Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 September 6, 2022 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES September 6, 2022 PRESENT: Margy Davey, Michael Ford, Justin Mitchell, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp, John Kiefer, Karl Loewenstein, Ed Bowen EXCUSED: Meredith Scheuermann, Mamadou Coulibaly STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Kelly Nieforth, Community Development Director; Steven Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; 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 August 16, 2022 were approved as presented. (Kiefer/Davey) I. ACCEPT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT LOCATED WITHIN VACATED E. 8TH AVENUE – Withdrawn by Staff II. PARTIAL RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION E. 9TH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: No Commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The Department of Community Development is requesting the partial vacation of a small section of E. 9th Avenue, located east of S. Main Street, between Blocks 12 and 13 of the Plat of the Original Third Ward. 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 in this request involves approximately 100-foot by 15-foot, 520 square foot (0.0119 acre) triangular portion of E. 9th Avenue located east of S. Main Street. The site is located within the Sawdust District, an area targeted for revitalization with a mix of new and rehabilitation projects to attract commercial and residential developments. The surrounding area has a variety of uses including commercial, industrial and low to high-density residential developments. There are also numerous properties that have been acquired by the Oshkosh Redevelopment Authority which have been cleared and prepped for potential developments. 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 September 6, 2022 Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. 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. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 8-0. III. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT FROM LIGHT DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1529-1539 OSHKOSH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp, Mr. Bowen, Ms. Davey, Mr. Kiefer, and Mr. Perry all reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Recommended Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan. The subject area is designated for light density residential land use; the applicant is requesting a change to a neighborhood commercial land use designation. 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 requesting a comprehensive land use map amendment of two existing single family residential properties at the southeast corner of Oshkosh Ave. and N. Eagle St., totaling 0.69 acres. The petitioner is proposing to combine the lots and redevelop the site for a commercial office use. The proposed use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is not permitted in the SR-9 district. The lot will require a comprehensive land use map amendment and zone change to allow the proposed development. The surrounding area consists of single and two family residential uses to the north, south, and east, and commercial and parkland uses to the west. In October of 2018, the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan Update 2040, an update to the previous plan from 2005. Part of the update entailed refining the 20-Year Recommended Land Use Map. The map is a representation of future land uses within the City and in the extraterritorial three mile buffer. Future land use maps are intended to be used as a general reference tool for determining appropriate future land use and growth patterns. When creating the maps, recommended uses were determined on a broader scale rather than a parcel by parcel basis. Staff __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 September 6, 2022 realizes that sections of the Comprehensive Plan, including mapping portions, need to be updated or revised periodically to accommodate logical requests/changes in future land use. The petitioner approached the City about developing a commercial office building at the subject site. The proposal was brought to a Plan Commission workshop on July 5, 2022. Plan Commission was generally supportive of the proposal, provided the exterior of the building is compatible with the surround buildings and the site is only accessed from N. Eagle Street. A neighborhood meeting was held on August 2, 2022. All neighbors in attendance were not supportive of the proposal, voicing multiple concerns related to traffic, parking, proximity of the development to residential properties, change of the character of the neighborhood, and storm water runoff onto adjacent properties. Based on the information presented during the Plan Commission workshop and neighborhood meeting, staff is recommending that Plan Commission make a determination if the proposed Neighborhood Commercial future land use designation is appropriate for properties located at 1529-1539 Oshkosh Avenue. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Bowen asked if there was any development planned in the next two to three years near the entrance to Rainbow Park by Sawyer St and Oshkosh Ave. Mr. Lyons said he doesn’t believe the final determination has been made on when the construction would take place. Mr. Mitchell asked if all storm water impact would have to be self-contained on their own site. Mr. Slusarek said that is correct and it would be a part of the site plan review process. Council Member Ford asked staff to expand what this could do to the number of vehicles parking there and the impact of traffic. Mr. Slusarek said that based on the land use being converted from residential to commercial, any future land use would need to be within the maximum parking requirements which typically for office is 1.25 spaces per 300 sq. feet. Ms. Davey asked if this site was on a bus route. Mr. Lyons said it’s on GO Transit route 5. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 September 6, 2022 Norm Bock, 2242 White Swan Dr, said he received a letter from a tenant requesting additional space and they were looking for something with a high traffic volume. The City did a plan a few years ago that indicates that Oshkosh Ave was going to be a main corridor. This location works for the tenant but because it’s residential, it’s necessary to go through this process. At the last meeting, there was some opposition which included storm water. The architect said that based on City codes, the building was too small to require a retention pond. At 1529 Oshkosh Ave, there is a water basin that’s approximately 2-2.5 feet. Mr. Bock says he has never seen any standing water on the lot. Philip Carpenter, 1518 Maple St, said that when it rains heavily, there are several yards that do get standing water for days. He’s been a resident for 72 years and would like the neighborhood to remain residential. Eric Heid, 1321 Punhoqua St, said that the proposed site plan that was shown to the neighbors didn’t hold up to the ordinances as stated in Chapter 30 of the Oshkosh Municipal codes. Mr. Bock’s plan does not have the required space for the NMU or UMU districts. The neighbors all agree that this application should be denied. There are commercial vacant buildings available in the city for the tenants Mr. Bock has. The city ordinance says that no application which has been denied shall be resubmitted for a period of 365 days. While Mr. Bock may have resources to go through this process again, it provides undue burden on the people in the neighborhood. Brandon Hella, 1538 Maple Ave, said that he has concerns about snow removal. The nursing home residents will have issues seeing past the building once it’s up which could make driving difficult. The loss of the housing in the neighborhood is an issue as well as the damage to the tree on the property. Patricia Karlgaard, 1503 Oshkosh Ave, said the limited plan that Mr. Bock showed the neighbors has the new building roof being 6 times the size of the current two houses there plus the new parking lot which means a lot of extra runoff. Nobody wants the flooding to happen again, and if the building goes up, all the neighbors will have flooding when it rains. This project will not make the neighborhood better. Matt Thomas, 1519 Oshkosh Ave, is the neighbor next to the subject site. There is a lot of water runoff especially with the drainage system. He hopes the right decision will be made. Sativa Larson, 1538 Maple Ave, said the yards have bad flooding in the springtime but the basements stay dry. If the water problem gets worse, they are worried the basements won’t stay dry. Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no other public comments on this item. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 September 6, 2022 Mr. Lyons said that the Plan Commission will have to decide on a recommendation and support it with their own findings. This is specific to the Comp Plan only has nothing to do with zone change, or building. The state statutes says that in order to move forward with a zone change, you must have consistency with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Mitchell asked to return to technical questions. Mr. Perry said that it was appropriate in this instance in order to make a motion or action. Mr. Mitchell asked what the future land use map shows for this area. Mr. Lyons said that the lot and going to the east is all still slated for low density residential. On the north side, it does call for commercial. Mr. Loewenstein asked for clarification on the process that the applicant would have to go through. Mr. Lyons said that the first step in the process is the comprehensive plan amendment. This is narrowly defined in the state statutes as the body would make a recommendation, a notice would go in the paper; they wait 30 days and council has a hearing to determine whether or not they want to amend the comp plan. Should that take place and be successful, the applicant would have to come back with a zone change request from SR-9 to UMU or NMU zoning district. They would have to have a successful rezone to one of those commercial designations with a potential planned development overlay. If they cannot meet all base code requirements, they could potentially use a planned development overlay. They would have to come back again, to seek approval of that planned development. To go forward, it has to meet all base code requirements. If they can’t meet that or won’t, that’s when the planned development comes in and this body and council would have to choose whether to grant the planned development overlay district and approve both a general development plan and specific implementation plan that potentially grants base standard modifications. Mr. Mitchell said there was a concern about setbacks from the neighbors, but there would be setback requirements if this was changed to commercial. Mr. Lyons said that is correct. If a rezone takes place, then the setback standards for that district would be required. Mr. Mitchell said there was talk about snow and water, but any change to storm water would require to be up to storm water code and be self-contained on that lot. Mr. Lyons said they would need to meet the current storm water requirements of the city of Oshkosh. If a building disturbs more than 20,000 sq. feet of impervious surface there are some additional quantity and quality requirements that have to take place. If they are less, they would have to collect and convey. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 September 6, 2022 Mr. Mitchell said that there is currently a house close to the intersection. With the new setbacks, that could help with the visibility of the intersection of incoming traffic. Mr. Lyons said there are some zoning setbacks that come into play, and there are clear site requirements for safety and seeing around a corner. It does have to meet the visibility standards. Mr. Mitchell asked if this moves forward, is there an option that allows Plan Commission to better conform a future development to the neighborhood. Mr. Lyons said that for today’s request, no. This is just for a comp plan amendment. Any additional requests could take place during the zone change and potential planned development. Ms. Davey asked if they are limited to the two properties. Mr. Lyons said yes because that was all that was legally noticed. Mr. Loewenstein asked when the whole area will be reviewed. Mr. Lyons said there was some discussion if Oshkosh Ave was an appropriate place to do a corridor study like they did with South Park, Jackson and 9th. There are no current plans to do a corridor study. Mr. Perry asked if the alleyway was only improved by paved alley and no gutter or water runoff. Mr. Lyons said there are water lines only on Oshkosh Ave, sanitary is on Oshkosh Ave, and there is a mixture of storm sewers on Oshkosh Ave, N. Eagle and some in the alley. Mr. Perry asked if there was a failure to pass the comprehensive plan amendment, what happens with the project. Mr. Lyons said if the comp plan amendment would not be passed by council, then it would stay single family low residential. Mr. Mitchell asked if they could approve the comp plan amendment but come back later with findings. Mr. Lyons said it would have to be tabled at that point. In order to make a recommendation, there has to be findings to substantiate that recommendation. Mr. Mitchell asked Mr. Bock if he would be okay if Plan Commission tabled this for two weeks. Mr. Bock said he wouldn’t mind. Ms. Propp said she was not in support of the comp plan amendment because the traffic is already unsafe to navigate. It will not improve the area. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 September 6, 2022 Mr. Bowen said that he is not supportive of a limited amendment to the comp plan. It doesn’t make sense to do it for such a small part of a larger area. There is significant development activity to the west of this parcel and eventually to the east. If Plan Commission is going to do anything with a comp plan amendment, they need to look at the larger picture. Ed Bowen left at 4:45pm. Mr. Mitchell said that after listening to the neighbor concerns, it seems like all of the issues that were raised would be addressed with the rezoning and site plan approval process. Mr. Lyons said that state statutes for what should be considered when reviewing a possible comp plan amendment: 1) The amendment would correct an error that exists in the comp plan. 2) The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the visions, goals, objectives and policies contained within the comprehensive plan or there has been change in the community characteristics that justify a change. 3) The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the property in the immediate vicinity or to the community as a whole. 4) The proposed amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the ability to provide adequate public facilities or services or will improve public facilities for the community. Ms. Davey said she’s uncomfortable making a small change to the comp plan. If Plan Commission was going to do this for the whole block or the side of the street, that would make more sense. She said she is not supportive of this project. Mr. Lyons said that this comp plan amendment come to them because of a property owner request. Motion by Council Member Ford to approve the comp plan amendment as requested. Seconded by Propp. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp agrees with Ms. Davey and suggested that maybe this could be a workshop. Motion denied 6-1 (nay, Propp, Loewenstein, Davey, Council Member Ford, Kiefer, Perry) Findings: The proposed amendment will be detrimental to the property in the immediate vicinity or to the community as a whole. IV. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR LANDSCAPING REVISION AT 2300 WITZEL AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Kiefer reported visiting the site. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 September 6, 2022 Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) amendment for landscaping modifications at 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 subject site is an irregularly shaped 2 acre vacant lot, with frontage on Witzel Ave., west of the Westbrook Dr., and north of Graceland Dr. The property is zoned Neighborhood Mixed Use District with a Planned Development Overlay (NMU- PD). The surrounding area consists primarily of residential uses to the north, south, and east and commercial uses to the west along Witzel Ave. The 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends Neighborhood Commercial use for the subject area. On April 12, 2022, Common Council approved a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan for a dental clinic development at the subject site. The applicant has submitted a revised landscaping plan for the site. The only change to the approved plan is removal of the 4’ tall wood rail fence shown along the north property line, which was contributing toward the 0.1 opacity bufferyard requirement along the north property line, and addition of 3 Techny Arborvitae trees. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Davy asked why they wanted to change it. Mr. Slusarek said they didn’t specify, but it could be cost or preference. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no other public comments on this item. 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. Motion carried 7-0. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 September 6, 2022 V. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (HI) TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (HI-PD) AND APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN & SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3815 OREGON STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Mitchell reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Heavy Industrial District (HI) to Heavy Industrial District with a Planned Development Overlay (HI-PD). The applicant also requests approval of General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan for an out outdoor storage area at 3815 Oregon 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 a zone change to add a Planned Development Overlay for the subject property. This request is intended to provide some flexibility to the zoning ordinance to allow accommodate an outdoor storage area on the site. The applicant has submitted preliminary plans for the outdoor storage area, which will be addressed as General Development Plan (GDP) and Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) review to follow. Staff is supportive of the proposed rezone as it will assist in providing needed storage area for the site. The applicant is proposing outdoor storage areas on the west and north sides of the existing building. The request also includes addition of approximately 8’ of gravel to the west of the existing paved access drive on the west side of the building. The added gravel will be part of the storage area and will have 12’ setback from the west property line, where code requires a 20’ side yard setback. According to the applicant, the outdoor storage area will include vertical storage racking and the additional gravel area will be utilized for storage of large frames. The applicant has an open violation for open outdoor storage of various items on the site. The proposed outdoor storage areas are intended to provide a secure enclosed area to store these items, which will remedy the violation. Staff is supportive of a BSM for the reduced setback of the storage area along the west property line as it is needed to meet outdoor storage needs of the applicant. Also, the storage area is abutting a heavy industrial use (EVCO Plastics) to the east and should not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. As proposed, the storage area will be enclosed by 8’ tall solid fencing along the south and east property lines and existing 8’ tall chain link fencing along the north and west property lines. Solid fencing is not required along the west property line as it is abutting an industrial property to the west. The applicant is requesting a BSM to allow the outdoor storage without solid fencing along the north property line, where code requires outdoor storage areas to be completely screened from non-industrialized areas with minimum 8’ tall solid fencing or structures. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 September 6, 2022 According to the applicant, the existing 8’ chain link fencing along the north property line is surrounded by natural vegetation, which forms a natural privacy screen. Removing the natural vegetation to install a new solid fence would negatively affect environmentally sensitive areas, such as the existing pond. The applicant has noted that they will be installing 10 evergreen trees along the north property line to provide additional screening. Staff is supportive of the BSM to waive the solid screening requirement along the north property line as the combination of existing chain link fencing, existing natural vegetation, and new evergreen trees will serve to sufficiently screen the storage area. Also, the abutting property to the north of the storage area is being used as a rear storage area for the FVTC/Fabtech Training Center, which will not be negatively impacted by visibility of the Generac outdoor storage. The submittal also includes plans for a 154 stall parking lot on the north side of the site, accessed from Oregon Street. This parking area had previously been approved in October, 2021 per Site Plan Review, but a building permit has not been obtained and the parking lot was never constructed. Staff does not have concerns with the parking lot addition as no changes are being proposed from the original approval. The additional parking and storage areas will result in a total impervious surface of 56.3% for the site, which is under the maximum of 70%. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Kiefer asked if the area would be cleaned up. Mr. Lyons said that is exactly what they are going to do with this proposal. Mr. Mitchell asked if they had an 8 foot fence and if there is any landscaping required for the fencing. Mr. Lyons said there is some screening but there is some potential for more. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Kevin Krueger, 3815 Oregon St, said the plan is to clean up the area and the material would be stored within the fence line. Mr. Perry closed public comments. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Kiefer to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Mitchell. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 September 6, 2022 Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-0. VI. PUBLIC HEARING: PONTOONIN HOUSE ANNEXATION FROM THE TOWN OF OSHKOSH, 2538 SHOREWOOD DRIVE AND PART OF 2534 SHOREWOOD DRIVE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioners are requesting direct annexation (majority land in area and real property in assessed value) of approximately 0.383 acres of land currently located on Shorewood Drive in the Town of Oshkosh. This item was first reviewed by Plan Commission on August 16, 2022. Proper notification was not sent to the Town Clerk and Oshkosh Area School District so this request will be presented once again in accordance with state statute. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. James and Michelle Work recently purchased Lot 8 with the intent to construct a single family dwelling. It is their wish to have the new house connected to city sanitary sewer and water which prompted this request. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as appropriate for light density residential use and the proposed zoning permits the existing single family use for the property by-right. Loyal & Kelly Straveler’s property is east of their house which is currently in the City. The land is undeveloped and is used for yard space with their house property. The petitioners request the property be annexed with a Single Family Residential-5 with Lakefront Residential Overlay (SR-5-LRO) District zoning classification to match the adjacent SR-5-LRO City zone district to the south and is comparable to the current Town’s Suburban Residential District (Subdivided) (R-2) zoning. The proposed zoning is also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 2040’s Light Density Residential recommendation. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the request and reported that City sanitary sewer and water main were constructed in front of the property in 1975. Sanitary sewer and water laterals have been stubbed to the property line so the street will not need to be excavated for connections. The Oshkosh Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the annexation request and do not have any concerns with providing services to this property. 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 12 September 6, 2022 Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. 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. Motion carried 7-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:10 pm. (Kiefer/Davey) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager