Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 March 1, 2022 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES March 1, 2022 PRESENT: John Kiefer, Justin Mitchell, Meredith Scheuermann, Margy Davey, Kathleen Propp, Thomas Perry, Phillip Marshall, Mamadou Coulibaly EXCUSED: Michael Ford, Ed Bowen STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Kelly Nieforth, Community Development Director; David Praska, Deputy City Attorney; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager / City Engineer; Jason Pausma, Economic Development Services Manager; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner Chairperson Perry called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of February 15, 2022 were approved as presented. (Mitchell/Scheuermann) I. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT EXTENSION AT 1301 KNAPP STREET 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 to extend a temporary use permit for outdoor vehicle storage. Mr. Slusarek presented the item. The applicant has been using this area of the quarry for truck storage since late November. The TUP extension is needed to allow for continued vehicle storage as they have been experiencing delays with parts as well as shipping instruction for vehicles. Vehicles are stored at this site until they are selected for shipping. The applicant anticipates having the vehicles removed from the site by sometime in April. Staff is supportive of the TUP extension for an additional 90 days, as unique circumstances related to production and shipping necessitate additional storage time at the site. The site was utilized for storage of vehicles through TUPs in both 2020 and 2021, with staff receiving no concerns about the property use. Given the HI zoning of the property and existing quarry use, staff feels that this an appropriate area for temporary vehicle storage. The vehicles will need to be removed from the site by May 1, 2022. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 March 1, 2022 Mr. Mitchell asked what the basis is for only having it extended through May 1st if there are no issues with the neighbors. Mr. Slusarek said it would basically be a second Temporary Use Permit. Typically they are only allowed 90 days in a year and this is just an extension for an additional 90 days. Mr. Lyons said that it meets with the timeframe they’ve asked for. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Ryan Meyers, Oshkosh Defense, said they just need to store the vehicles for a period of time through April due to sipping instructions from their customers as well as supply chain issues. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Perry 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 Kiefer. Motion carried 8-0. II. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A COMMUNICATION TOWER AT 0 STILLMAN 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 installation of a communication tower (cellular telecommunications tower). Mr. Slusarek presented the item. The applicant is proposing to install a cellular telecommunications tower which will have an overall height of 199’ (including lightning rod). Communication towers require a Conditional Use Permit in the Heavy Industrial (HI) district. The proposed cell tower will be accessed from Stillman Drive with a 12’ wide access drive. The tower and associated equipment will be enclosed within a 75’ X 75’ fenced in area. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 March 1, 2022 The proposed cell tower and equipment are meeting all applicable setback, impervious surface and height requirements of the zoning ordinance, with the exception of a utility transformer pad and fiber handhole shown within the front setback area. These structures will need to be moved further south to meet the 30’ setback requirement. This can be addressed during Site Plan Review. The proposed tower height has been approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Communication towers must be enclosed by solid fencing at least 6' in height or a buffer yard with a minimum opacity of 0.4 and screened so that it is not accessible to the general public. Fence design, materials and colors shall reflect the character of the surrounding area. The plans include 6’ tall solid wood fencing (with access gate) surrounding the tower and related equipment. Staff is recommending a condition that final fencing plans be approved by the Department of Community Development. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Propp stated that today the Plan Commission received an objection to this. It is very frustrating because the state ties our hands and really gives us little leeway for saying yes or no on a new cell phone tower and we have no background to discern whether the objection is correct or not. This is becoming a pattern with cell phone tower requests. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Paul Jonas, Attorney at Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, said he represents the applicant Harmoni Towers. Andrew T. Flowers, AT&T, said that AT&T is in the process of upgrading a great number of their facilities through Wisconsin and one of the items that keeps coming up is coverage from our existing sites as opposed to finding another facility to work with to provide better coverage, meaning more height or moving the tower closer to residential or business use. In this particular case, AT&T is asking to build a new facility that is about 50+ feet taller than the existing site to better cover the north end of town including the industrial park and residential areas. We feel as though we cannot meet those requirements at our existing sites. The tower we are proposing to build will be built for multiple co-locators. The tower is going to be built for future use by anybody else that is willing to lease space. This new cell site will also have FirstNet on it for first responders, which is part of AT&T’s requirements with our contract with the federal government and will also have the newest technology added to it. We don’t have any objections to the landscaping and that can be taken care of during the building permit process. Shane Anderson, Attorney at the Law Firm of Conway, Olejniczak & Jerry, S.C., appearing on behalf of SBA Structures LLC. He said the purpose of his attendance is to provide the Plan Commission with information as it relates to the existing cell tower, which ATT&T is currently co- located approximately .2 miles away from this proposed location. The first point is that in negotiating with SBA Structures, ATT&T mentioned that the height of this new tower will provide __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 March 1, 2022 enhanced capabilities. At this point, SBA has not been approached by ATT&T as it relates to increased height capabilities on this current location. That’s something that SBA Structures would be willing to discuss with ATT&T moving forward. The current tower of SBA at the Algoma Boulevard location is currently at 90.1% capacity and the usual threshold is 105%. There is some room for expansion as it relates to that existing cell tower. The affidavit provided by ATT&T as it relates to this new cell tower, they bring up the disparity and rent. SBA would be willing to engage in further discussion terms. At this point we would just be looking for the Plan Commission at minimum to postpone a decision until further discussion. Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Mr. Jonas said that he has done dozens of these hearings over the past few years and this is a frequent exchange between various cell towers and SBA. Most of you are probably familiar with Wisconsin Statute 66.0404 that does put some guidelines around the way cell towers are processed, considered and approved. In the case of SBA, it’s been a unique situation. Among AT&T’s carriers, most have been willing to discuss modifying not only the financial terms, but also the operational terms. Specifically with regards to the ability of carriers. This tower is designed for up to four carriers, not just AT&T. To quickly and efficiently swap out old equipment for new. It’s critically important that the folks working from home have great connectivity using the best technology. SBA, among other tower developers, have elected to stay with their economically burdensome former lease structure that does not allow four carriers to quickly and easily swap out equipment when the situation calls for it. Harmoni on the other hand does not. Putting aside the fact that over the term of the lease AT&T is going to save millions of dollars in rent and those savings will be passed directly onto consumers. There’s also the operational aspect that when combined with the substantial rent savings definitely meet economic burden standard in 66.0404. In addition to that, SBA has a habit of remaining silent until the day of the meeting. And then, as they did here, they send a letter the day of the meeting raising an objection ultimately trying to maintain their monopoly in a market. In the rare case that they are successful, the result is less coverage, poor coverage and more expensive coverage for citizens of whatever community it is that we’re trying to build the new tower. I suggest that Harmoni has met and exceeded the standard under 66.0404. I realized it’s an uncomfortable position to be in the middle of two carriers. AT&T would be happy to have a discussion and is in fact in discussion with multiple carriers and not just about one tower because there are thousands of towers and it’s not possible to have these ad hoc negotiations on a tower by tower basis. They are attempting to negotiate a more global resolution with SBA and other carriers to bring those costs down, but have not been able to do it at this time and thus the new tower application. Mr. Mitchell asked if the closer you are to a cell tower, the better the service. Mr. Jonas said in this case, we do our best to locate these towers in areas that will be sort of the lease obtrusive. We are in an industrial park near a cemetery in this case. Hopefully we have accomplished that goal. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 March 1, 2022 Mr. Mitchell said that there’s presumably other cell providers on a given tower. Let’s say that this part of the town is well covered by one tower. There may be another area of town that maybe doesn’t have good coverage. What is the need to go less than a quarter mile away from the existing tower with a second tower. From a land use or planning perspective, it’s permissible and it’s probably going to go through but it’s just sometimes these things don’t seem to be the most sensible. Mr. Flowers said the way that AT&T builds their network is like a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle. As you put those pieces together, we want to make sure they are seamless. As you’re driving your car from one point to the next, you don’t have dropped calls or if you’re trying to download something, or your kids are watching a movie, we don’t want any disruption of service. When we have to build a tower that we’re on close to another tower, helps us maintain that ability to keep continuous coverage. The existing site is about 140 elevation and the new tower will be at 190 feet. Now going back to the economics if it is one things, but the engineering piece of it, adding 50 feet to a tower is not really a workable solution because the tower would have been built as tall as it should have been from engineering when it was originally constructed. It’s just not made to do what it’s going to be asked to do, which would be adding a 50 foot extension. Hence the reason we’re asking for this tower to be built with the newest engineering standards and have the ability to carry multiple carriers for future use. AT&T does not like having to build site next to another site, because it is cheaper and faster for us to co-locate on something that was built correctly. In this case we feel as though that is not something we can work with today for multiple reasons. Motion by Mitchell to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Propp. Chairperson Perry said that he wants to echo what Ms. Propp has said. Plan Commission has had these cell towers brought before them previously. There is not much that the Plan Commission can do for these types of things. We are here to meet the needs of the community by adhering to the statutes and regulations around this. Our hands are pretty much tied. Motion carried 8-0. III. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM RIVERFRONT MIXED USE DISTRICT (RMU) AND RIVERFRONT MIXED USE DISTRICT – RIVERFRONT OVERLAY (RMU- RFO) TO RIVERFRONT MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (RMU-PD) FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED ON EAST SIDE OF SOUTH MAIN STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp, Ms. Davey and Mr. Mitchell all reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 March 1, 2022 The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Riverfront Mixed Use District (RMU) and Riverfront Mixed Use District – Riverfront Overlay (RMU-RFO) to Riverfront Mixed Use District with a Planned Development Overlay (RMU-PD). Mr. Slusarek presented the item. The applicant is requesting a zone change to add a Planned Development Overlay for all of the subject properties. This request is intended provide consistent zoning to allow for the lots to be combined into one through a CSM. The rezone will also provide some flexibility to the zoning ordinance to accommodate redevelopment of the site and will also allow for further review of development plans for consistency with the Sawdust District plan. The applicant has submitted preliminary plans for commercial development of the property, which will be addressed as General Development Plan (GDP) review to follow. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Mitchell asked if this impacts the plan for park space to flow all along where the road was. Mr. Lyons said that it does not. Ms. Propp said there are existing buildings within this larger site specifically north of 8th. Would those be included in the rezoning and will be eventually part of the new development. Mr. Slusarek said that is correct. Ms. Propp asked if the only remaining buildings in this area is what is called 600 South Main. On the corner, which is office space in it. Mr. Lyons said that is correct. Ms. Propp asked if all the other buildings north of 9th, not including that building will; be removed as part of this project. Mr. Lyons said that is correct. Ms. Nieforth said that the buildings that are showing on the aerial photo have been demolished. Ms. Propp said the ones she is thinking about are the ones between 10th and 9th. Ms. Nieforth said those are not a part of this project. Ms. Davey asked for clarification on the existing 6th Ave and the riverwalk where the development will begin. Ms. Nieforth said they started construction on the utilities for the riverwalk last fall and they will be starting again in April. Pioneer drive will be closed and the riverwalk will be constructed. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 March 1, 2022 Ms. Davey said it doesn’t look like there is room to maintain 6th Ave and a riverwalk along the river’s edge. She asked if 6th Ave is going away and being replaced by the riverwalk. Ms. Nieforth said that 6th Ave actually stops at South Main St. The road right along the riverwalk is named Pioneer Dr. There will be no road along the waterfront anymore. The road Pioneer Dr will be closed and there will be a riverwalk. Staff is working to extend East 9th St and that will become the new access point to Pioneer Dr along with 14th down to the south. That will be another project done this year. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Jake Bunz, T. Wall Enterprises, said he would be happy to share more information during the GDP portion of the project. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Motion by Coulibaly to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Scheuermann. Motion carried 8-0. IV. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH MAIN STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp, Ms. Davey, and Mr. Mitchell, all reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of General Development Plan for a mixed use development for properties generally located on the east side of S. Main St., along E 7th Ave, E 8th Ave, E 9th Ave, and Pioneer Drive. Mr. Slusarek presented the item. The applicant is proposing to reconfigure the subject parcels for a mixed use development. As proposed, this will also include vacation of E 8th Avenue and extension of E 9th Avenue. A Certified Survey Maps (CSM) will be required for the lot reconfiguration and public right-of-way changes. The proposed development will include three 5-story buildings and a private clubhouse. The two buildings with frontage along S. Main St. (Buildings A1, A2) will be mixed use buildings with first floor commercial space and multi-family units above. The eastern building (A3), with frontage __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 March 1, 2022 along E 9th Ave., will be a multi-family building with potential for future commercial space. Commercial space shown on the plan includes ground floor retail space along S. Main St. as well as a two-story waterfront restaurant at the northeast corner of the site. Other amenities include a small outdoor amphitheater, potential skating rink, public and private boat slips, walking paths, pool, pickleball court, and public dog park across E 9th Ave. The plan meets the goals of the Sawdust District Core Subarea (Main St. frontage) as mixed use and parks/open space are listed as desired land uses. The site design with buildings near the sidewalks is consistent with the design and development guidelines and the increased public right- of-way width is consistent with transportation goals to accommodate wider sidewalks, on-street parking, and bike lane improvement. The plan also meets goals for the River North Subarea (eastern portion of site) as both multi-family and parks/open space uses are considered desired land uses within the subarea. The plan also accomplishes a key goal for the subarea by vacating the Pioneer Drive right-of-way for riverfront access. The proposed vacation of E. 8th Ave. for a campus style development is consistent with transportation guidelines. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Propp asked if the corner off this site, at the river and the railroad where 9th Ave comes in and curves up and then curves back down again to join Pioneer Dr, is going to be public parking. Mr. Lyons said that area was not included in the RFP. That was done as part of two old projects. We are looking at doing some of their shared parking options. It is kind of the plan that we are still working on for those areas, but yes these are off of their site and on the private city owned property. Mr. Kiefer asked if the boat slips will be public. Ms. Nieforth said they are still working on that aspect of the plan. If it does come off city land, the city would have to own them. We have to work with the applicant to see what would be the best path forward, whether it be an easement or a lease. The applicant might be willing to have public boat docks for those who want to come to the restaurant or to the commercial uses along South Main St so that’s something we need to work out the details for. Ms. Davey asked if the dog park would be right next to the public parking lot. Ms. Nieforth said that the area that shows the dog park might not be the end result. It is another detail they are working with the Parks Department. If it makes senses to go there, who’s operating it, who’s building it and so on. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 March 1, 2022 Mr. Bunz said that the Mill on Main project is 3 buildings with a clubhouse and mixed use buildings. They tried to design the site based off of the specs from the RFP and district goals. They want to design it to have retail frontage along South Main St to activate it as much as we can, but also really make the site opening and inclusive of the future riverwalk going in along the Fox River. As far as the boat slips go we would like to have a few private slips and public slips so people can enjoy the river, restaurant, retail and park. The goal of the site design was to capture Fox River and Lake Winnebago views and really open it up to the water instead of packing the buildings along the waterfront and closing it off. The site plan creates a wide variety for outdoor uses. We wanted to invite the community in, for not only the residents but for the community as well. We shoot for 1.1 parking stalls per unit in the developments. It has worked out well in the other developments. It ends up working well because a lot of the residents are not there during the day while the stalls are being used. The electric vehicle parking stalls is something we’ve been shifting towards in all our developments. For this particular development, we’re going to have electronic vehicle charring stations in 30% of our covered parking stalls. We will wire all of the covered parking stalls for charging station to accommodate if years from now more people are driving electronic vehicles. We will use energy efficient appliances, lightings, low flow faucets, double pane energy efficient windows, double insulated exterior walls and roof and we have ample bike parking on site for both public users and residents. Ms. Propp asked what parts of the development would be public space. Mr. Lyons said that the configuration of the public space is still something they are working on with the Parks Department and Mr. Bunz and his team. The GDP is not the final form. Mr. Bunz said that all of the green space can be accessed by the public. Mr. Mitchell asked if they had looked at different layout designs that they could possibly swap a building with the parking lot. Mr. Bunz said that the reason this came about is the property line goes down in the middle of that parking lot there. The idea for that area was to be a trailhead for riverwalk users. It was parking for people using the riverwalk. We needed a bit of surface parking outside of that building for people with extra cars or guests to use. Instead of chopping the parking lot up, we tied into the trailhead. Mr. Lyons said that in the original riverwalk design plans it identified the need for some trailheads and that was one of the areas that was identified early in the riverwalk plan to make sure we give people access to the riverwalk. Mr. Mitchell said that it would be nice if this trailhead was made as nice as possible and not just a parking lot. Ms. Davey said there has been a lot of thought put into several sustainability measures in this complex. Have they considered adding solar for any portion of it, and if so how. Also, has there __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 March 1, 2022 been any feedback from the developers of the Miles Kimball building or from 600 North Main with concerns about a 5 story building going in next to them. Mr. Bunz said they typically do solar on almost all of the buildings depending on whose district it is whether it’s Alliant Energy or MGE Energy. They maybe have two-thirds of their buildings with solar on the rooftops. The buildings that we choose to do solar on if it’s in an MGE Energy district. The reasoning behind that because of MGE has a 1 to 1 buyback program. So for a month say you are producing X amount of energy and your building uses less than that amount of energy, you can actually send that excess energy back into the grid and MGE will buy it back from you for as much as you paid for it. Whereas as in this site with WE Energies they don’t have that same 1 to 1 buyback program. They’ll pay you pennies back on the dollar for this solar that you’re producing and putting back into the grid. So financially on a project like this, unfortunately solar doesn’t make sense. The cost of the equipment is more than the project can handle versus in a territory where it’s feasible financially. Mr. Lyons asked if the roof structures would be designed at a fact if some of those changes in the buyback programs took place, the solar could be added. Mr. Bunz said they do that as a standard. All of the buildings are designed to bear the load of solar on the roof. Mr. Lyons said they have not heard anything from the owners of the 600 block of Main St on the project nor Miles Kimball. There were a lot of parties involved during the RFP of this site and we have not as this point heard any objections. Ms. Scheuermann asked if the five story building prohibits rooftop entertainment. Mr. Bunz said they haven’t put too much thought into rooftop entertainment with this project. They may add some rooftop green features or patio and grill area. Those are on sites where there’s not necessarily room on a courtyard or an extra part of the building where they can put green space. They can look into it. Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Kiefer. Ms. Propp said this is a nice development but the price point might be difficult for Oshkosh. She said she is going to lobby for the Parks Department and the city to negotiate maximum public space out in that green area. Motion carried 8-0. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 March 1, 2022 V. PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW 2022 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM – Withdrawn by Staff VI. APPROVAL OF THE OSHKOSH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND STRATEGY PLAN Staff report accepted as part of the record. The Community Development Department is requesting approval of the Oshkosh Housing Needs Assessment and Strategy Plan, which describes city-wide goals and objectives for housing related projects. The plan focuses on housing needs for the entire city, with future growth and needs in mind. Mr. Lyons presented the item. The Oshkosh Housing Needs Assessment and Strategy Plan was developed in collaboration with consultant RDG Planning & Design, city staff and stakeholders. Additional public input was received through individual stakeholder feedback and survey data. Staff hosted a public open house on January 17th, 2022, which included approximately 20 attendees from the public. Staff also hosted an online public input session on February 24th. There was a plan presentation at the Plan Commission meeting on February 15th, 2022. The draft plan was also discussed at Rental Housing Advisory Board and Redevelopment Authority meetings. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Coulibaly. Ms. Propp said that when approval happens by the city, the Planning Commission will eagerly await an implementation workshop of some kind. Mr. Lyons said that there are steps formulating a timeline to start the implementation process now. They are potentially looking at April to begin some of these discussions with elected officials and Plan Commission. Motion carried 7-0. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 March 1, 2022 PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT Mr. Lyons reported that the mask requirement in City Hall has been lifted in conjunction that all board and commission meetings have been instructed to go back in person. So we will be back in person for our next meeting on March 15th. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:21 pm. (Kiefer/Scheuermann) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager