Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 February 7, 2023 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 7, 2023 PRESENT: Margy Davey, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp, Ed Bowen, Karl Loewenstein, Michael Ford, Justin Mitchell EXCUSED: John Kiefer, DJ Nichols, Meredith Scheuermann, Mamadou Coulibaly STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager; Jeffrey Witte, Principal Planner; 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. Mr. Bowen arrived at 4:03pm. The minutes of January 17, 2023 were approved as presented. (Davey/Propp) I. STREET DEDICATION- 17 WASHINGTON AVE Site Inspections Report: No Commissioner reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh is requesting a small dedication of public right-of-way at the southwest corner of Washington Avenue and State Street (300 East Public Parking Lot). 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 area in this dedication request involves irregularly- shaped area wrapping around the northeast corner of the 300 east Parking Lot. The rough size is approximately 30 feet long by 1.5 feet wide and 74 square feet in area (0.0071 acre). The 300 East Parking Lot was reconstructed in 2022 which involved resurfacing of the parking lot, utility work and electrical work at the southwest corner of the Washington Avenue/State Street intersection. A signal controller box was placed partially on private (City-owned) property which interfered with some existing easements. Instead of modifying the easements, the Department of Public Works decided it would be best to dedicate the land as right-of-way. This also will allow for adding a corner radius which is more desirable than a standard corner. 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 February 7, 2023 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 Davey. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-0. II. STREET DEDICATION - E. 9TH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: No Commissioner reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The Department of Community Development is requesting a small dedication of public right-of- way on the south side of E. 9th 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. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. The area in this dedication request involves approximately 39-foot by 15-foot, 309 square foot (0.0071 acre) triangular portion of land on the south side 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. In 2022, the city vacated a small section of E. 9th Avenue at the transition from the straight east- west segment to the beginning of a curve to the northeast. The vacated land attached to the property to the south (Everett Industrial Building Co., 36 E. 10th Avenue). The City plans to dedicate an additional portion of E. 9th Avenue that will complete the curved section of the street. The dedication will almost mirror the area that was vacated and will be similar in area. The dedication will be part of a Certified Survey Map currently being prepared for __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 February 7, 2023 the City. The owner of the subject property is agreeable to the proposed dedication as there is negligible gain or loss of area being exchanged between both parties. The vacation is being requested to accommodate the extension of E. 9th Avenue. The combination of the previous vacation and this dedication will allow for proper area for street constructon, terrace area and public sidewalk. The Department of Public Works Department has reviewed this request and supports the vacation. 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 Loewenstein. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-0. III. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-5 DISTRICT (SR-5) AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (I) TO SUBURBAN MIXED USE (SMU) FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED ON SOUTH SIDE OF THE 2100 BLOCK OF W. 9TH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen, Ms. Propp and Mr. Mitchell reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Single Family Residential – 5 District (SR-5) and Institutional District (I) to Suburban Mixed Use District (SMU) for properties located on the south side of the 2100 Block of W. 9th 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 applicant is requesting a zone change to Suburban __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 February 7, 2023 Mixed Use District (SMU) for the subject properties fronting W 9th Ave and the northern portion of the City-owned property to the south of 2125 W 9th Ave. This request is intended provide appropriate zoning for future commercial use of the properties. The applicant intends to have these three lots and the northern portion of the lot to the south of 2125 combined into one lot for future commercial development. The rezone will provide consistent zoning for the properties, which is needed to complete a CSM to combine them. Staff is supportive of the proposed rezone to SMU as this zoning designation is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommendation of Interstate Commercial for the subject area. The proposed SMU zoning will also be consistent with the neighboring properties to the north, east, and west. 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. Peter Lang (The Morgan Partners); 2300 White Swan Dr, said they purchased the parcels in order to combine them. There is not a specific user for the parcels but the user will fit into SMU zoning. 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 Davey. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Bowen said he will be voting present. Motion carried 6-0-1. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A MANUFACTURING RETAIL LAND USE, OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENT, & ADAPTIVE REUSE AT 959 W 6th AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen, Ms. Propp and Mr. Mitchell reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 February 7, 2023 The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit approval for a manufacturing retailer land use, outdoor commercial entertainment, and adaptive reuse at 959 W 6th Avenue. Mr. Slusarek presented the items and reviewed the sites and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area future commercial development. The petitioner is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to establish a bakery within the ground floor commercial unit. The bakery will also have an outdoor seating area. The second floor residential unit will be maintained. The bakery is considered a manufacturing retail land use and the outdoor seating area is considered outdoor commercial entertainment under the zoning ordinance. Both uses require a conditional use permit in the UMU district. A conditional use permit is also required for adaptive reuse of the property to allow the site to operate with less parking than required by code. Staff is supportive a CUP to allow the proposed retail manufacturing and outdoor commercial entertainment uses as they are compatible with neighboring commercial uses and surrounding Urban Mixed Use zoning. Staff is also supportive of the proposed adaptive reuse of the site to allow the proposed 9 parking stalls, where code requires a total of 16 parking stalls (1 stall per 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area + 2 stalls for residential unit). According to the applicant, overflow parking will be available along W 6th Ave. and W 7th Ave. They also note that peak hours for the bakery are during the morning, which will not conflict with on-street parking for other neighboring businesses as they are primarily taverns with heavier traffic in the evening. Staff does not have concerns with parking for the site as the proposed 9 stalls will provide a space for the residential unit as well as sufficient parking for employees (approximately 7 employees per typical shift) with a few remaining stalls for customers. On-street parking along W 6th Ave. and W 7th Ave. should provide sufficient parking for additional customers. The site will utilize existing accesses from Knapp St. and W 7th Ave. The applicant plans to mill and overlay the existing asphalt parking lot as well as add a 766 sq. ft. concrete patio, enclosed with solid wood fencing, on the south side of the building. A new refuse enclosure will also be added and will be constructed of 6’ tall wood fencing, meeting refuse enclosure material requirements. The new patio will match the setback of the existing building from Knapp St. and the new refuse enclosure will meet the 5’ front and side yard setback requirements for the UMU district. Impervious surfaces for the site will not be increased as all improvements will be within existing paved areas. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Bowen asked if on street parking was located on 7th, Knapp and 6th streets. The owner stated there is no parking on Knapp St. Mr. Bowen said that there is at least multiple locations for on street parking. Mr. Mitchell asked if there are no landscape requirements if they are keeping the same footprint. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 February 7, 2023 Mr. Lyons said since the impervious surface is staying the same and they are not adding any new surface they are no landscaping requirements. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Elizabeth Redman; 514 E Fisk Ave, stated they started their bakery in 2018 at the farmers market and started looking for a space that could house retail and manufacturing. This building works for those needs and has parking. They want to bring the building back to what it was used to and offer a neighborhood bakery. Susan Hirschberg; 2050 Menominee Dr, said the improvements of the building are going to enhance the neighborhood. There has been deterioration of the building that will be restored in addition to adding accessible features. 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 Ford. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp said she is pleased to see there will be upgrades to the exterior since it desperately needs it. Mr. Mitchell asked if the applicant meant accessible in regards to handicap accessible or accessible to the public. He also asked what the requirements are of the city of accessible features when a development is taking place. Mr. Lyons said that in this case they mean accessible as in a handicap ramp. He said he doesn’t know the building code requirements but he can follow up with them. Mr. Mitchell thanked the owner for taking the initiative to make their business handicap accessible. Mr. Mitchell asked if general if this sort of development happened and they were asking for relief from the parking requirements and there was an area for green space, because they are asking for a modification, is that an opportunity to request tradeoff. Mr. Lyons said it depends on the situation. This is not a planned development, so they can’t use the typical means of the planned development where they’re asking for a base standard modification and we’re using something to justify it. When you get into the older urban areas, the __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 February 7, 2023 code has an adaptive reuse section that understands we can grant parking reduction in certain areas because of the challenges of redevelopment in an urban area. If this was a situation where it was a larger lot with just green space and have the ability to add parking, we would look to add that parking if it made sense. Motion carried 7-0. V. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL- 12 DISTRICT (MR-12) TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-12 DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (MR-12-PD) AND APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT NORTH SIDE OF W 20TH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen, Ms. Propp and Mr. Mitchell reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Multi-family Residential-12 District (MR- 12) to Multi-family Residential-12 District with a Planned Development Overlay (MR-12-PD). The applicant also requests approval of General Development Plan for a mixed multi-family residential/commercial development. Mr. Slusarek presented the items and reviewed the sites and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area future commercial development. The applicant is requesting a zone change to add a Planned Development Overlay for the subject parcel. This request is intended to provide some flexibility to the zoning ordinance to accommodate development of the site for multi-family residential use including an on-site drive-through coffee shop. The applicant has submitted preliminary plans for the mixed multi-family residential/commercial development of the property, which will be addressed as General Development Plan (GDP) review to follow. Staff is supportive of the proposed rezone as it will also assist development of the site and provide further review to mitigate potential impacts on neighboring properties. The proposed development will have two driveway accesses off of W 20th Ave. and consist of 8 eight-unit and 9 sixteen-unit apartment buildings. The site will also have a community building which will include a drive-through coffee shop. The eight-unit apartments are permitted and the sixteen unit apartments are a conditional use within the MR-12 district. Staff does not have concerns with the proposed multi-family residential use as it is consistent with the Medium and High Density Residential 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommendation. With approval of the rezone, the applicant is requesting a base standard modification (BSM) for indoor sales and drive-through and in-vehicle sales or service. Staff is supportive of the proposed BSM as the drive- through coffee shop is centrally located on the site and a substantial distance from existing neighboring residential properties (approximately 360’ west and 300’ east). Staff feels that the proposed use will be relatively compatible with neighboring land uses, in particular the YMCA site immediately south across W 20th Ave. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 February 7, 2023 The site plan meets density, impervious surface, setbacks, and parking stall requirements for the MR-12 district. Final site layout will be approved as part of the SIP request. A base standard modification may also be needed for the coffee shop drive-through lane as the stacking length appears to be less than 100’ in front of the order station. This may also be addressed during the SIP phase. The site plan appears to be compliant with all other dimensional requirements. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Lyons added that the base zoning of MR-12 was new starting in 2017. Prior to that, it would’ve been R-3 Residential, which would’ve allowed even more units to be placed in this site than the current code allows. They could apply for a Conditional Use Permit and build the apartments. As Plan Commission is familiar with the CUP laws. The reason they are here for the zone change and the Planned Development is for the coffee shop element. Staff does support the mixed use style design and complements the area. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Bowen said this is a GDP approval in addition to a zone change to allow a PD. If there are issues with the site plan, but will most likely be remedied during the SIP process, is this the best time to bring up those concerns. Mr. Lyons said that with the applicant here, it is best to bring them up now so he can hear them and maybe make adjustments before the SIP process. They only need the zone change if they get approved for the BSM to allow the coffee shop. Otherwise they can come back with a CUP for multi-family. Council Member Ford reiterated that as a land use body, their job is to vote on the zone change for the coffee shop. Mr. Mitchell asked when a proposal of this size comes if turn-in lanes are required. Mr. Lyons said they have these discussions with Public Works and Transit to see if a TIA would needed. A TIA would be the mechanism to determine if a decel lane is necessary. There hasn’t been feedback yet that a traffic impact analysis would be necessary for this development. A Planned Development does give you the authority to ask for a TIA. If it is something that Plan Commission felt was necessary, they could request that it be done. Mr. Mitchell asked if there are any discussions about developer paid or city produced road crossings to enable safe access from this development to the YMCA across the street. Mr. Lyons said that is a discussion they have started having. They will have a further discussion with Parks and other city departments. It could also be addressed as part of the TIA. They try to avoid mid-block crossings for safety purposes. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 February 7, 2023 Mr. Mitchell asked if the code allows this development in without green space for a playground or are they working with Parks to put something in nearby. Mr. Lyons said that the code does have a requirement for recreational open space on the lot. They have to provide a certain percentage of recreational space depending on the number of units. Under the current code, this development does not require any park fees because it is an existing CSM lot. Planning and Community Development are having discussions about reevaluating how parkland fees are paid. Mr. Mitchell asked if that means they wouldn’t be required to put in a playground and if it would just be green space. Mr. Lyons said that open recreational space can’t just be green space. They have to do something to make it a recreational space, but it doesn’t have to be playground equipment. Mr. Perry said that the drive-thru appears to be street facing and asked if that is going to be a problem. Mr. Lyons said it might require additional base standard modification. Mr. Slusarek said that the code states the window can’t be on the street side, and this shows that only the order point is. More landscaping could be required to buffer the drive through. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Corey Wallace; Wesenberg Architects, 240 Algoma Blvd. He stated that the main reason they are there is because they want to put some mixed use into the development. Otherwise they could get a standard CUP to build. This benefits by bringing more diversity to the area with different housing types. There will be a club house and possibly extend the pedestrian system that serves the neighborhoods to the north and east. Ms. Propp asked how many bedrooms they will have and the projected audience. Mr. Wallace said it’s a combination of 208 one and two bedroom units that will go for open market rate so anyone would be able to rent them. The proximity to the school is a plus for those with children would want to live there. Renee Richards Groff; 3256 W 20th Ave, said the neighborhood does not want diversity of housing. They were there a few years ago opposing a similar development which was successful because it is not there. The apartment building does not fit the type of neighborhood they are in. The Preserve area was a great compromise to what was proposed before. It’s a wetland preserve that also wraps around the area. The coffee shop sounds like spot zoning and could be detrimental to the area driving down property values. The traffic is awful due to the YMCA and the school. There was a study from 2019 that said that 5400 cars pass through this area each day. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 February 7, 2023 Karen Hafemeister; 3249 W 20th Ave, said that it is not a benefit to have it near the schools since Carl Traeger is near capacity. Once the Merrill Middle School project is complete, the school district has plans to close Tipler Middle School. The kids from Tipler will be split up between South Park and Traeger. Even though not all the apartments would be occupied by families with children, there is still a huge amount of kids that would be funneled into a school that is near or at max capacity. She is against the coffee shop, considering there are plenty of coffee shops nearby. It is not a good fit for the neighborhood. They are concerned with the possibility of what kind of low income tenants they might get. There is typically more police presence with lower income people. Increased traffic, noise, crime and trash along the roadways. She said her husband on a daily basis picks up trash along their terrace. They don’t want to see the apartments at all. The plans that show doesn’t include water retention. The driveway with the YMCA lines up with the driveway for the apartment complex. They live to the right of the YMCA and on certain days of the week there are cars lined up to turn into the YMCA. The two driveways will be a huge traffic nightmare. Jeffrey Hafemeister; 3249 W 20th Ave, said that the neighborhood would love to see single family owner occupied homes continue in the area. There’s pride in homeownership and they are more likely to take care of their property. He said he is concerned about having 200 families in this development and how many families are going to be supported by drug sales. How many people are going to coming down the road with their loud mufflers throwing their Taco Bell trash on his terrace. They want owner occupied homes and not apartment transient people. Darrel McGill; 1841 Preserve Dr, said he’s part of a development that Wesenberg Architects helped develop 3 years ago. He thinks that historically the site he lives in originally had a concept plan of something similar to what this item is pertaining to. It was rejected and turned into the Preserve Dr and Ct homes they have today. There are so many apartment buildings being constructed around the city, he doesn’t understand how these will get filled. When they first moved into their house, the original timeline was 3 ½ - 4 years. It only took 2 years for the 25 homes to be sold. That says there is a lot of attraction to building single family units. This type of development is favorable to this community over an apartment complex. He wants to know if there is a long term plan for this property. This property is at a high flood plain. All of the houses in Preserve Dr and Ct were originally underwater during the first dig. There are still some flooding in the area that needs to be addressed. Is there anything in place to mitigate flooding issues. He also asked why there isn’t a sidewalk even though they are in the city. They would like to have continued progress just like any other resident in this city to be able to walk. The neighbors are not happy about this complex. Even after talking to Mr. Slusarek and learning that this zoning had already been approved over ten years ago, we weren’t living there ten years ago. We were never asked if we would even be happy with it. Steven Moline; 3380 Casey Trl, said that’s not opposed to the development other than he would prefer a condo development similar to Preserve Dr. It doesn’t seem like there are a lot of public areas on the property and the concern he has is that they don’t know if there will be pets allowed, and potentially the pets could ruin the trails with waste. He once lived near an apartment complex near Packer Dr, and the complex didn’t enhance the neighborhood. These neighbors weren’t expecting to have a huge apartment complex in their backyards. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 February 7, 2023 Jim Preller; 1813 Preserve Dr, said they were one of the first residents in the subdivision. There is a small pond in the north that is already much higher in water depth than it has ever been before. They had addressed it with the developer over the past 2 years. There is an industrial sump pump that they had put in to help mitigate the extra water. It is adding extra water to the north pond. If there is no plans for water mitigation for this development, where will the water end up going. Nancy Bongert; 3374 W 20th Ave, said the Preserve subdivision is a wonderful addition to the neighborhood. A traffic study would be welcomed considering how fast people travel after dropping their kids after school. It would be appreciated if the commission could spend some time out there to see how challenging the traffic could be. Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Mr. Wallace said that he could address some concerns. He said there is going to be a retention pond on the north part of the site. They are following all regulations for storm water management. They are lining up the driveways because it is Public Works policy to help with traffic flow. There is another outlet into the division to the west. It seems like most of the traffic is from the YMCA and east, and that’s why the outlet to the west would be helpful. When it comes to density, they are within the zoning regulations when it comes to how dense it would be. Nobody that is going to live there has any more or less right to live there than anyone else in the neighborhood. Ms. Propp asked for clarification on where the west outlet is located on the site map. Mr. Wallace said that Chet Wesenberg wanted to let them know that even though it is zoned the same to the west with single family and they are used to seeing an undeveloped empty lot, it is a luxury. They are prepared to treat is as a bufferyard and add more landscaping. The development they designed is farther away from the property line, 60 feet compared to 25 feet. Motion by Mitchell to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Davey. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Council Member Ford asked City Staff to explain what an SIP is and the process for that going forward to help reassure the audience what the next steps are. Mr. Lyons said the planned development approval process is broken into two steps. The applicant must go through both steps before the development can be constructed. The first is step is a General Development Plan and that is what the applicant is here for today. It is concept level approval only. It doesn’t included building elevations, landscaping, drainage, or lighting plans that would need to be approved before being constructed. Should this get approved by council, the applicant will have to come back with what is called a Specific Implementation Plan. It includes the final plan set of what they are going to build. It includes the landscaping, drainage and other __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 February 7, 2023 plans that will have to be approved. They are broken into steps because there can be an initial concept discussion about whether or not this concept makes sense before all those other plans are drawn up. If it is denied at this point, it won’t go through. If it would go through, they would have to come back to Plan Commission and all the neighbors would be notified again. Council Member Ford addressed the audience and said hopefully the explanation makes sense and even if they were to approve it today, Plan Commission has a relatively narrow role and only makes a recommendation to council. It will still have to be approved by council and going forward if they come back with the specific plans, Plan Commission will make a recommendation and council will then decide. Mr. Mitchell said that a lot of things that have come up today have come up in similar situations. Things could be possibly resolved through neighborhood association meetings. He said it’s quite common for communities to require neighborhood meetings and to have a follow up report from the meeting. There could be some sort of middle ground between what the neighbors want and what the developers want. We heard a lot from the neighbors saying they don’t want certain kind of people in their community but no one offered solutions. Mr. Lyons said the reason why a neighborhood meeting hasn’t happened yet is because they wanted to have a discussion about the commercial element, which is what they are there for. The apartments, although a challenge, are a by-right permitted use. That discussion will need to take place with the residents. Before engaging in that, we wanted to see if there was support for adding that commercial element. If that goes away, there is going to be some redesign that will need to take place. This is the first time they are trying to add a commercial element in a suburban style neighborhood. Mr. Mitchell said that they will often see that a neighborhood meeting has been done, but no follow up or anything to see if there were compromises made. It would be helpful for Plan Commission and the neighborhood to see a more detailed report, if it comes from the neighbors or from staff. Mr. Lyons said that is something staff can look at. Mr. Mitchell asked if the process of the development is something that could be addressed with the mailing notices that are sent to the neighbors. Mr. Lyons said that it is usually something that is addressed during a neighborhood meeting. This one we might have missed the ball a little bit because of the commercial element. Mr. Mitchell said that it is great that multiple types of housing are in a particular neighborhood that may not be accessible otherwise. Ms. Propp said that she understands why the neighbors are concerned. However it has been zoned this way for a long time. Is there a comparable complex in the city that the neighbors could look at to help with some of their concerns. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 February 7, 2023 Mr. Lyons said that The Wit is comparable, but is probably denser. Ms. Propp said people are always concerned about water, they have been working hard with mitigation with the flow. The developers need to take the comments today and take them into consideration. They are not allowed to drain off into other people’s property and is drained through appropriate outlets. Even though the coffee shop is the only legitimate item they are voting on. She asked if there are any hours for the coffee shop and how many people it could serve. Mr. Lyons said that they don’t have an end user for the coffee shop yet since they are still at the conceptual level of planning. The vision is that it would be something open to the public with small breakfast items. Ms. Davey said that the housing study was done; this looks like it would fill a lot of openings for housing that is needed in Oshkosh since there is a severe housing shortage. It is a great idea for the complex and the coffee shop adds a neighborhood and community touch. It is also essential that a TIA is done. The traffic at Traeger is miles long and doesn’t move at certain times of the day. Mr. Bowen said that he is generally not a fan of TIA because there are a lot of types of developments and ways you can gain those. In this instance, it would be necessary. 20th Avenue is problematic and if this is something that could trigger the TIA, it should be done. He said he doesn’t have a lot of concerns with the development otherwise maybe the buildings being close to 20th. Potentially adding more landscaping could help ease the neighbors’ concerns. The commercial element isn’t an issue considering the use across the street. There hasn’t been much evidence against the development based in land use theory, it has been just “we just don’t want it” and while we can empathize with that, there are zoning codes for a reason. Ms. Propp said she wishes there was more open space, and maybe when they come back they will show more green space with trails. Mr. Mitchell asked if now is the time to add an amendment for a TIA. Mr. Lyons said they should add it now. Mr. Perry said he lives in a single family residential neighborhood with a HOA. A similar situation occurred in the neighborhood was that one of the landowners bought the property. All it did was kick the problem down the road. The issue is if this is a proper land usage and the buildings being shown is a proper land use and conforms to the zoning codes. He will support it as this stage, but at the SIP stage supporting it without a TIA will be challenging. Ms. Davey makes a motion to add an amendment to the conditions to include requiring a Traffic Impact Analysis before the development plan moves forward. Seconded by Propp. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 14 February 7, 2023 Amendment motion carried 7-0. Motion carried 7-0. VI. PUBLIC HEARING: TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO TEMPORARY USE PERMITS Council Member Ford left at 5:22pm. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh Department of Community Development requests review and approval of amendments to the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Slusarek presented the item. The City of Oshkosh adopted a new zoning ordinance which went into effect on January 1, 2017. Since the adoption of the ordinance, staff has noticed code sections that should be modified following further examination and discussion with the public, City staff, and developers. Planning staff has been in discussion with other City departments regarding beer garden regulations. In an effort to improve beer garden regulations, revisions are being proposed to the municipal code and zoning ordinance. Section 30-87 (G) regarding Temporary Outdoor Assembly Amend land use description to specify that outdoor bands, live/amplified music, and beer gardens for 75-200 people are considered Temporary Outdoor Assembly and remove language about Special Event permits not being required. Amend Subsection (3) to provide required ending time when located adjacent to residential property. These amendments will coincide with proposed municipal code revisions and are intended to provide clarity on regulations and approvals needed for outdoor gatherings. 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 there is an event for 200 people and they want to go later than 11pm, is there an avenue for requesting that. Mr. Lyons said that if council can grant approval. The reason for this update is to match the noise ordinance. Previously the code said the event would end at daylight hours, but those are different times in January versus July. Mr. Perry asked if this is meant for much for permanent situations but temporary situations would still go through the same considerations but just be one time things. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 15 February 7, 2023 Mr. Lyons said that no, this is for temporary but the varying degrees of temporary. Some locations have permanent outdoor spaces for events. The TUPS for beer gardens and special events are intended for the events that are taking place and the method of approval is based on the intensity of the event. 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 Mitchell. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 6-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARING: TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh Department of Community Development requests the review and approval of amendments to the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Witte presented the item. Section 30-380 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the ability of the Common Council, on its own motion or on petition after first submitting the proposal to the City Plan Commission, to amend, supplement or change Zoning District boundaries or regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. The City of Oshkosh adopted a new zoning ordinance which went into effect on January 1, 2017. Since the adoption of the ordinance, staff has noticed a number of code sections that should be modified following further examination and discussion with the public and developers. As a response to the Housing Needs Assessment conducted in 2021, Planning Staff held workshops with both Common Council and Planning Commission on these proposed amendments to eliminate barriers to new affordable workforce housing. The Plan Commission workshop was held on August 2nd, 2022 and the Commissioners were in support of these amendments. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 16 February 7, 2023 Staff proposes amendments to the following Zoning Ordinance code sections: The following amendments allow for use of the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) in several zoning districts. ADUs are smaller, independent residential dwelling units located on the same lot as a stand-alone (i.e., detached) single-family home. ADUs increase the opportunities for affordable workforce housing in the City of Oshkosh. Working in the coordination of reducing the minimum lot width, increasing density, reducing parking requirements in multifamily development districts, and eliminating the minimum dwelling size to free up lots that historically haven’t been able to be developed for housing sites. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Propp said 400 sq. feet is small and asked if the ADUs can be located within a structure itself. Mr. Lyons said it has to meet building code for a separate unit. Ms. Propp asked if it’s on a lot with a structure, if it has to meet setbacks and accessory structure requirements. Mr. Lyons said that is correct. Ms. Propp asked if these ADUs would have to have their own driveway. Mr. Lyons said a separate driveway would not be required and the decision of where they park is up to the property owner. If a parking requirement was added, it would eliminate property owners in urban areas. Ms. Propp said that this could be another avenue for AirBnbs. Mr. Lyons said that it is a possibility. Ms. Davey asked if this has to be a detached unit. Mr. Lyons said that is can be either attached or detached and there are multiple ways to configure it. Ms. Davey asked what differentiates an addition versus an ADU. Mr. Lyons said an ADU is a fully separate independent swelling unit. Ms. Davey asked if the maximum size is 400 sq. feet. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 17 February 7, 2023 Mr. Lyons said there are minimum standard sizes in the building code for how small a dwelling unit can be to be livable building space. Ms. Davey asked if they knew what size that would be. Mr. Lyons said that a practical size is 200 sq. feet. It is very small, but ADUs are intended to be on the smaller side. 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 Bowen. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp said that this gets rid of the standard lot size, so a 60 foot lot could be divided into two lots. Mr. Lyons said that the reason for this is looking into the urban areas, there are a lot of non- conforming lots as small as 30 feet. Part of the update is to legalize these lots and allow some larger lots to split and have affordable homes on them. Ms. Propp said that parking is being reduced, but not at the commercial level. Mr. Lyons said that the parking reduction is for multi-family residential. Motion carried 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:42 pm. (Propp/Davey) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager