Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 April 5, 2022 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES April 05, 2022 PRESENT: Margy Davey, Michael Ford, Ed Bowen, Meredith Scheuermann, John Kiefer, Phil Marshall, Justin Mitchell, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp EXCUSED: Mamadou Coulibaly STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Kelly Nieforth, Community Development Director; Jason Pausma, Economic Development Services Manager; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager / City Engineer; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Jeff 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 March 15, 2022 were approved as presented. (Kiefer/Scheuermann) I. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT/DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE FOR SCREENING MATERIALS AT 4200 POBEREZNY ROAD Site Inspections Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) amendment to allow use of six-foot tall slatted chain link fencing for a refuse enclosure which is a material not consistent with those of the principal structure. 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 site is a 7.3 acre irregular-shaped parcel located on the east side of Poberezny Road, approximately ½ mile south of W. Ripple Avenue. The property is zoned Institutional with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD) which is consistent with the Institutional Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommendation. The surrounding area consists predominately of vacant agricultural land except the Veterans Museum immediately to the south. On June 22, 2010, the Common Council approved a Planned Development (Resolution 10-210) for the development of a vocational school at the subject site. This was followed by a Planned Development Amendment on November 23, 2010 (Resolution 10-361) to allow off-premise signage on the site to accommodate the primary sponsor of the facility. The applicant states in the submitted narrative that the use of slatted chain link will have negligible aesthetic impact on the surrounding area. The location of the enclosure is __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 April 5, 2022 approximately 340 feet from Poberezny Road and 430 feet from northbound Interstate 41. The enclosure will be completely shielded from the north by the school and partially shielded by the Veterans Museum to the south. Staff agrees with this assessment that the enclosure will have low visibility from public view. To offset the request, staff recommends enhanced landscaping in the form of arborvitae south of the building and enclosure area to add additional screening from the right-of-way. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Lucas Carrigg, Fox Valley Technical College; 1825 N. Bluemound Dr. Appleton, WI. Mr. Carrigg stated that the staff report was correct in their intentions and the students will come up with a landscaping plan and the contractor that takes care of their maintenance will plant the arborvitae. Mr. Mitchell asked for clarification on the area between the parking lots and if that’s an area meant to collect and filter storm water. Mr. Carrigg said it’s the area for the holding tanks. There were no other 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 Mitchell. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. II. APPROVE LAND ACQUISITION AND DETERMINE NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE FOR RURAL II BASIN FOR SAWYER CREEK WATERSHED GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE WEST 2700 BLOCK OF CLAIRVILLE RD __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 April 5, 2022 Site Inspections Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh Department of Public Works is requesting approval to acquire approximately 59.13 acres of vacant land west of the 2700 Block of Clairville Road in the Town of Algoma. The property will be utilized to improve storm water management within the Sawyer Creek Watershed. On July 28, 2015 the Common Council approved official mapping of the subject site (Ordinance 15- 361) to reserve the land for eventual acquisition by the City. 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 59.13 acre area is large, approximately 1,320 feet wide and 2,000 deep with a 60-footwide by 635-foot deep strip connecting to Clairville Road. The acquisition will take one entire land-locked lot and part of two existing lots fronting on Clairville Road. The land is currently is currently undeveloped and mostly being used agriculturally. The surrounding area is predominantly agricultural with exception of some low density single-family uses along Clairville Road. The 2040 Comprehensive plan identifies the area suitable for light density residential development. The subject site is part of the Zone D Expansion Area identified in the Cooperative Plan between the City of Oshkosh and Town of Algoma. If the acquisition is approved and land sale finalized, it is anticipated the land will attach (annex) to the City shortly thereafter. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Mitchell stated that it was mentioned that parts of the comprehensive plan are in support of this and when reviewing he doesn’t remember mentioning of the plan’s farmland preservation goals. It would be beneficial to provide all the applicable references when an issue is being presented. What happens in a case like this, is that we say these four provisions in the comprehensive plan support this initiative omitting the two or three that have counter goals. We are missing important information that should be presented when mentioning the comprehensive plan. If the city has a goal of maintaining farmland preservation and this initiative goes against that goal, this is the rationale that went behind making that determination. Mr. Mitchell asked if the city does a tree inventory or an analysis on the lost tree canopy. Mr. Lyons stated that the city’s comprehensive plan does not specifically call out farmland preservation as a goal for this municipality. It does reference that the county has some farmland preservation documents. Our comprehensive plan does talk about urban tree canopy. This early is in the process and tree analysis has not been done. This is the first statutory step to give our public works and their consultant the ability to reach out and start negotiating with the property owners. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 April 5, 2022 Mr. Mitchell asked if this item would come back to Plan Commission. Mr. Lyons said that it does not. This item is a recommendation to council on giving public works permission or not to reach out to the property owners to negotiate. Mr. Mitchell asked if this moves forward with this acquisition, does the city have a policy or a practice to replace the lost tree canopy. Mr. Lyons said CIP dollars are allocated annually for addition of new street trees and tree canopies in the city, so it is done on a yearly basis. With this being a large wooded area, it can be looked at to spending further dollars to offset. Ms. Propp asked if public works expected another basin in this area. Mr. Gierach said the plan that was developed just had these two basins. This is the last implementation of the plan for Sawyer Creek watershed. Ms. Davey asked if it’s going to mitigate the flooding issues on 9th avenue. Mr. Gierach said this is one piece of the puzzle to help mitigate the flooding. This is much larger in storage volume than James Road that was built back in 2012. Anything we are doing will help with the flooding at the intersection. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant. Tyler Wagner, 2803 Clairville Rd, asked what this project would do to his property value and what the plan is for the area. He would also like to know if there are any statistics or data to show how the James Road basin has helped with the flooding in the area. Mr. Gierach said that this project, like James Road, is planned to be a dry detention basin and will fill up in larger storm events. The majority of the year it will be dry, and the heavier rain events it will fill up. Within 24-48 hours it should come back down to being relatively dry. There is modeling that shows the reduction in the flood elevation inside the city. Everything that was done in the last 20 years has lowered the base flood elevation about 10 inches. With this pond, specifically there are no concrete numbers but it should reduce another few inches. Richard Klemz, 4635 County Rd K, asked for clarification on the zoning map that was given in the staff report on the image shown in the meeting. The zoning map shows that his house and land will be sold during the acquisition. Mr. Lyons said that how GIS mapping works, it selects full parcels and doesn’t give an option to cut sections out. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 April 5, 2022 Mr. Klemz asked how the Westhaven Golf Course dam is considered a navigable waterway since it holds back water. Mr. Gierach said he is not aware of the golf course having a dam of water. There are restrictions along the creek but the city is trying to eliminate those the best they can. Brian Spanbauer, 2713 Clairville Rd, said his biggest concern is the ditch that was built behind his yard last fall and the culverts that have been added and the dirt that has been added to his property and raised his elevation to cause more flooding issues in his yard and flooding issues in his home. Kay Spanbauer, 8370 Tritt Rd, Omro; says she is the landowner where the trees are sitting on the property. She is hoping a retention pond goes in because it will help with her son’s water issue with maybe a deep ditch that goes east and west. Mr. Gierach said that all of the right-of-ways and sites drain to public infrastructure in the streets and the three pounds that around the southwest industrial park. The specifics of all the water coming from southwest industrial park into Clairville, per code that would not be allowed. The three ponds do discharge elsewhere. The ditch on the north side of park hill 40, the intention of digging the pond here is to fill the north 40 park hill farms and to also direct the water to the pond to assist for development of the farm in the future. It’s not going to 100% alleviate the problem but it is noted and we will see what we can do. Ms. Davey asked where the hill farm is. Mr. Spanbauer said it is below the properties. Mr. Mitchell asked if there is an avenue for citizens to look at the plan for this project and to provide feedback. Mr. Gierach asked if he was referencing the Sawyer Creek Master Plan or the project plan for this basin. Mr. Mitchell said he was referencing the Sawyer Creek Master Plan. Mr. Gierach said the Sawyer Creek Master Plan was originally developed and approved around 10-15 years ago. They are in the stages of implementing the project phases. Mr. Mitchell said the environment has changed in the last 10-15 years and if the citizens have valuable input and the plan is no longer applicable they could look at changing it. Do the citizens have an avenue to look at the plan and provide feedback. Mr. Gierach said the master plan is on the city’s website under the storm water information page. They are able to review it and engineering can answer any questions they might have. The storm __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 April 5, 2022 water board does meet the third Thursday of every month at 7:30am, and that would be another avenue for citizens to voice their concerns. Mr. Kiefer said he is on the storm water utility committee. They review all the different storm water basins and different plans other than Sawyer Creek. The FEMA maps are undergoing changing and citizens who were once in flood areas are no longer, so there are a lot of things that are happening. There are 120 water basins throughout the city, all in various sizes. The board helps to direct the water into storm sewers and to help keep it out of businesses and people’s homes. The board would do its best with this project to try and mitigate any flooding in the area. Council Member Ford asked Mr. Klemz to go ahead and ask his question to Plan Commission. Mr. Klemz asked where the dirt is going to go from this project. The concern is they hit bedrock at 27 feet and what the city does with the dirt. Mr. Wagner also asked where the dirt is going to go. He is also upset about the last time he let someone use his property for a project and they left a mess of his property and never resolved it. They would also like to know how long the project would last. There were no other 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. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Council Member Ford thanked the members of the public who voiced their concerns. Ms. Scheuermann asked if there were other options. Mr. Gierach said they are dealing with the county and flood storage districts for the last three to four years. Specifically for the storage volume this is going to get is 380 acre feet in 100 year storm event. James Road is about 190 acre feet of storage. To get that amount of storage, other than flood storage districts is hard to come by in this watershed. Mr. Kiefer asked what the normal size is for a basin. Mr. Gierach said they are maybe 50-60 storage feet for volume. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 April 5, 2022 Ms. Scheuermann asked if that means there are no others options. Mr. Gierach said there are always other options. As far as land and this location is ideal as it does pick up two large branches of Sawyer Creek and James Road picks up one. This would get the James Road branch in addition to another. In order to have a meaningful impact, you also have to have a hydraulic grade line between the creek where it enters and where it discharges and to be able to get that amount of storage, it is difficult to obtain. There are things that can be done, and other locations that were looked at but they were not preferred. Mr. Kiefer said there are other things we want to look at. In Westhaven where the creek enters is also where we want to look at. It often backs up and it is a serious issue. There could be a partnership with them to help mitigate the water issues. This new pond is almost twice as big as James Road and will help absorb a lot of the water before it gets into the city. Mr. Nau asked if this was going to be a wet pond or a dry pond. Mr. Gierach said it is meant to be a dry pond like James Road. Mr. Kiefer said there is always a safety shelf around the pond as well as vegetation. Mr. Gierach said that because it’s intended to be a dry pond, there may not necessarily be a safety shelf around it. Mr. Perry wanted to remind Plan Commission that this item is a recommendation to the council. Motion carried 9-0. III. FINAL PLAT FOR THE CREATION OF A 15-LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT THE NORTH 3300 BLOCK OF W. 9TH AVENUE (PICKART ESTATES PHASE II Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting approval of a final plat containing 15 single-family lots and street dedications identified as Pickart Estates Phase II. 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 area of this request is part of a single undeveloped 16.31 acre parcel generally located at the north 3300 block of W. 9th Avenue, approximately 350 feet east of Clairville Road. An overall preliminary plat for Pickart Estates containing 60 single-family lots was approved by the Common Council on April 10, 2018 (Res 18-204). The final plat for Pickart Estates Phase I was approved August 15, 2018 (Resolution 18-422) which created 25 single- __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 April 5, 2022 family lots and right-of-way dedications. Proposed Phase II will create 15 additional lots and right-of-way utilizing 7.05 acres located on the northern side of the parent parcel, west of Phase I. The property is currently undeveloped, being used agriculturally and has a Single-Family Residential - 5 District (SR-5) zoning designation. The general area has a mix of uses including sporadic single-family uses along W. 9th Avenue, agricultural lands to the south, east, west and vacant wetlands to the north. 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 the park space becomes a public park. Mr. Nau said that is correct. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Ben Warntjes, from Excel Engineering; 100 Camelot Ct, Fond du Lac, made himself available for any questions from staff. Shawn Christian, 601 Paul’s Place, asked if the retention pond is going to be increased before phase II starts. Mr. Warntjes said that it would be concurrently with phase II. There were no other public comments on this item. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Mr. Warntjes said the pond will be expanded in phase II and storm water management will be fully accounted for. The pond discharge currently goes up to the northeast and it will be shifting to the northwest. 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 Marshall. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 April 5, 2022 Motion carried 9-0. IV. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE 2300 BLOCK OF WITZEL AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen, Ms. Propp and Mr. Kiefer all reported visiting the 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 dental clinic development at the 2300 Witzel Avenue. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The applicant is proposing development of a two-story, 16,786 sq. ft. dental clinic with 75-stall parking lot. Personal or Professional Service uses are permitted in the NMU district. The proposed use is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use recommendation of Neighborhood Commercial for the area. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Council Member Ford asked if the applicant was asking for six extra parking sports to prevent parking on the street. Mr. Mitchell asked if the canopy of trees on the Sawyer Creek side is being removed. Mr. Lyons said the plans do not show a disruption of the western creek area. They are trying to avoid that area entirely with the 100 year flood plain. On the street side there are some with the building development. Mr. Lyons also said there is an exception in the code with elevator bulkheads which is what was exceeding the height previously. The code automatically has a provision to allow that which is why we didn’t bring back the base standard modification. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Shawn Jandry, McMahon Associates; 1445 McMahon Dr, Neenah, said there will be clearing or grubbing along the west side down by the creek. There will be curb and gutter on the north end of the property that will take it into the bio filter. Mary Callan, 2230 B Meadowbrook Ct, President of the Meadowbrook Condo Association, asked if there is a retention pond. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 April 5, 2022 Mr. Lyons said there is a bio filter on the western side of the site. Ms. Callan asked about runoff into Sawyer Creek. Several units are along the creek and the creek can rise a foot in a few hours. The owner of the closest building to the site is concerned about the lighting in the parking lot and the light would shine into their bedroom. Mr. Lyons said city code requires all light fixtures in parking lots to be full shielded lighting which means the light has to be directed down only. The lighting requirement cannot exceed .5 candlelight at the property line. This development shows they would be under that threshold. Ms. Callan said that the new development will cause water to flow towards the condo association. Mr. Lyons said that city code for storm water management requires the developer keep their water on site. There is a number of different mechanisms they can use to do that. It does have to be held on site and then discharged into the city storm water system. The water can discharge to the creek after meeting code requirements. Ms. Callan asked if the proposal on site is normal storm water, or 50 or 100 year storm. Mr. Gierach said they have to keep the water on site and cannot drain into other properties. Code requires as a new development to detain 100 year post development to the 10 year post development. There were no other 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 Mitchell to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Kiefer. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. V. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED CREATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 42 MORGAN CROSSING PHASE II DESIGNATION OF BOUNDARIES AND APPROVAL OF PROJECT PLAN __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 April 5, 2022 Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp, Mr. Kiefer, Mr. Ford, Ms. Scheuermann, Mr. Bowen and Ms. Davey all reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Tax Incremental District No. 42 (the “TID” or “District”) is a proposed 1.41 acre Blight Area district comprising of the former industrial property. The proposed district is comprised of one parcel. The subject development was previously approved as part of a Planned Development per Council Resolution 21-239 on May 11, 2021. Mr. Lyons presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The applicant is proposing to construct a 5-story 83-unit multi-family apartment building with a total of 118 bedrooms. The project density is approximately 59 units per acre. The site will consist of 97 total parking spaces, including 57 underground and 40 surface spaces. The plans for the development were approved by Common Council as part of Resolution 21-239 in May of 2021. 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 other developments had their own TIFs. Ms. Nieforth said there was a TIF district for Merge development, the Lamico building had TIF financing as well when it was purchased for the Annex, and there were some TIF incentives along Marion Road. The 2.25 is going for the remediation of the site due to contamination. Mr. Perry asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Logan Jungbacker, Alexander & Bishop; 300 North Main St, said they are also seeking LEED certification on this building which will be the first private building besides the university. Mr. Bowen asked if there was any deviation from the SIP from 2021. Mr. Jungbacker said there will be no deviations from that plan. There were no other public comments on this item. 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. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 April 5, 2022 Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Bowen. Mr. Mitchell said there has been discussion on incentives regarding inclusion of affordable units in these developments. Part of the idea is that it can’t be done as a standard. Does this same standard apply when financial support is being provided. Ms. Nieforth said it would be entirely up to the council if they wanted to include those terms into the development agreement. These discussions have taken place where three or four units could serve LMI citizens. More TIF funding would have to be given to make the project feasible but that is up to council. Mr. Mitchell said there are other pots of funding available such as CDBG funds and this would be a great development to use those for since it does exclude a large portion of the population. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. Mr. Perry said the city and Plan Commission would like to recognize Mr. Kiefer for his five years of service to Plan Commission. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:38 pm. (Kiefer/Marshall) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager