8th Avenue to the north. The site contains Peace Lutheran Church and Peace Christian School as well as a single-family structure with an attached garage formerly used as a parsonage which discontinued that use in the 1990s. The 1,856 square foot house located at the southwest corner of the lot was constructed in 1944 and has four bedrooms and two bathrooms. The church has since rented the house, its current tenant being Clarity Care which uses the site as an assisted living facility. Clarity Care intends to purchase the property to bring it under its management. The surrounding area consists primarily of single and two-family residential uses to the north, south, and west and Oregon Street commercial corridor to the east. The 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends institutional uses for the subject site. Staff recommends approval of the rezone, 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. Mr. Mitchell asked for clarification on parking on the site map. Mr. Lyons said that the dumpster currently sits behind that in the little bit of grass area. Mr. Mitchell asked if the lots are staying institutional with some flexibility meaning that if they wanted to transition into a residential facility, they’re aware that this would maybe be relooked at. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 July 20, 2021 Mr. Lyons said that if the parsonage wanted to go to full single-family residential they would take a look at it if it needed a zone change. Mr. Mitchell voiced his concerns about the possibility of lot line issues in the future if the parsonage were to be resold. There could be some parking conflict with the lots. Mr. Lyons said that if they were newly establishing these lot lines to a single-family residence that was an existing homeowner and we’re putting the lot lines around them, they would be more concerned. If that scenario would arise, anyone looking at this property for purchase would be understanding the situation they were buying and that their property lines are tied up to those. Mr. Hinz asked if it was an assisted living and if so, how many people live there. Mr. Nau confirmed it is an assisted living facility with four bedrooms. Mr. Hinz asked if there is going to be a cross-access agreement with the lack of parking they have. Mr. Lyons said they have the garage and two stalls in the driveway which gives them four stalls which should be sufficient. Mr. Hinz said that in most of these cases we would have some kind of cross agreement. Mr. Lyons confirmed that the parking is sufficient for the use and the assisted living has one or two employees at a time. Mr. Hinz asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Matthew Pfluger, Peace Lutheran Church, said that there have never been any parking issues. He said they intend to transition the property to Clarity Care. 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 Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Davey. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 July 20, 2021 There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-0. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT Mr. Lyons said that the October 19th Plan Commission meeting has been moved to Wednesday, October 20th at 4 pm due to a room conflict. He said they try to streamline that meeting with reasonable requests. It does create a time crunch to get items to council so they want to make sure they are putting the necessary items on that agenda. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:53 pm. (Mitchell/Ford) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager