Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 December 6, 2022 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES December 6, 2022 PRESENT: Margy Davey, Meredith Scheuermann, John Kiefer, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp, Michael Ford, Justin Mitchell, Ed Bowen, Karl Loewenstein EXCUSED: DJ Nichols, Mamadou Coulibaly STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Jeff Nau, Associate Planner; Brandon Nielsen, 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 November 15, 2022 were approved as presented. (Mitchell/Davey) I. CONSENT AGENDA: A. ACCEPT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENTS NORTHEAST OF VACATED E. 8TH AVENUE; B. RELEASE EASEMENT RIGHTS WITHIN PART OF VACATED E 8TH AVENUE C. ACCEPT STORM SEWER EASEMENTS NORTH OF EAST 9TH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: No Commissioner reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh is requesting acceptance of three sanitary easements located northeast of Vacated E. 8th Avenue and the release of easement rights over a portion of Vacated E. 8th Avenue. Mr. Nau presented the items and reviewed the sites and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The City is requesting approval of three small easements located northeast of recently vacated E. 8th Avenue. Two of the easements are to be granted by the City of Oshkosh Redevelopment Authority (RDA) while the third, located in between the RDA easements, being granted by the City to the City (Figure 1). The easements are needed for an existing dual sanitary force mains which crosses the Fox River from the northeast, then heads westward within Vacated E. 8th Avenue. The easements are needed to ensure the City continues to have legal access to the force main after the underlying land is disposed of. Access is essential for maintenance, repair and replacement of the mains when needed. The City is requesting the release of easement rights of the southern 12 feet of vacated E. 8th Avenue (Figure 2). Per statute, government entities retain rights to access, maintain/repair and replace facilities located within vacated rights-of-way. T. Wall’s submitted plans show structures potentially encroaching into the southern part of former E. 8th Avenue. The Department of Public __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 December 6, 2022 Works reviewed this and determined the southern 12 feet of vacated E. 8th Avenue was not needed to provide service to the existing sanitary force main. The RDA, which is the current owner of the underlying land of two of the proposed easements and the proposed release of easement rights reviewed this request and recommended approval. The City is requesting approval of the acceptance of two storm sewer easements located north of the newly dedicated E. 9th Avenue. One easement is to be granted by the City of Oshkosh Redevelopment Authority (RDA) to the City, while the second, south of and adjacent to the Fox River will be granted to and accepted by the City (Figure 1). The easements are needed for existing storm water facilities that flow to the Fox River from the southwest. The easements are needed to ensure the City continues to have legal access to the area in the case the underlying land is disposed of to a third party. Access is essential for inspection, maintenance, repair and replacement of the mains as needed. The RDA, which is the current owner of the underlying land of one of the proposed easements reviewed this request and recommended approval. The City Attorney’s office has drafted the necessary easement documents. T. Wall Enterprises has been informed of this request as they must give consent to any contractual obligations including easements. Final and signed easement documents will be signed and recorded at the Winnebago County Register of Deeds after Common Council approval. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. 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. 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 Scheuermann. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 December 6, 2022 II. PUBLIC HEARING: OFFICIAL MAP AMENDMENT - DELETION OF MAPPED CAMPBELL CREEK STORM DRAINAGE DETENTION AREA GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF W. 9TH AVENUE AND S. WASHBURN STREET Site Inspections Report: No Commissioner reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh requests an Official Map amendment to delete mapped Campbell Creek Detention Area generally located at the southwest corner of W. 9th Avenue and S. Washburn Street. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. The City was approached by a developer to purchase the north +/-180 feet of parcel 13-1187-0100 to combine with the residential lots along W. 9th Avenue for potential redevelopment. With the official mapping in place, the developer would be restricted with what can be done in that portion of the property. Staff is proposing to delete this mapping which will lift the restrictions currently in place. The Department of Public Works reviewed this request and supports the official map deletion. The detention basin has been constructed and the mapping has served its purpose and is no longer needed. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. 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. 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. Mr. Lyons said they are currently separate lots. Motion carried 8-0-1 present. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 December 6, 2022 III. PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVAL OF DESIGN STANDARDS ALTERATION REVIEW FOR 611 OREGON STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen, Ms. Propp and Mr. Loewenstein all reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a Design Standards Alteration Review for a building located at 611 Oregon St that is in a Central Mixed Use Zoning District (CMU). Mr. Nielsen presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The applicant is proposing modifications to the existing building, both inside and out, but this review is only for the exterior changes. Design Standards for Central Mixed Use District Alteration Review applies to changes in the exterior appearance of a nonresidential or multi-family property such as: - Painting - Roofing - Siding - Architectural component substitution - Fencing - Paving - Signage The applicant is proposing modifications to the east facing building facade (Oregon St.) which include the following: East Façade Remove portions of existing brick façade and replace with windows and doors. Remove existing metal paneling above windows and install batten vinyl siding. The window and door areas appear to meet the requirements for storefronts with the proposed dark frames and the proposed vinyl siding is allowed in the CMU district being that it is a Class III material. It should be noted that removal of the metal paneling and replacement vinyl siding is considered an improvement to the site. Additional window area will also serve to enhance the appearance of street facing façade. The building exterior will remain compatible with similar neighboring buildings along Oregon Street and the modifications meet exterior design standards requirements for the Central Mixed Use District. Staff is supportive of the proposed building façade alterations as they will be an overall improvement to the site. 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 5 December 6, 2022 Mr. Perry asked if because there is a substantial reduction in the non-approved brick facing, does that trigger anything in the code that says if they remove some of the material, all of it has to be removed. Mr. Lyons said there is nothing in the code that would require that so they are permitted to change out those materials. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Chris Morth, 611 Oregon St, stated that the mission of this project is to help beautify the neighborhood. 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 Mitchell. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR AN EXPANSION OF AN INSTITUTIONAL RESIDENTIAL USE AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP DEVELOPMENT AT 851 COUNTY ROAD Y Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen, Ms. Davey and Mr. Mitchell all reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit amendment for an institutional residential use with a second occupant at 851 County Road Y. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. In December 2018, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (Res. 18-583) was approved to establish an institutional residential facility for a County resident convicted of a sexual offense (Wis. Stat. 980) and deemed ready for release. The CUP approval __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 December 6, 2022 included a condition that the residential structure is limited to a maximum density of one (1) occupant and maximum of two (2) bedrooms. A manufactured home was installed on the site in 2019 to house the resident. The applicant is now proposing a second amendment to redesign and expand the use of the site. The existing two-bedroom structure would be removed from the property and replaced with up to eleven one-bedroom dwelling structures. Each dwelling unit will be constructed in three groups of three units and one group of two units. Each unit will be a 12-foot wide by 28-foot, 576 square foot structure containing kitchen/living room area, a full bath, a single bedroom and laundry facilities. The applicant notes that due to the particular residents intended to be housed at the site, state law imposes some limits on what can be located within a certain proximity of the subject parcel. In particular, schools, child care facilities, public parks, places of worship or youth centers cannot be located within 1,500 feet of the parcel. As the applicant owns the surrounding land beyond 1,500 feet from the parcel, the applicant can reasonably guarantee that land within that proximity will not be used for these purposes. Preliminary plans have been submitted for the proposed development. Final plans, including site design, landscaping, parking, lighting and storm water management will be required and reviewed/approved as part of the site plan review process prior to building permit issuance. Staff is in support of the CUP amendment for the institutional residential use as the use has already been established on the site, albeit on a smaller scale. The site continues to be an appropriate location based on the surrounding County government land uses. In the three years the facility has been in operation, there have been no issues reported related to public safety. 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 someone were to propose an 11-unit development anywhere in the city, what are the impervious surface requirements. Mr. Lyons said it’s based on zoning district and not specific land use. Each zoning district has a maximum allowed impervious surface. For example, the Industrial zoning district has a maximum impervious surface of 60%. Mr. Mitchell asked if the 41% impervious surface this development is below or above average what we typically see. Mr. Lyons said that in general this is below average but each zoning district has different requirements. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 December 6, 2022 Mr. Mitchell asked why a landscaping plan hasn’t been submitted. Mr. Lyons said that as part of a Conditional Use Permit the code does not require a landscaping plan. No matter what type of project the CUP is for, they are not required to provide a landscaping plan. All CUPs are required to be code compliant and there cannot be any deviation from it. Mr. Mitchell stated that is seems like they are requesting the CUP because of the population they are serving. One could argue that this could conceivably adhere to what the code would require for a multi-family or an 11-unit development for landscaping points. It seems that staff is saying that the CUP that Plan Commission is voting on doesn’t require those points but when they build this development, that will require those points. Mr. Lyons said that the CUP process, no matter what project or where it is located, does not require a landscaping plan during this time but it does require them to meet the standards for that district before they get final site plan approval. Mr. Nau said it also means they are not allowed any base standard modifications and they are required to meet the basic code requirements. Mr. Mitchell asked what those base code requirements would be. Mr. Lyons said they have to meet the landscaping code for this district which includes street frontage, paved area, and building foundation. Mr. Loewenstein asked why the county only made the lot size a little bigger since they own the land around the lot as well. He said it still seems crowded. Mr. Lyons said they went through a Certified Survey Map process which is the mechanism to split and divide property to a certain number of lots. That is an administrative approval process. If the applicant meets all the code requirements for a CSM, it is approved. The applicant chose the lot size based off of the project. It does meet the minimum code standards for setbacks, lot size and similar requirements. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Jon Doemel; Winnebago County Executive, 1923 Doemel St, stated that this is one of the hardest items that he has had to push for. They have asked their board to understand the need even if they don’t support it. 980 offenders are now issues for counties to solve since the state has relinquished them. The county is required to house them and this location is the best place. There were previous issues with the trailer that is there. They were potentially looking at another spot outside of the county but wanted to be cognizant of the fact they might meet those challenges again. The individual living spaces can help alleviate some of those future issues that may come up. They wanted to make sure the facility was as close to the Sheriff’s department as possible. Previous locations were almost a half hour away. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 December 6, 2022 Tim Schultz; 4263 Jackson St, said he was concerned about the location being close to his home since he and his wife run a state licensed day care out of their home. They are concerned about allowing the children outside to play with the 980 offenders so close. Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Mr. Doemel said that people on supervised release aren’t even allowed to step outside the unit without supervision for life. Mr. Bowen asked Mr. Doemel if the second bedroom on site the current lot was for the on-site supervisor and how the supervision works for the proposed setting. Mr. Doemel said that the current setup is that both bedrooms are being used by a 980 offender. The supervision is done in shifts by the officers. Mr. Bowen asked how the supervision will change once the use changes to house 11 offenders. Mr. Doemel said that the 24 hour supervision is rare, however each offender is electronically monitored. Mary Anne Mueller; 448 Algoma Blvd, said that each offender is monitored and currently only one offender that is housed is required to have one-on-one supervisor. The city approved the CUP in December 2018 which said that there could be one occupant in the mobile home. The mobile home has two bedrooms because that was what was available at that time. During the first year they are not allowed to go off-site without any supervision. Ms. Scheuermann asked how they know 11 is the right number of units. Mr. Doemel said they don’t know for sure. They have two offenders now, two more waiting, and four or five more in Sand Ridge that could apply at any time and they have no idea how many are in the prison system that haven’t made it to Sand Ridge yet. The 11 units was their best guess as to what they could expect in the future. If the state ever changes their minds on 980s, they will be gone and this could be veteran housing easily. Ms. Scheuermann asked if there is more room in case they need to house more offenders. Mr. Doemel said that a typical 980 is released after two-three years of supervision. It’s possible that somebody doesn’t want to go back out in the world and they can choose to stay. Motion by Mitchell to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Propp. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 December 6, 2022 Mr. Perry said that he was previously a director in a Wisconsin county that dealt with offenders like this. Back then, it was $1600 a day to house these individuals and that was 100% on the county tax levy. From the understanding, the state is fining counties if they cannot house individuals. If it was $1600 dollars then, the fine has to be more than that. While there is no good solution, Winnebago County is one of the only ones taking this kind of action to do something about this population. Motion carried 9-0. V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A MULTI-FAMILY USE AT 913 & 915 SOUTH MAIN STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Loewenstein, Ms. Propp and Mr. Bowen all reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to establish a multi-family use at 913 & 915 South Main Street. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The petitioner is proposing to convert the existing building into apartment units. A Conditional Use Permit was approved for a multi-family development on the subject site on November 27, 2018, which expired on November 27, 2019. The applicant is requesting to renew the CUP as they were previously unable to secure needed tax credits to complete the project and now intend to reapply for the tax credits. As proposed, the first floor will be remodeled into five live/work “townhome style” apartment units, while the upper two floors will consist of 18 loft style apartment units in a mixture of 1 and 2-bedroom configurations. The use is permitted via a conditional use permit within the CMU zoning district. The large storefront glass facades will allow for home offices, galleries, and meeting spaces on the (Main St.) front of the building with moveable partition walls to separate the living spaces from the home office or gallery spaces. Four of the five first floor units will reuse existing front entries off of Main Street and also have private entries off of private parking spaces on the rear side of the building. The application states that the layout is designed to allow the first floor live/work units to transition back to full storefront retail at some point in the future if necessary. Staff is recommending that 2-hr rated floor-ceiling assembly be installed to ensure that the units can be converted back to commercial space. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 December 6, 2022 Staff remains somewhat concerned about the conversion of the first floor’s more traditional “Main Street” style storefronts into a residential use that doesn’t “activate” pedestrian activity at the street. The long term vision for the area per the Imagine Oshkosh Plan is of a “mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented district bringing together corporate tenants, entertainment venues, and regional hospitality”. Ideally, the subject property would be a good candidate as a mixed-use building with upper floor residential and first floor retail/commercial. That being said, the City has not done a lot to promote this area of S. Main Street as a retail destination corridor in part because there is currently not a lot of public parking available and a historical heavy industrial land use pattern that doesn’t promote that type of activity. Staff intends on revisiting both of those concerns as part of planning for the area but the transition of land use from industrial will likely be a longer term accomplishment versus the on street parking which may be able to be accomplished in the short term. So the staff concern remains that at some point in the future, this can be a thriving pedestrian oriented district. Although some of the surrounding industrial sites have recently been redeveloped for commercial uses along with the recently approved future Mill on Main mixed use development, this may be a few years off. Staff is willing to support the ground floor units if they are constructed to more easily allow the units to be rehabilitated into commercial spaces. Additionally, all window openings should be maintained or restored and the rehab of the first floor window fronts should not reduce any of the glazed area and should remain as to look like a storefront. 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 why the applicant didn’t receive the tax credits during a previous application. Mr. Lyons said that would be a question for the applicant. Ms. Scheuermann asked if there are 18 parking spots around the lot. Mr. Lyons said that they have a plan for parking but the way the tax credit filing works is that they need to secure land use to apply for the credits. They do have adjacent property planned for parking. Mr. Bowen asked if the patio doors on the second floor is included in the plan to restore windows to original and if Plan Commission has any code authority over the windows. Mr. Lyons said that this is covering the first floor and maintaining the commercial appearance. Staff could possibly look at building code but they probably have some plans to renovate that. Mr. Mitchell if there is flexibility if the applicant were to ask for 16 parking stalls and six bicycle parking stalls. Mr. Lyons said that they could accommodate a request like that. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 December 6, 2022 Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Ryan Pattee; S73W14855 Cherrywood Dr, Muskego, and Todd Hutchinson; 2536 Fond du Lac Rd, made themselves available for questions. Mr. Pattee said he grew up in Oshkosh and this area is reminiscent of projects he has done in Milwaukee. Since they are trying to receive historic tax credits, they will have to follow historic guidelines which includes windows. They have other parcels that are under contract that they plan to use for parking and would like to oversubscribe parking to help plan for the future use of the area. It will at least meet the requirements for the residents. Mr. Hutchinson said the prior application for tax credits that was submitted was one point away from being accepted and even after updates and boosting their points, the next application was five points away. The process is competitive and the scoring changes every few years. Ms. Scheuermann asked if they are only moving forward with the project if they receive the tax credits. Mr. Pattee said he would move forward with the project either way. 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 Propp. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Bowen asked if the 2018 CUP has to be reestablished because of the characteristics of the project or because of the timeline. Mr. Lyons said that if you do not establish the use of an approved CUP within 12 months, the CUP does expire. Mr. Mitchell said he is excited about the redevelopment of this property. Motion carried 9-0. VI. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD AT 2300 WITZEL AVENUE __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 December 6, 2022 Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) amendment for an electronic message board 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 previously approved GDP/SIP for the site was for a two-story, 16,786 sq. ft. dental clinic with 75-stall parking lot. No changes are being proposed to the approved use of the site. Staff recommends denial with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Scheuermann asked how much larger the Glacier Dental sign is compared to the credit union sign. Mr. Lyons said he will have to double check the sizing but the overall size is within the code parameters but electronic message centers are reserved for the commercial corridors which is why SMU allows them, but NMU doesn’t which is the lowest of the commercial districts. Mr. Kiefer said that it is just the EMC portion that is not allowed. Mr. Slusarek said yes and if they wanted to do a static sign of that size it would be permitted. Mr. Perry said his biggest concern was the brightness of the size and he was happy to learn that there would be a way to dim it or time that it would be off. However, it is in an area where it is not allowed so it is a challenging decision. Ms. Scheuermann asked if there were any exceptions for EMCs in the NMU district. Mr. Lyons said there has not been any exceptions made. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Kelsy-Ann Hayes; Creative Sign Company, 505 Lawrence Dr, De Pere, said that the credit union sign is close to a 4’x8’and the one proposed by them is 3’x8’ so it would be smaller. They understand the zoning difference between the two but Glacier Dental is still a commercial lot. As the message center loses ambient lighting, it automatically dims so it will not be a nuisance to the neighborhood and can be turned down at any time. Glacier Dental is willing to shut it down at a certain time to help deter issues. The credit union sign is only 650 feet away so the only factor is the zoning district. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 December 6, 2022 Katie Balmer, Glacier Dental, 1720 Congress Ave, said that Glacier Dental is big in the Oshkosh community and the sign will be used to promote local events, time and temperature. It will not be an eyesore to the area. The landscaping will help shield the residential neighborhood from the commercial property. 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 approve the project as applied for. Seconded by Scheuermann. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Davey said she will be voting no on this for a few reasons. EMCs are a traffic hazard especially in this area. A resident has complained about this development and this would only add to the complaints. Ms. Propp said the staff recommendation was appropriate. It is the wrong sign for this zoning district and it is unnecessary messaging. If the city needs a community bulletin board, it needs to be somewhere else. Mr. Mitchell said he agrees with Ms. Davey. Lighted signs are a distraction and he is happy to see it now allowed in this district and would like to see prohibition in other districts. Motion denied 0-9. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:08 pm. (Kiefer/Scheuermann) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager