Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 March 7, 2023 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES March 7, 2023 PRESENT: Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp, Ed Bowen, Michael Ford, John Kiefer, Council Member Ford, Mamadou Coulibaly, Justin Mitchell, Margy Davey EXCUSED: DJ Nichols, Karl Loewenstein STAFF: Kelly Nieforth, Community Development Director; Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Jeff Nau, 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. Mr. Bowen arrived at 4:02 p.m. The minutes of February 21, 2023 were approved as presented. (Propp/Ford) I. GRANT ELECTRIC EASEMENT AT 805 WITZEL AVENUE (NEW PARKS DEPARTMENT OFFICES AND FACILITIES BUILDING) TO WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION Site Inspections Report: Ms. Scheuermann, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Kiefer reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh is requesting the granting of a public utility easement to Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPS) at the new Parks Department office and Facilities building, 805 Witzel Avenue, currently under construction. 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 proposed easement is located on the west side of the Idaho Street, 370 feet south of Witzel Avenue. The easement is proposed to be 12 feet wide by approximately 36 feet long. The easement will allow WPS to access the property, install underground electric lines, and maintain or replace its facilities as needed. The easement is subject to conditions and restrictions listed in the easement agreement. The City Attorney’s Office is coordinating with the Parks Department and WPS and has prepared a draft of the easement documents. The signed easement agreement will be recorded at the Winnebago County Register of Deeds upon approval by the Common Council which is scheduled for March 14, 2023. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 March 7, 2023 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 Propp. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. II. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT FROM LIGHT DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1164 N KOELLER STREET – 1815 OSHKOSH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen, Ms. Propp, Ms. Scheuermann, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Kiefer, Ms. Davey and Mr. Perry 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 items and reviewed the sites and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. 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. While creating the maps, recommended uses were determined on a broader scale rather than a parcel-by-parcel basis. Staff 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. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 March 7, 2023 In July of 2022, City staff received a proposal for a commercial development at the 1500 Block of Oshkosh Ave. The proposal required a comprehensive land use map amendment, which was brought before Plan Commission at a workshop as well as a neighborhood meeting, and subsequently denied by Plan Commission/Common Council. At the Plan Commission workshop and public hearing, Plan Commission recommended reviewing the entire Oshkosh Ave. corridor to determine if it is appropriate to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Map to allow for commercial uses in areas that are currently slated for future residential use. Plan Commission workshops were held on September 20, 2022 and January 3, 2023 to further discuss future land use of the area. Plan Commission voiced support for allowing future commercial use on the western south side of Oshkosh Avenue and North Koeller Street as this area includes deeper lots that provide for potential commercial development. Staff is supportive of the future land use plan amendment as land use patterns in the area have predominantly been for commercial redevelopment. Staff feels that Neighborhood Commercial is an appropriate land use recommendation for this area as it will allow for lower intensity commercial zoning and land uses, which should have less impact on neighboring residential uses to the south and east than higher intensity land use designations such as General Commercial and Interstate Commercial. 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 for an example of the type of development that fits under Neighborhood Commercial and an example of something that would be too intense. Mr. Lyons replied a zone change would be the determining factor for the land use. Districts that are compatible with Neighborhood Commercial are those with the lowest commercial intensity with offices and low-end commercial uses. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Russ Kuklinski, 1815 Oshkosh Avenue, stated his property line is the abutment where it ends. He asked what the buffering is for a private property owner if something is considered there. He’s assuming this is coming from rental properties looking to get these rezoned. Mr. Lyons replied this is only the Comprehensive Plan. If a commercial developer managed to convince his neighbors to sell their property, they would still have to go through a zone change. The zoning district determines what the buffering would be. If somebody wanted to put an office next to him, the zoning ordinance would determine the buffer based on the surrounding properties. It is going to depend on what the actual land use ends up being. Mr. Kuklinski stated this is essentially opening up the door to sell a piece of property and at that point, a residential owner doesn’t have a lot of say in whether or not an office building gets built. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 March 7, 2023 Mr. Lyons replied a zone change would still need to be approved. Both Plan Commission and Common Council would evaluate that proposal. Mr. Kuklinski replied he gets that, but the resident doesn’t have a lot of say in the matter. They’re opening this up for commercial zoning potential. Mr. Lyons replied the zone change would still have to go through the same public process, so they would still solicit feedback from the neighbors. It doesn’t necessarily mean something has to happen. Mr. Kuklinski replied they have a number of permanent residents in that area and a number of rental properties. He’s assuming the rentals could really care less what could happen. They’re probably the ones proposing the changes so that they can move their property down the road. He’s a 40-year resident and he doesn’t have any interest going commercial with this thing. Mr. Lyons replied Plan Commission and Common Council would evaluate a plan and if it makes sense to approve knowing his residence is right next door. Mr. Kuklinski asked if he had any say in the matter if someone just says they’ll put up a fence or trees with their plan. He doesn’t have a say because it’s already moving into this category of commercial. Mr. Lyons replied only the Comprehensive Plan will change if this is approved. Plan Commission will want to hear from him as the neighbor during the zone change and planning process. The plan needs to be evaluated with input from the neighbors. Ms. Davey asked if Mr. Lyons could explain what the Comprehensive Plan does. Mr. Lyons replied it’s a high-level 30,000-foot document that identifies the potential long-term land uses of the area. It does not determine what can go there and how it can go there. Those regulatory zoning documents are still in place and have to be adhered to. Mr. Kuklinski asked why it stops where it stops. He asked why it wouldn’t go all the way down to Westfield Street if they’re considering it long-term with everything that’s going on commercially across the road. Mr. Lyons replied when the neighborhood meeting took place, the board felt that these lots were deep enough so that someone could do a commercial development on the street side and provide sufficient buffering and landscaping to the adjacent residents. The lots are shallower to the north and they did not feel someone could appropriately buffer those lots. Mr. Kuklinski stated he’s not sure what meeting Mr. Lyons is referring to because he didn’t get a notice. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 March 7, 2023 Mr. Lyons replied letters were sent out prior to December 1st. The meeting was held at the First Weber building. Mr. Kuklinski replied he was there. It had something to do with the zoning by Punhoqua Street. Mr. Lyons replied this area was on those maps and it was discussed. Mr. Aaron Heise, 1845 Oshkosh Avenue, asked for confirmation that if this isn’t approved, it would be much more difficult to move forward with a development there. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively, adding someone would need to complete this process in addition to the zone change if this didn’t happen today. Mr. Heise asked if the city was aware of anyone interested in doing anything as of now. Mr. Lyons replied no. Mr. Heise asked if they have an estimate of the time involved for a commercial development. Mr. Lyons replied it depends on the commercial market, what’s happening in the area, and whether or not developers can acquire enough property to get a piece large enough for redevelopment. In some areas it takes 2-3 years and there are other areas where nothing has happened for fifteen years. The property control still resides with owners and they would need to decide if they’re willing to sell their property. Kaitlin O’Connor, 1823 Oshkosh Avenue, stated there were houses across the street when she moved in ten years ago. She asked what the timeframe was between those houses and that commercial development happening. Mr. Lyons replied the north side is a little different. The plan always called for commercial development in that area even though there were residents there. There was development interest for a significant amount of time before anything took place. Ms. O’Connor asked for more examples of Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. Lyons replied its primarily office use like a small attorney’s office or accounting firm. They also look at scale of use. A 2,000 square foot office is very different from a 10,000 square foot office. They consider multiple factors with approval. 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. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 March 7, 2023 Seconded by Mitchell. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Council Member Ford stated that this is just long-term planning. When anything specific comes, there will be an opportunity to discuss that and neighbors will absolutely have an opportunity to weigh in on all of that. He invited Mr. Kuklinski back up to speak. Mr. Kuklinski asked if this is decreasing the value of his property should he decide to sell his home to another resident because it’s zoned differently. Mr. Lyons replied this does not change the zoning whatsoever. He could sell it to the next homeowner and nothing changes. Mr. Kuklinski replied in their mind it may. Mr. Lyons replied the zoning doesn’t change. They may buy it knowing there’s commercial opportunity there when they sell it to the next person. Nothing changes from a zoning standpoint and what he can do on his property today. Mr. Kuklinski replied he understands it’s not changing today, but it’s on a proposal to change. If someone looks into it, they’re going to see it’s up for a potential rezone to commercial. Mr. Lyons replied the title work and deed would not show anything outside of what it is today. The only place this shows is in the Comprehensive Land Use Map. It’s the only thing that would show potential commercial. The tax documents and land use records are going to be the same. Council Member Ford asked if that answered his question. He hears what Mr. Kuklinski is saying, They’re showing long-term plans for Neighborhood Commercial. There’s no way around that. Mr. Kuklinski asked for confirmation that nothing can change before it comes back before the residents. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. Motion carried 9-0. III. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN EDUCATIONAL TRAINING FACILITY AT 4233 WAUPUN ROAD Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 March 7, 2023 The petitioner requests General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan approval for construction of an Educational Training Facility for Construction Management students at Fox Valley Technical College (FVTC), located at 4233 Waupun Road. Mr. Nielsen 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 proposing to develop the 2.2-acre subject area with a 5,000 sq. ft. storage building, a 32’ x 32’ mock building, a movable storage container, a movable job trailer, dumpster and wash out station, a parking lot and an appropriate storm water management pond. The site will be used for the Construction Management Technology (CMT) program at FVTC by providing an Outdoor Construction Lab (OCL) for students of the program. According to the applicant, the OCL will provide a replication that aspiring tradesman would typically find on a construction site. This site will serve the students as part of their classroom with the mock building able to be constructed and deconstructed each semester. The applicant states that The FVTC CMT program will instruct students at the replicated construction site where the mock building will serve for training to erect a steel frame, install a roof deck, and train on installing four different exterior wall assemblies (precast panel, light gauge framing with metal panel, masonry, and cast-in-place concrete). The students will also construct interior partitions, and frame and hang doors and windows (interior and enclosure). The students will then disassemble the building and store materials for reuse for the next semester of students who will repeat the process. The intent is to reuse as much material as possible, and for as long as possible. The storage building will serve as the material storage location, as well as 800 sq. ft. devoted to an office, bathrooms, student PPE storage lockers, and a mechanical room. Of the 2.2 acre project area, 15,100 sq. ft. is planned to remain native soils until a future phase out is considered appropriate. The rest of the site, besides the parking lot and storm water pond, will have a dense gravel surface (approximately 38,000 sq. ft.) which is suitable for construction related activities. A base standard modification (BSM) is required for the proposed gravel area. The parking lot will be constructed to City of Oshkosh parking lot standards listed in the zoning code. Staff is supportive of a BSM to allow for a gravel surface throughout the OLC as it is an appropriate surface due to the nature of the proposed educational use of the site. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Mitchell asked if this counters any existing components of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lyons replied it’s achieving a lot of the plan’s goals, especially in terms of landscaping. There is a ton of mature vegetation on this site and FVTC was adamant that they wanted to keep as much as possible while still meeting the needs of their program. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 March 7, 2023 Mr. Nielsen replied FVTC worked with a consultant to complete a full study of the site. They literally went through every single tree and provided a very detailed report with the application. Mr. Mitchell asked why sidewalks are not required. Mr. Lyons replied sidewalks aren’t going to connect to anything. It’s such a small footprint along that section and given the relatively remote nature of it, it wouldn’t service a lot of additional area. They own a lot of that additional property and they wouldn’t be required to put it in there. 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 Kiefer. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Mitchell stated there doesn’t appear to be an avenue for individuals lacking access to a vehicle to make their way out to this facility. FVTC may serve a population more likely to use alternative means of transportation. He knows that’s not going to change this development or the fact that FVTC owns the land. He thinks it calls into question a serious consideration that there are things happening out here and Plan Commission isn’t doing their part to ensure safe access of pedestrians to that site. One of the land use components of the Comprehensive Plan calls to discourage leapfrog development patterns which create undeveloped land areas between developed areas. That’s precisely what this is. There are transportation objectives to provide facilities for pedestrian bicycle circulation to all related facilities. He searched for the frontage road on the other side and instantly the street view has a guy walking on the street right in front of the facility. The fundamental concept of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is to offer viable transportation options to meet the needs of the community. The Sustainability Plan also encourages safe walking and bicycle paths with access to bus routes. He asked if this was serviced by city transit. Mr. Lyons replied he would have to look. This is the only property in the area that’s in the city. The remainder are in the county which creates these challenging issues. Mr. Mitchell replied he just wanted to bring those concerns forward because they have a lot of land and likely expansion that they’re looking to do. Given that it’s a public partner of the city, he doesn’t think it’s appropriate to not address those concerns. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 March 7, 2023 Motion carried 9-0. IV. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT THE WEST 3400 BLOCK OF LAKE BUTTE DES MORTS DRIVE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen, Ms. Davey, Ms. Propp and Mr. Perry all reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval for a Six-Phase General Development Plan (GDP) for a multi- family development. 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 proposing a mixed-use residential development consisting of five four-story, 82-unit apartment buildings, two four-story, 40-unit apartment buildings and eight two-story, 4-unit townhomes totaling 522 units. Plans also show a centrally located clubhouse, several off-street parking areas and other amenities for residents. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Ms. Scheuermann asked if the required trees in the terrace don’t count toward their overall plan. Mr. Nau replied the trees located in the terrace are on public property and it’s a separate requirement from the subdivision. Ms. Propp asked if all of the development will be contained on the farmland. Mr. Nau replied affirmatively, adding there has been a wetland delineation which pretty much mirrors the farmed area. Everything that hasn’t been farmed is deemed wetland, so they won’t be allowed to develop any of that. Ms. Propp asked if there are sewer and water lines already. Mr. Lyons replied they are being extended now. Ms. Propp asked where the green space will be located. Mr. Lyons replied there are planned recreational space areas. Mr. Mitchell asked if they would be able to develop on the wetlands in the future. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 March 7, 2023 Mr. Lyons replied the proposed development plan does not include wetlands, so they would need to return for approval if they wanted to include wetlands. The ability and financial resources to develop in those areas is also very limited. Mr. Mitchell asked if they know the number of units that will serve families that are at 30%-80% county median income and how many of the units are accessible. Mr. Lyons replied they can provide that information with the SIP process. Mr. Mitchell asked if they could ever include modifications requiring accessible units or units for lower income families. Mr. Lyons replied the unit design and who lives in the units is not land use related. Base standard modifications and conditions need to be land use related. Mr. Kiefer asked if any traffic studies were completed. Mr. Lyons replied the traffic count for Lake Butte des Morts Drive is 410. Staff did not see the need for a traffic impact analysis based on the existing road network. Mr. Perry asked if it is premature to consider this before Public Works reviews the storm water management plan. It’s very wet out there, especially the northern portion where there’s standing water right now. There are impervious surfaces and also rooftops discharging water. Frequently in the spring and sometimes in the summer there’s standing water on the north end of the farm field that’s just plowed over because crops just can’t grow. That is a huge concern for him. Even though the wetland is delineated, there is signification seasonal expansion to the wetland. Mr. Lyons replied the purpose of the GDP is to determine if the land use makes sense out there. The SIP is the area to address storm water. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Jake Buswell, Red Earth LLC, thanked city staff for their efforts over the last two years. He believes this is a perfect use for this farm field, which currently has an old farmhouse falling over on it. The site is isolated and there aren’t neighbors on top of it. There are 72 acres overall, but only 20 of them are buildable. There’s a buffer of many acres between the site and other property owners. They aren’t building on the wetlands and that would not be permitted by the DNR. There will be a large pond to collect a large portion of the storm water. The northern part of the site is a little low, but they’ll be able to use the surrounding soils to build up the site so that it flows properly. For the timeline, the first phase is one and half to two years out depending on when they start. It’s a long project and each phase is a multi-year project. It will take eight to ten years to complete all the phases. As far as ADA units, he doesn’t have any specifics, but they do accommodate ADA needs and customize units for tenants with those needs. They chose this area due to the shortfall of __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 March 7, 2023 housing available for households making $75,000 and above. The city is lacking thousands of units for those households currently. James Rescheske, 3051 Bellaire Lane, Town of Oshkosh, stated he was one of the individuals who received the letter last week Monday. It was shocking to all of them. Within a half a mile to the southwest, there are 90 single-family units and within a half a mile to the northwest, there are about 100 single-family units. That’s almost 200 single-family units that can see this place. The bright parking lot lights that were mentioned will be in the direct line of sight of at least half of the single-family units. The last thing he wants to see are bright lights in his back yard. Everyone facing the development is going to see bright lights all the time from those parking lots. They mentioned an environmental impact statement from the DNR has not been done and he doesn’t know why that is because it should be. It is surrounded by very sensitive wetlands and there are thousands of migrating waterfowl every spring and every fall. This will disrupt all of that. He also doesn’t know why the DOT didn’t provide a traffic impact assessment yet. He thinks that would be warranted because it’s a high impact and density development that will change the whole character of Lake Butte des Morts Drive. According to the US Census Bureau, the average household has 1.88 vehicles per family unit which equates to 981 vehicles for the 866 proposed stalls. He asked where everyone else is going to park because that doesn’t include visitors. There will be 1,247 more people saturating this area and 2,610 more vehicles on Lake Butte des Morts Drive on any given day. Two parts of the building included in the second phase are in the 100-year floodplain and as a residential owner, he could not change the existing grade to build a house. This is a 522-unit high-density development on 72 acres of land within a half a mile of approximately 200 single-family units. He can’t see how this fits in. He has more things he wants to discuss with the next agenda item. He knows he is speaking for most of the residents around him and on the other side to the northwest. They’re not happy about this because it’s going to dramatically change to the dynamic of a nice, peaceful lakeshore community. Every time someone is out there fishing or waterskiing, they’re going to look over toward the bridge crossing on the trail and all they’re going to see is this big, and frankly ugly, development. They can make the buildings as pretty as they want, but they’re still four-story high density capacity buildings. No one here is in favor of that and they’ll object every step of the way. Jodene Giacomini, 3061 Bellaire Lane, Town of Oshkosh, stated she has some questions as she’s unfamiliar with this. She’s also new to the community and asked that they keep that in mind. With the location that it’s in and where it sits right now, the western and northern views from the property are highly impacted by this. The decision to purchase the property would have been different had she known about this. She’s one person and not everyone has that opinion. She is only asking these questions for her as a new resident. She asked for confirmation that 20 of the total 72.5 total acres are buildable. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. Ms. Giacomini asked how long ago the area was zoned for mixed-use development as opposed to the lakefront residential housing that was mentioned. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 March 7, 2023 Mr. Lyons replied it has been zoned for commercial development since at least 2008, but he would have to go back and check before then. Ms. Giacomini asked how long it has been zoned mixed-use. Mr. Lyons replied the mixed-use designation resulted from a zoning code update in 2017. Ms. Giacomini stated some of the concern is related to the development phases and a transportation plan for those areas. She belongs to a church that located in the same area. The number of cars coming off of Hwy 45 just on a Sunday morning to pass to the west to get into the church parking lot is already to the point of needing a roundabout or something similar. It’s already going on without any additional development. She’s also concerned about the dumpster enclosure locations. She understands wanting those to be as close to the wetlands as possible, but that also means they’re close to the residential properties as well. Mr. Nau replied the dumpster enclosures are going to be in the underground parking area so there won’t be any outdoor dumpster enclosures. Ms. Giacomini asked if the same people are going to get the same notices via US mail for the SIPs and if all of the SIPs have been developed for each phase. Mr. Lyons replied if the GDP is approved, notices will be sent out for each phase of SIP approval and they will need to go through this process again. The SIP for Phase I is the next agenda item. Mr. Nau explained that Phase 1 includes the two apartment buildings and the clubhouse. Everything else is going to need to come back for approval. Ms. Giacomini asked which department monitors the lighting part of this. Mr. Lyons replied multiple departments including Planning, Public Works, and Parks are all involved with reviewing SIP requests. If the SIP is approved, it still needs to go through final site plan review which is an internal review where each department ensures the final plans meet various ordinances and codes. Ms. Giacomini stated she hopes this isn’t misconstrued, but based on the information that was given by one of the neighbors earlier, they’re talking roughly 200 residences in that area. She’s not discounting the price that was paid for their land she knows the properties require a certain amount of financial responsibility. So, are they particular about the location of their properties? Yes, she thinks that’s the truth. She asked how many units are going to be leased, how many are going to be purchased, and what they are being called. Mr. Lyons replied they can have the developer help answer that. Ms. Giacomini stated that would be an important question because she thinks that with commitment comes responsibility. That’s not to say that some people don’t find it more beneficial __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 March 7, 2023 to rent, but sometimes they don’t have as much skin in the game in terms of keeping the place nice. She thinks a lot of the neighbors might have the same concern. She asked about the buffers between this and the residential areas to the south and the north. Mr. Lyons replied in staff’s opinion, a large portion of the distance is in the natural areas that separating the two. This isn’t a multi-family development immediately adjacent to a single-family development. Ms. Giacomini asked how many feet there are between the wetlands and where the development begins. Mr. Nau replied approximately 500 feet. Ms. Giacomini asked if that would be from the northern most property. Mr. Nau replied it’s from the northern side of the Wiouwash Trail to the end of the wetlands. Ms. Giacomini asked about the lots across the street in the southern area. Mr. Lyons replied it’s around 60-70 feet because that’s the distance of the trail. Ms. Giacomini asked if the trail was in between there. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. Ms. Giacomini asked how much land that encompasses. Mr. Lyons replied it’s about 60 feet wide. Ms. Giacomini asked if it was owned by the public. Mr. Lyons replied it is owned by the county. Ms. Giacomini asked if that could not be disturbed in any way. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. Gary Bucholtz, 2811 Sunset Point Lane, Town of Oshkosh, stated he wanted to comment on Lake Butte des Morts Drive traffic. If you want to get into Oshkosh from that roundabout between 7:30 and 9:00 or 3:30 and 5:00, if you’re not coming down from Hwy 45 or coming out from the city, you sit at that roundabout for a while because there’s hundreds of UW-Oshkosh students coming through there in the mornings and evenings. Hundreds of cars are also coming from the prison and the Sherriff’s Office. Someone said the traffic is 409 vehicles. That might be true if you could space the cars, but you can’t. If you add 1,000 cars coming out of there morning and afternoon and if you’re coming off of Lake Butte de Morts Drive, you’re going to have to pack a sandwich __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 14 March 7, 2023 because you won’t be home in time for supper. Adding 1,000 cars to that seems ludicrous to him. There’s just not enough lanes and traffic patterns to get the people in and out of the city in the morning and the night. He thinks they need to consider the traffic patterns. Rob Vacheresse, 2807 Sunset Point Lane, Town of Oshkosh, stated this whole plan should have never seen the light of day. It may not affect anyone in the city, but it affects everybody in the town. Not one of them would say go ahead with this plan. If this was a single-family house, you wouldn’t have an objection from anyone. This is typical big city stuff. It doesn’t belong where they’re putting it. When he goes out on the end of his dock in the evening after dinner and he sits down and turns around and looks back into the bay, he’s going to see this project ruining a perfectly beautiful horizon. They’re in it for the money and he understands that, but where they’re doing it just isn’t a good place to be. It doesn’t belong there and if all of you examine your hearts, you’ll know it doesn’t belong there. Kristen Mueller, 3830 Shorebird Court, stated they just moved into their beautiful brand-new home that they just built two months ago. They saw this on the news last night and they feel very disheartened that there was not more information going into this. They looked into the zoning behind them and there was no talk about of any of this happening. This development has really taken the wind out of their sails and crushed their dreams. If you put four-story buildings there, it’s going to ruin everything. They’re going to have lights in their back yard and they won’t be able to see the nature that’s out there. She asked if they’re going to be large commercial parking lot lights or lampposts. She also asked if there was ever a consideration of single-family homes there because that’s what would be appropriate out there, not apartments. Oshkosh has so many apartments already that aren’t even filled. They have beautiful apartments down on the river that aren’t even filled and they’re going to build 500 more units. She asked what happens when the units don’t fill. Mr. Lyons replied the housing study commissioned by the city shows there is a need for the units. Obviously, the city or the developer can’t guarantee that every unit will fill, but the housing study indicates that the need exists. Ms. Mueller replied the study said there were going to be 3,200 new residents, but that doesn’t include all of the residents who are leaving. They just don’t see 1,000 new people moving in there. They put two new sump pumps into their house because already their neighbors on both sides have drainage issues and their sump pumps run all of the time. She asked how having underground parking will affect their house because they were not able to build up. They were told they couldn’t build up any higher, but yet this development can. Mr. Lyons replied they will have to go through the engineering and civil design to see if they can do it, but there are ways to accommodate that. The city has storm water requirements of everyone. In a commercial development, they cannot discharge their water across the bay over to you. It has to be contained on site and then discharged appropriately per code. Ms. Mueller asked if there has ever been consideration for single family homes there because that would be effective there. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 15 March 7, 2023 Mr. Lyons replied this lot has not been zoned for single-family. There is a long-range plan and single-family zoning for the area north, but not for this lot. Ms. Mueller asked if it could be if this doesn’t pass tonight. Mr. Lyons replied if a single-family developer was interested in purchasing it and developing it, they would need to evaluate that. Ms. Mueller stated she agrees with the traffic flow. Adding 800 new spots is going to be 800 new cars in a very small area. A traffic study will have to be done because you can’t have 800 cars in that small area. She asked what the rent price is. Mr. Lyons replied the developer can answer that. Ms. Mueller asked how far the proposed development will be from Shorebird Court and if it will be directly in their backyard. Mr. Lyons replied there’s about 1,500 feet between the developable area and Shorebird Court. Ms. Mueller asked for confirmation that it won’t be behind Shorebird Court and it doesn’t go up to the North Preserve in any of the phases. Mr. Nau replied affirmatively. Ms. Mueller asked about the zoning to the north behind Shorebird Court. Mr. Lyons replied it’s single-family residential. James Stevenson, 3825 Shorebird Court, stated they’re proposing 26 units per acre which seems kind of high-density to him. He searched for available apartments in close proximity to the Oshkosh Correctional Institution and he came across Logan Drive. Logan Drive has seen a crime rate to the extent that the Oshkosh Police Department established a satellite office within the building to prevent the crime occurring there. The potential for the same type of inhabitants and crime level exists with a density of 26 units per acre. That’s one of the concerns with the number of units. He’s not against the development of the property. It’s a beautiful piece of property. The northwest end is wet all of the time, but so is the southwest end. That’s a concern and it’s probably going to need a lot of fill in that area. Dominic Collar, 2889 Sunset Point Lane, Town of Oshkosh, stated he started an economic development company 30 years ago. He currently works with the top 25 builders and developers in the state of Wisconsin. He has a staff that drives to all 368 municipal offices state of Wisconsin every two weeks to gather single-family and multi-family data. He completed a study for the Southeast Wisconsin Planning Commission. Madison won’t meet their needs for residential construction at their current rate for the next ten years. He wasn’t planning on speaking, but one of __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 16 March 7, 2023 his biggest concerns is that they’re taking statistics from a 2021 housing study. You cannot ignore the fact that housing starts and multi-family starts in the last 90 days, and trending from the last 12 months, have dropped 60%-80%. He can share actual statistics that he receives from the City of Oshkosh every two weeks. He was looking at the statistics and this project just doesn’t make sense. There’s a brand-new subdivision off Hwy 45 that has approximately 25 new houses. A third of them have been for sale for more than 90 days and they’re dropping in price every month. The target for this is 1,300-1,500 square feet and they’re not selling. They’re dropping in price. Current economic conditions do not support this type of development. He doesn’t know if people realize there’s around 25-30 people who like to duck hunt out there almost every week. The land is definitely wet on both the north and south side. The first thing he said when he saw plan map is how are you going to build on this other than the 20 acres that are up by the road. He would like them to consider the current economic conditions before they make a decision. He has seen their developments in other markets and they build beautiful apartments, but not in areas like this. They’re in condensed areas that this type of project fits in. He’s 63 years old and he’s lived out there since he was a kid. It’ll change the area so dramatically and it’s not far enough away from either residential area to say it won’t have any effect. FedEx and UPS have terminals right on the other side of the roundabout. When he leaves in the morning, he’ll sometimes sit at that roundabout for ten minutes. It is totally irresponsible to move forward with this without a traffic study, an environmental study, and a real look at current housing needs in the city. Tom Castle, 2247 Ryf Road, stated he owns the property to the north and he also finds it necessary to do a traffic consideration. Castle Pierce is also his business and he thinks to go forward without understanding the traffic implications from a safety standpoint is irresponsible. He can’t tell you if he’s in favor or not. He’s not sure if this helps or hurts him financially. He knows it’s residential, but he does think there is a safety issue at that roundabout. He likes the idea of it being zoned single-family residential. Before voting, he thinks this group needs to understand the traffic pattern if they’re going to add 1,000 cars through five phases. He’s got regular semis driving from Ryf Road down to that roundabout probably seven to fifteen times per day. Bill Demler, 6625 Plummers Point Road, Town of Oshkosh, stated he’s a Town Board Supervisor. He asked if there is any chance this will become low-income housing when they don’t rent all of the apartments. Mr. Lyons replied this is not a tax-credit project and they need to go through that process prior to construction. Mr. Demler replied another issue the town has is there’s no access to Lake Butte des Morts on the east end. It’s not a boat landing, it’s just a road on the east end that goes to the lake. They have a lot of issues with people parking on their streets. He asked if there was going to be any public access through this property to get to the Wiouwash Trail because they don’t need anymore people thinking they can get on the ice from there. Their Plan Commission is set to convene on March 16th to address this issue. He asked for this to be tabled until they hear back from them. He can tell you firsthand the city has had no problem holding up a project they’ve been trying to do for four years, so he thinks they can wait a couple weeks to hear back from them. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 17 March 7, 2023 Ms. Propp asked where the road Mr. Demler mentioned is located. Mr. Demler replied its Edgewood Lane. They had the same issue on Westwind Road, but that was private property. It’s been shut down, but it’s funneling more traffic to Edgewood Lane. They’re working with the Parks Department on that. Mr. Bowen asked if their meeting on March 16th is to address the Edgewood Lane access. Mr. Demler replied it’s for this project. He just got notice of this a week ago Monday. They had no idea this was going on and they didn’t have time to discuss it with anyone. Mr. Bowen asked if this is on their agenda as a friendly advisory to the city. Mr. Demler replied affirmatively. Judith Berger, 3047 Bellaire Lane, Town of Oshkosh, stated not maintaining this as a low-density residential area is problematic for a lot of the reasons that have already been mentioned. If they’re targeting a $75,000 household income, that’s probably going to mean closer to two vehicles per unit so that needs to be taken into consideration. There’s no public transportation out there, there’s no sidewalk, and it’s not in walking distance so they’re going to be using vehicles. The height is a problem. Her family uses the trail and enjoy the wildlife. That will all change with the lighting and the height of the infrastructure. She would encourage everyone to pay attention to adequate water and sewer infrastructure. She would recommend having it outsourced and evaluated by another committee because she’s seen other projects fail nearby. Specifically, the 2600 Hearthstone and Vinland area and the runoff that comes from that farmland. She doesn’t feel like variances were followed. The wetlands being impacted is a concern for most people. Affordable housing is a community issue along with not knowing what would happen if those units don’t fill. School enrollment is another issue that hasn’t been addressed. Jim Erdman, 2492 Hickory Lane, Town of Oshkosh, stated he chairs the Town of Oshkosh Board. This was given to them on short notice and he’s just asking that this be tabled until their Plan Commission can make a recommendation. These folks here live in the Town of Oshkosh. This was annexed to the city several years ago. Had that not happened, this proposal would not be on the table and it wouldn’t have seen the light of day. It’s a political thing here because these folks have no legal standing on this decision and their government has no legal standing or even a seat at the table. They’re only here to comment or advise. Their Plan Commission doesn’t have weekly or monthly meetings and they won’t able to meet until after Council is set to approve Phase I. The property was for sale for a long time and now someone has come in with an idea. Everybody who lives there knows progress is never progress for the people who live there. This is a multi-story development that doesn’t fit into the character of the surrounding area and waterfront homes that people have put their lives into for generations. They have their own sanitary district. The reason the city got out there in the first place is because cemetery districts were formed so they could reach out beyond city borders. It’s only good governing that you don’t blow everyone off because you can and because they’re not from the city. Their Plan Commission will hear these people out and make a recommendation on what type of development should occur there. It’s not single- __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 18 March 7, 2023 family homes on one acre lots. There’s sewer and water being put in there now. This is an awfully out of place development for what is currently in the area. He thinks they need to revisit what they’re going to do here. He wishes the developers would come to their meeting to answer questions. The meetings are structured so that they present their project and people there can ask questions in a civil way. Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Chris Rabe, ISG Inc., stated he is the civil engineer for the project. They are planning for sidewalk on the city street they’re putting in. Currently there isn’t any sidewalk on Lake Butte des Morts Drive, but they do have that in their plan for future accommodations. Storm water was mentioned multiple times as a big concern. Mr. Buswell mentioned there is a large pond going in as part of Phase I to manage the storm water. There are four other ponds along the perimeter going in with future phases. They’re in the process of having that reviewed by Public Works and the DNR. They’re making sure they’re capturing everything from their site and reducing the flow of the water to the wetlands to match what’s happening with existing conditions right now as well as cleaning the water before it enters the wetlands. The wetlands are the low area of the site, so they will be changing the topography of the existing field. The buildings would be the high spot and then the road throughout the center will be the overflow path to get to the ponds, which eventually make it to the wetlands. For the underground parking, they did several soil borings at the site which went down 40 feet and did not encounter ground water. The soils that are there are a thick clay, so water from the lake is not making it into their site. They’ve done research to make sure what they’re proposing is going to stay out of that groundwater. They’ve done a wetland delineation approved by the DNR, so they aren’t proposing any impacts to the wetland around the perimeter of the site. They have 867 parking stalls proposed for the site are based on parking ratios from existing developments with similar clienteles. They’re making sure they have enough parking spaces based on the existing data they have to work off of. Trash enclosures are going to be within the underground parking, so nothing will be visible from the site. The parking lots shown are going to have some lighting for safety. They’re not overdoing it like something you would see at Walmart. The lighting is for the safety of the residents so they can see and get into the buildings safely. They meet the city standards for lighting. In future phases, they’re looking at providing a kayak launch from the development so they’re not impacting anyone else’s property trying to get out to the lake. They’re also looking at a connection to the trail from this development so they’re not going through other people’s property trying to get to that. Sanitary and water is being put in by the city currently. The sizes being put in are adequate for everything they’re proposing as part of this development. Mr. Perry asked if they’ve talked with the Wiouwash Trail people about getting access because it is very difficult to get access. It has taken years for other places to get permission. Mr. Buswell replied trail access will likely be in phase three or four, so it’s out many years out. The individual he talked with at the county encouraged the trail access and thought it was a great location for the development. He did not express any issues with it. The DNR has a special way of __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 19 March 7, 2023 creating access without impeding the wetlands and the individual they talked with was okay with how their design for that access. Mr. Perry replied they would have to bridge it. Mr. Buswell replied exactly. He thinks there might be some people confused about the location of this site. There’s 500 plus feet of wetland between their property and the trail, so it would be an extensive bridge or deck material that would come across. It would be fiberglass columns that go into the wetlands. There’s no aggregate port or anything like that because the DNR’s very strict on that. Mr. Coulibaly asked if they would still move forward with Phase I of the project if they knew that future phases of the project may not be approved. Mr. Buswell replied affirmatively. The beauty of phased developments is that they won’t move forward if they can’t fill their first 80 units. It’s a long-term project and they’re very confident in the product they provide communities. He thinks the city did their due diligence with them as landowners. Mr. Mitchell asked if someone can talk about lighting overflow and what the city requires not to happen at a site like that. Mr. Lyons replied there are a couple of minimum and maximum requirements when it comes to lighting. City code requires that you not have more than .5-foot candlelight of light at your property line and this development is going to be at 0 feet. Additionally, the code has a minimum requirement that parking areas be lit to a minimum of .4 feet. For this development, they’re going to be 0-foot candlelight by the time they meet the property line. Parking lights cannot be more than 23-feet in height. It’s a 3-foot base with a 20-foot pole. They must be full shielded lights, meaning the fixture must be pointed directly straight down with shielding around and there cannot be visible view of the element. Mr. Mitchell asked if they could talk a little bit about the decision to go to four-story. Mr. Buswell stated they originally had the first phase with three stories, but it’s very expensive to build these apartments, especially with underground parking and elevators. With three levels, you’re dividing concrete costs and everything between the units. It wouldn’t be feasible with the number of units with three stories. Ms. Propp asked if there’s a mix of one-bedroom and two-bedroom. Mr. Buswell replied they’re planning on studios and one, two, and three-bedroom units. Mr. Nau replied for Phase I, there’s going to be four three-bedrooms, 12 one-bedrooms, and 24 two-bedrooms per building. This helps with the traffic issues as well because there are one- bedrooms. They’re around 1.6 vehicles per unit. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 20 March 7, 2023 Ms. Davey asked if they have any concept of the rental costs yet. Mr. Buswell replied it’s going to vary from $700-$800 to $2,000-$3,000. Ms. Davey replied she could hear him better if other people were being quiet. An audience member asked if he could repeat that because they’re tying to figure out what kind of crowd they’re focusing on. Mr. Buswell repeated the ranges and added that they take care of their properties and secure their properties. This is on the higher-end, it is not low to moderate income. A lot of their tenants are people who have sold their home and come to them as their step between going to an assisted living facility. Motion by Mitchell 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. Ms. Scheuermann asked about timing. There’s been a reoccurring theme about notification and she’s curious about other developments with neighborhood meetings and notices. Mr. Lyons replied part of the delay is distance and mail service. Mail being sent to Milwaukee before it comes back to be delivered is causing delays. If Plan Commission and Council want to stay on the schedule of two meetings per month, there is going to be that lengthy delivery time for the notices. Ms. Scheuermann asked about the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Lyons replied they didn’t have a neighborhood meeting on this one. Staff looked at the remoteness of the site and they chose not to have one. If Plan Commission feels they should have, that one is on him. He looked at the site and did not think it required a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Bowen asked about the intersection of Ryf Road and Butte des Morts Drive. The DOT traffic count there is 400, but the problem with that is the counts are averaged across the day. He asked who has jurisdiction over that intersection. Mr. Gierach replied he believes it is a DOT or county level responsibility, but he hasn’t looked into it. Mr. Perry replied the DOT turns around at the entrance to Castle Pierce when they do road maintenance, so it would appear the DOT has jurisdiction. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 21 March 7, 2023 Mr. Bowen asked if they were to request a TIA as a condition of approval here, where would the teeth be in doing something like that to try and improve that intersection. Mr. Lyons said if Plan Commission wanted to include a requirement for a TIA he would suggest when making that recommendation to include any specific interchanges that they would want to be evaluated like Algoma and Lake Butte Des Morts. Mr. Gierach said he believes those are the city’s areas of jurisdiction. He said the two-lane roundabout can handle anywhere from 25,000 to 45,000 vehicles per day. He’s not concerned with the roundabouts functionality since the DOT looks at long term so it has about a 2040 life span. Mr. Bowen asked if the bottleneck leading into the roundabout could be an issue and wants to know if that’s a part of Butte Des Morts Drive. Mr. Gierach said that he believes that is the city’s jurisdiction. Ms. Propp said she’s bothered by the density; the height and she doesn’t like all the buildings together. She would like the developer to build elsewhere. She is not catering to the neighbors but is how she is feeling. She is inclined to not support it. Council Member Ford said that he has no problem with the project itself. The fear of low-income is never going to move him, nor is density. They have to cognizant that this project borders the town. He does hope that the city will have a presence at the town meeting. This is an intergovernmental relations problem and not so much a land use problem. We want to be good neighbors and it will be essential to do so to make sure we are on the same page with the town. Mr. Coulibaly asked if this vote was on the entire project. Mr. Lyons said this is the GDP for the general concept level of the plan for the whole site. Mr. Coulibaly said that he feels bad that the neighbors were taken by surprise so whatever the procedure is, that’s something that needs to be looked at before he votes to approve. Mr. Mitchell asked if the remaining phases will come back. Mr. Lyons said that is correct. Mr. Mitchell asked if something were to go wrong with phase 1, there’s no obligation to approve phase 2-6. Mr. Lyons said that is correct and they could be evaluate those merits of them at the time. Mr. Bowen said initially he was going to suggest a TIA as a condition of approval. He now thinks the jurisdictional standoff that’s going to happen by trying to do anything there, the needle won’t be moved on what the problem is. This particular project doesn’t exacerbate the problem to the __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 22 March 7, 2023 point where he can vote against it, but he does think it would be a great idea for Mr. Gierach to look at what the solution could be. It is a part of the city and it does need to be maintained. It’s not for us to put it on the project to be responsible for it. There are certainly valid reasons to have issues with the project. The most compelling against were the housing stats and the multi-family absorption of it. The numbers were fantastic but unfortunately that is one piece that as a land use regulatory body doesn’t deal with. It’s not on Plan Commission to say whether or not this project I going to be successful or not. It’s not something we can use, even though as a citizen of Oshkosh, he is concerned about. Because of the phased development, he is more comfortable with what he is seeing before them. Mr. Perry said his concerns lie in the environmental factor in the project. He’s not opposed to low- income or high density, but there is concern about the storm water. He does not support this item. Motion carried 6-3 (Nay Coulibaly, Propp, & Perry). V. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPROVAL FOR PHASE 1 OF A MULTI- FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT THE WEST 3400 BLOCK OF LAKE BUTTE DES MORTS DRIVE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen, Ms. Davey, Ms. Propp, and Mr. Perry all reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) approval for Phase 1 of the Lake Butte des Morts multi-family development. Mr. Nau presented the items and reviewed the sites and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. Phase 1 will consist of two 40-unit apartments and clubhouse. A new lot for Phase 1 will be created with parts of four of the five existing lots via Certified Survey Map (CSM). Lot 1 is irregular-shaped lot, sized at 4.38 acres and meets all dimensional requirements for lot creation in the NMU District. The CSM also has 60-foot-wide sright-of-way dedications on the north and south sides of Lot 1, connecting to Lake Butte des MortsS Drive. These dedications will be a future, action for Plan Commission and Common Council. Due to the necessity of this CSM for Phase 1, Staff is recommending a condition that this CSM be approved and recorded at the Winnebago County Register of Deeds prior to building permit issuance. A future subdivision plat creating additional lots for additional phases will dedicate additional right-of-way, creating a looped roadway to the west. Apartment buildings over 4 units are not permitted in the NMU District so a Base Standard Modification (BSM) was recommended in the General Development Plan to allow the proposed use. The site plan meets density and impervious surface requirements for the NMU District. The plan shows a mix of surface and underground parking. The number of stalls provided exceeds the __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 23 March 7, 2023 minimum requirement of one stall per unit plus 1 guest stall for every four units. Missing from the site plan are required bicycle parking areas. A minimum of four bicycle spaces are required for multifamily developments plus for parking lots over 40 stalls, the number of bicycle spaces required is equal to 5% of the automobile parking spaces. This will be addressed during the site plan review process. The site design began development under the prior code requirement of 2 parking stall per unit plus 1 guest parking stall per 3 units for a total of 191 parking stalls. As a result of the code update there may be an opportunity for the developer to remove some of the provided stalls. The apartment buildings and clubhouse meet all setback requirements. The parking lots on the north and south sides of the developments are within the front yard setbacks of the new streets with setbacks of 15-feet and 20-feet respectively. Staff does not have a concern with the proposed BSM as although the development is along a newly dedicated public street, the street is functioning similarly to the private roadway network for the proposed development. The applicant has provided additional landscaping to mitigate the requested BSM. Several accessory paved areas (pool deck, walkways, parking lots and driveways are located within required rear and side yard setbacks, many with 0-foot setbacks. Staff is supportive of BSMs as these structures are interconnected with future structures to be constructed in later phases. The BSM can be offset with additional landscaping point requirements. The site plan does not show locations of dumpster enclosures as the enclosures are to be located within the underground parking areas. This will visually enhance the overall site and eliminate the chance of odors emanating from the enclosures. Based on 72 bedrooms per building, 3,800 square feet of outdoor recreation space is required for its residents. The site plan shows over 20,000 square feet of recreation space with a pool area, basketball/pickle ball court, dog park and green area for sport activities. Although this does not count towards its outdoor recreation space requirements, the site is adjacent to the Wiouwash Recreational Trail. Future phases will construct a trail connecting to the Wiouwash for its residents. 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 the site is being built up to accommodate the underground parking. Mr. Lyons said his understanding is that the finished grade today is the start of the first floor. Mr. Bowen asked if full sized renderings can be included in further packets. Mr. Lyons said that it can be included as an attachment. Mr. Mitchell asked if sidewalks are being built in this development. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 24 March 7, 2023 Mr. Lyons said that sidewalks are included on the new circular road that’s going in. In a future phase there is a portion where sidewalks are only planned for one side instead of both due to where the retention pond is. Mr. Mitchell asked if there are sidewalks going in towards the frontage road. Mr. Lyons said that the Lake Butte Des Mort side is being graded for sidewalks to be added that would be a part of a future phase. Mr. Mitchell asked if Plan Commission could enact any sort of requirements when granting a BSM to ask for reduced rent units or handicap units. Mr. Lyons said that they cannot because this is still land use and they are looking at the multi- family nature and how it compares to the GDP. They have to be land use zoning related metrics. Ms. Propp asked for clarification on the green space. Mr. Lyons said the numbers that Mr. Nau went over in the staff report are just included with this phase. Ms. Propp said the pool deck is not green space. Mr. Lyons said there are two requirements, green space and recreational space. This is all contained within the first phase of development. Mr. Bowen asked if they will be required to maintain the land not being developed in this phase. Mr. Lyons said they will have to be code complaint with the other areas in terms of that nature. They can’t leave it as unfinished construction. There are two temporary cul-de-sac bulbs that would need to be constructed. That is all that is required for the first phase. Mr. Perry asked if the retention ponds have to have an outflow. Mr. Lyons said any of the storm water management will have to meet city code standards. Mr. Gierach said any of the phases of this development will have to meet code which means they will have to have an outfall to either to the right of way, easements or waters of the state. Mr. Perry asked if that means that when it’s filled, it’ll exit into the wetlands. Mr. Gierach said that is correct. Mr. Lyons said the state and the local code have the same requirements for any development into the city and it has to meet those metrics. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 25 March 7, 2023 Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Dominic Collar, 2889 Sunset Point Ln; Town of Oshkosh, said he has lived there his whole life. The Plan Commission is from the city of Oshkosh, and they are from the town. That property to them is the town of Oshkosh. A bomb was dropped on our neighborhood five days ago, without any notification from anyone here. Plan Commission had their minds made up before they came in here. How can you look at these people who have spent years and years in this area and maintaining the property, making sure I work with the town to make sure I’m following building procedures. He said he had to do a mitigation with the DNR before he built his house and had to go through 13 months of building meetings before he could get a permit for his house. He doesn’t understand how they can drop this on the neighborhood within everyone’s vision. He said he has nothing against this company, they are great, but as someone who’s on the economic side of residential housing, his company looks at things like the economics, the school district, and the manufacturing sector. This project is not supported by the Oshkosh community. Housing starts are down 60-80% and that’s just in the last 90 days. They have builders right now that used to build 750 houses a year and are now projected to build 100 houses. In 2007 when the economic crisis hit the state of Wisconsin, they lost 60% of the builders and they never came back. Since 2007 to last year, they have only come back to 67% of the houses built in 2007. They are at the precipice of an economic collapse in the housing industry. Mortgage applications are at the lowest rate ever. How can this be approved when it’s dropped in the town of Oshkosh just because you own the property. It’s not appropriate for this site. The Plan Commission had to come in here ahead of time thinking that if you made this decision based on a 2001 economic study, everyone of your decisions is flawed. This project will never come to fruition under the current economic conditions. The areas around Oshkosh do not support this. There is no need for this project and not in my backyard. James Rescheske, 3051 Bellaire Ln; Town of Oshkosh, says the 2040 comprehensive land use recommendation says that no building is to exceed 35 feet. Mr. Lyons said that is not correct, it is not part of the comp plan. Mr. Rescheske said it also says that no unit would be more than four families per unit. This was referenced in the staff report as well. Mr. Lyons asked if he was talking about the zoning ordinance. Mr. Rescheske said it was the 2040 comprehensive land use recommendation. Mr. Lyons said that the comp plan dictates long term land use, the zoning ordinance limits the height and things of that nature. More than 3 buildings on a site aren’t prohibited in the zoning ordinance. It requires this body and council to look at them and either through a conditional use permit or a planned development for large developments. Mr. Rescheske asked if more than 35 feet has to be approved as well as more than 4 units. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 26 March 7, 2023 Mr. Lyons said that is correct and that is what this body and council are for. Mr. Rescheske said that is what this body has done with the item prior. Mr. Lyons said that is correct. Mr. Rescheske said that on page 7, part G says the proposed architecture and character of the proposed planned development project is compatible with adjacent nearby developments. He wants to know what the heck Plan Commission and staff thinks the word compatible means. Putting a 522-unit development in the middle within a half mile of 200 single family units. How is this compatible. He doesn’t get it. Someone has a distorted sense of what the word compatible means. Part H says the proposed planned development project will positively contribute and not detract from the physical appearance and functional arrangement of development in the area. Again, how do you define “will positively contribute and not detract”. The developer does make beautiful buildings. This is not the right spot in the city of Oshkosh to build it. Part I says the proposed planned development project will produce significant benefits and so on. What does “produce significant benefits” mean. He can only think of one, tax money. It’s not helping the neighbors and it wouldn’t be a surprise if you start to see for sale signs go up, but they’re not going to be able to sell. This is not a positive, significant benefit. The residents don’t want 60-foot buildings, stay with the 35 feet max. Stick with 2040 comprehensive plan of 4 units per building. There is no problem with single family or dual family. This would be okay with the residents compared to this which is an eye sore. The three of Plan Commission that voted down, the residents thank them. The others, if we lived in the city, we would vote you out of office. We can’t believe the commission would vote for this and hopefully this will be voted down too. This is a disgusting turn of events. Stick with medium or low density. Kristen Mueller, 3830 Shorebird Ct, asked if the development is pet friendly and that would be a concern with a lot of barking dogs and pet waste. They moved out to the area because it is quiet. If they had known and not been blind sided by the news, they would never have moved there. She said she believes Plan Commission already had their minds made up. She asked if anyone has contacted the Oshkosh Area School District to check enrollment. Mr. Lyons said they include them in the review. Ms. Mueller asked what their response was. Mr. Lyons said they didn’t respond. Ms. Mueller said they are declining in numbers, wherever they get their numbers from. Mr. Lyons said all they can do is reach out to them but they can’t make them respond. Ms. Mueller said then they don’t have any accurate information to make this decision on. Which is irresponsible. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 27 March 7, 2023 Jodene Giacomini, 3061 Bellaire Ln; Town of Oshkosh, said she is pleading with the city about the storm water issue and the wetlands. She wishes they could have been there when her new home was being built dug out. If the storm water study shows that the outlet for that is going to go in that area, where is it going to go. It’s going to go in her basement that already has water in it and it’s not even erected yet. There are major issues with the overflow that’s going into the wetlands and the seep over into the 100 properties that are to the south, if you want to believe it or not. She knows it’s a hard job to fill, as a general public, people like to go with the majority. She’s asking Plan Commission to stand up and to vote this down since it’s already gotten past the first step and they haven’t even had time to investigate. Please do this, it’s what’s right. There are other areas that have to be better suited. James Erdman, 2492 Hickory Ln; Town of Oshkosh, said he is the Planning and Zoning Chair for the Town of Oshkosh. He said there are some issues regarding soil. If you went down 40 feet to do the piling work, he’s sure below and clay and gravel there would be problems. Across the highway there is the Fountain Tavern and there’s a reason why they called it that 100 years ago. To the east of the Fountain Tavern, it’s high ground with a sand vein underneath. There are artisans there that flow down the hill from 41 through this region. There could be issues with building the underground parking. There’s a board member on the Plan Commission that has been a part of government as long as he has, and even though they haven’t always seen eye to eye, she’s seen a lot over her lifetime. She cares about what happens with developments. Her ideas were too high of density, stark and out of place, and height. There are sewer and water out there now which the town didn’t have in that area. There is going to be development in this area but this is not the right development. Get something that fits in better and scale it down. This is not right what happened here, whether it was a mistake or someone not posting a hearing and to have this public here. Whether it’s legal issue or not, he doesn’t want to look into it but he will if he’s pushed into it but all these people didn’t have adequate time for input. Hold this off until the Town of Oshkosh has their Plan Commission meeting. Good governing is listening to the people. Just because the Town isn’t legally at the city’s table, this isn’t good governing. This project belongs someplace else. If it’s city or town, they all have to look at this development. Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Mr. Lyons said there may be a misconception about what this meeting is about. The Town of Oshkosh is talking about holding a public hearing and making a recommendation. That is what this board is doing right now. They are holding a public hearing and making a recommendation. This is only a recommending body. This is not council and they are not making the decision. This board is doing the exact thing the Town is talking about. This is the public hearing. Anything the board says today is a recommendation that goes to council. The council meeting is Tuesday March 14th 2023 at 6pm in room 406. The public is welcome to come to the council meeting and speak during that time. Mr. Mitchell asked if the applicant would be willing to answer some questions. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 28 March 7, 2023 Mr. Perry said it is at their discretion. Mr. Buswell said that he respectfully disagrees with the public and thinks this is a great location for this development. There are farm fields off of the highways throughout Wisconsin like this site that they have built on and it’s going to be an attractive property and hopes they can surprise everyone with the development. He apologizes that this is a surprise to the neighbors, he had no idea this was going on otherwise they would have reached out. Mr. Mitchell asked if the community center and other amenities would be open to the public for use considering there are 200 neighbors around. Mr. Buswell said that is not something they have considered but it is not off the table. Typically, the community spaces are locked with fob access. They had spoken with the Parks Department about putting a community park in, but it was deemed it would only benefit their property. They are willing to have a discussion with them if a public park was a part of this. Mr. Mitchell said what he means is the access to a private facility which would be an added benefit to the outside residents. They have amenities that might achieve that as well. Mr. Buswell said that absolutely they have had people request access to that and there’s going to be a workout room in the community center, office space, and other amenities that could benefit the surrounding community. It’s the first time it’s been brought up for the public. Mr. Mitchell said as mentioned in the 2021 housing study, which was an exceptional and through report, an additional report that comes out is the impediments to fair housing which basically asks what is a barrier in our community for people who live here. The housing stock here is quite old, so either you have enough money where you can buy or live in a new construction or they can live in a less than desirable apartment. The number one barrier identified is lack of access to housing that meets the needs of individuals with mobility barriers and it sounds like the developer is willing to accommodate, but he is wondering if they would voluntarily commit to 5% of your units being designed as wheelchair accessible. In an 80-unit development that approximately 4 of the units. Mr. Perry said that state law is very clear on what is the minimum amount that would be part of the 80 units. It is cumbersome and not in the best interest to have the developer commit to that promise now, but he thinks the state law puts that many in, if not more. Mr. Mitchell asked if that meant wheelchair accessible. Mr. Perry said yes. He had asked that question several years ago and received copious amounts of information about that because it was a standard question that he asked consistently. Mr. Mitchell asked if the developer has units all over the place, does that mean there are roll in showers in all of those buildings. That’s news to him. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 29 March 7, 2023 Mr. Perry said it’s certain percentage. Mr. Lyons said to Mr. Mitchell that as a reminder, whatever his answer is, they cannot require him to do anything. Mr. Mitchell said he was asking if he would be willing to do it voluntarily. Mr. Buswell said that if the demand is there, they are interested in meeting the housing demand. For most of the projects they take deposits and they don’t sign the lease until it’s actually regained occupancy. These types of discussions come up with tenants all the time. Mr. Mitchell asked if at that time if it’s already designed. Mr. Buswell said the little things like style of shower and cabinets get tweaked all the time so it wouldn’t be difficult to accommodate. Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Coulibaly. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Council Member Ford said thank you to the developer for their patience, these meetings aren’t normally like this. It has gone a bit off the rails this evening. He appreciates the statement from the town. He is trying really hard and takes massive offense to the comments from the audience. He was about to praise the town chairperson because he is on the ball, and the audience has a right to care about this since it does neighbor their property. He did not say the audience went off the rails, he said the meeting has. Plan Commission doesn’t make up their minds before attending the meeting. He has been on this board for 5-6 years, and every member of this body cares about the 67,000 people that live in the city and the future here. The city staff do as well. He believes in being a respectful neighbor and part of that is the reason why we reach out to the town and do everything we can to make sure we are all on the same page moving forward, but it has to be a two-way street. Mr. Coulibaly said that he tries to be logical here. They voted on the GDP first, and now it’s the SIP. He was hoping to hear the public comment on phase 1. Some of the comments were the storm water, traffic, sidewalks, and lights. There were no comments on phase 1 of this development. In his opinion, phase 1 could be an exception to all of these issues and could be compliant. He feels inclined to vote for phase 1. Ms. Davey said thank you to the public for coming and sharing their concerns. While she understands the concerns, they are going to be more receptive to comments that don’t scream nimbyism and many did. There’s nothing that the public has said that suggests they shouldn’t support phase 1 of this project. There are many reasons why it’s important to do so. Supporting phase 1 does not in any way commit them to supporting phases 2-6. There is land sitting out there __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 30 March 7, 2023 and there is housing that needs to be built. It is high density, but it’s not a bad thing to have high density mixed it with single family. Also speaking from a sustainability aspect, there needs to be a mix and she will be supporting this. Motion carried 6-2 (Nay Propp and Perry) VI. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN & SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPROVAL FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF W 4TH AVENUE & MICHIGAN STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen, Ms. Propp, Ms. Scheuermann, Council Member Ford, Mr. Coulibaly and Mr. Perry all reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval for a General Development Plan (GDP) and Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) for a multi-family 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. The applicant is proposing a multi-family development on the subject site, which will consist of 26 apartment units. The proposed use is a Conditional Use in the Riverfront Mixed Use District. A neighborhood meeting was held on October 5, 2021. Neighboring property owners voiced concerns primarily related to storm water impacts on the surrounding area and the appearance of the development and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. A Plan Commission workshop was held on October 5, 2021, with Plan Commission supporting the proposed land use. Another Plan Commission workshop was held on August 2, 2022 to discuss the building materials/design. Plan Commission voiced varying opinions on the proposed standing seam metal building exterior. 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 for clarification as to what the developer meant as workforce development housing. Sometimes affordable housing can be seen as cheap housing. Mr. Lyons said the term workforce housing is different from affordable housing. It is a target market of making sure your housing is affordable for your workforce. That means different things in different locations. The developer can clarify on the market they are trying to build for. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 31 March 7, 2023 Ms. Scheuermann asked what the distinction is between the different classes of materials. Does it mean that the lower the number the less durable the material, or is it based off of aesthetics. Mr. Lyons said in the broadest terms the four categories of the materials look at the two factors of durability and aesthetics. The code as it was designed says that class 1 materials are aesthetically pleasing and highly durable and then maybe going down from there with maybe one or two of those being changed as you go down. Ms. Scheuermann said it feels like they are splitting hairs, and as a city we are going to just say no way and ask the developer to go or should he just give in. Mr. Lyons said that the staff recommendation to Plan Commission is to go from zero to 30% which is a compromise. Ms. Davey said that the aesthetics part of it is very subjective. She likes the way the elevations look, but was wondering about durability. If standing seam metal is good for 50 years, or 100 years, do we know that? Mr. Lyons said the code specifically calls out standing seam metal as a class 4 material. Now there’s a lot of variation on what is standing seam metal, and it gets down to gauge and thickness and that is where the durability comes from. It does not further define a difference between the types. Mr. Mitchell asked if there are sidewalks. Mr. Lyons said there are sidewalks along Michigan St. Mr. Mitchell asked if there is a city staff person that oversees waterfront development along the waterline. Mr. Lyons asked what specifically he is referring to, because as a Community Development staff and Public Works staff, they all get involved in looking at riparian rights and DNR requirements. Mr. Mitchell said that in the comprehensive plan it talks about wanting to protect and enhance our vulnerable environmental areas and shoreline is probably the most vulnerable we have. The removal of it has resulted in 80% of our species loss in Wisconsin. He’s curious if there is someone on staff that provides guidance. Mr. Lyons said that the city does not have a specific person dedicated to this, it’s the planning staff that reviews the site. A portion of this site is contaminated and some of it has to remain natural vegetation. Ms. Nieforth said there’s a difference between the shoreland zoning that’s in the townships versus what’s required of the city. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 32 March 7, 2023 Mr. Lyons said that when you look at shoreline preservation and shoreland zoning in the state law, areas that are in the county, the state law treats it very differently than areas within the municipal boundaries and what is required and what has to be done. What Mr. Mitchell is asking is if there is a staff person that is promoting or further evaluating beyond the planning metrics. Ms. Nieforth said that closer the developer gets to the water, there are DNR requirements and they do have specific types of plants that they recommend. There is no specific staff person at the city but there are resources that we use along with the Parks department and the City Forrester who maintain a lot of shoreland within the city and working with different consultants. The area to the north is City Park where the Riverwalk is located. Chet Wesenberg, 240 Algoma Blvd, said that this project has come before in a workshop and there has been discussion on why they chose this material. They picked it because they like it. They have worked on a lot of different projects using class four materials with a corrugated metal and exposed fasteners including a 17-story development in downtown Madison and it turned out beautiful. He is familiar with class four materials and he likes them. He doesn’t believe this is a class four material, but a class three material. As a member of the American Institute of Architects we receive a magazine that is internationally renowned that gave a residential design award to a class four metal. The PDF he brought shows the section of the code that goes over classes of materials that says standing seam metal is a class four material and he disagrees. Mr. Lyons said that he respects Mr. Wesenberg’s opinion, but staff looked at it being a non- decorative metal panel. Mr. Wesenberg said he called someone at Muza Metal Products and he would consider them to be experts in metal. They said this material is a decorative architectural metal panel. They didn’t choose this to save money or for cost reasons. They chose this because they want this project to stand out against others in a refined way that is simple and sophisticated. The longevity of the material compared to other class three materials is higher by potentially 75 years. This is a quality product with longevity and concealed fasteners. Two reasons why they chose this material is because it is a subtle nod to the boat storages along the riverfront and with Oshkosh being a boating city it felt like we should reference that. The other thing was who our ideal tenant is going to be. With the proximity to the river walk and the kayak launch we had this concept of outdoor living and how to attract that type of customer. Lands’ End and REI were our inspiration for this development. Our ideal customer would be an outdoors person that would use the river walk and the kayak launch. This is the same type of customer that would shop at Lands’ End and REI. Ms. Scheuermann asked Mr. Wesenberg if not being able to use 100% standing seam metal would be a deal breaker for this project. Mr. Wesenberg said if we look at class three materials, we could use residential aluminum siding and that would be acceptable even though he believes that this is a decorative metal panel. There are other materials that would be considered acceptable over the material that he wants to use. There’s no way this metal panel is not equivalent to vinyl siding. He doesn’t want to give in, and they spent a lot of time working on this design. The elevations do show one big gray building but __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 33 March 7, 2023 there is more to it. The intention is to have all the colors match since it looks simple and sophisticated. Mr. Wesenberg showed the PDF to Plan Commission. Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Mr. Bowen asked what Mr. Wesenberg’s definition on workforce housing is since that can be confused with other affordable housing terms. Mr. Wesenberg said that there is a need for workforce affordable housing. What our definition is of workforce housing is that our rents are in the range of workforce affordable housing. The point is to hit different markets like they were planning in the Sawdust district that didn’t happen. Mr. Bowen asked if their definition is not necessarily the WHEDA term for workforce housing it’s more of a workforce friendly rental rate point. Mr. Wesenberg said yes, it’s providing a product that no one else does. Mr. Bowen said he’s just trying to differentiate between the technical terms and their term because there are requirements that comes with workforce housing that gets into developmental standards. Mr. Mitchell asked if the patios are handicap accessible. Mr. Wesenberg said all of the first-floor units are going to be accessible. Mr. Mitchell said the issue with the panels is how flat they are and it gives the building a shed-like look. He asked if they were planning to use any arborvitae to break up the look of that flat surfaces. Mr. Wesenberg said they hired a landscaper to help work with this project. All around the perimeter, where there is a patio or an entrance there will be foundation plantings and the edges around the water will be softened with landscaping. Mr. Mitchell asked if they are thinking of putting up taller landscaping to offset the height of the development. Mr. Wesenberg said that you can see all along the street they are proposing trees, but they can’t tell them exactly but they trust the landscaper. Mr. Mitchell asked what the largest space is without any interruption. Mr. Wesenberg said maybe 10-15 feet and there is more glass than most. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 34 March 7, 2023 Mr. Slusarek said code requires 15% of glass and they are exceeding that with maybe 18% at the lowest and up to 27-30% on the facades for glass. Mr. Wesenberg said the patios are also quite wide. Motion by Coulibaly 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. Ms. Scheuermann asked if they agree, if they are agreeing with the 30% recommendation. Mr. Lyons said that is correct. If Plan Commission wanted to make a modification, they would have to make a motion for an amendment. Ms. Davey said that she did talk to Mr. Wesenberg prior to that day but did not influence her decision in how to vote. She did drive around the parcels to see from all sides of the river. Someone can’t see from the river the entirety of the building, and if you say it’s not good to have something that’s inconsistent it’s not even able to be viewed. It looks nice from the way it’s been designed because there is a historic factor that hasn’t been brought up. Everything along the water should not look the same. There’s nothing wrong with having a new building have a throwback feel to it. Mr. Bowen said that he also talked to Mr. Wesenberg for a bit. He respects his position and believe Mr. Wesenberg is coming at this design from an authentic place and he wants to honor the past to some degree. Mr. Bowen said he thinks they can find a compromise point to find a material that he personally doesn’t dislike and has had discussions with staff in the past about the use of metal on buildings. It’s a misunderstood and disrespected product and it’s something that needs to be considered from a substantiality standpoint going forward as a higher grade of material. That said, context is key with any architectural material and he believes that the REI and Dreyfus building that were shown to Plan Commission are different from we’re seeing because those have some drag and release and some projection and different angles. This is a flat surface covered with metal. While there are ways to use that material, this particular drawing doesn’t quite get there. Limiting it to 30% is a fair compromise to be use as an accent material and other types of materials can be encouraged to have some diversity. There has been a lot of investigation in going to the public to show them drawings and rank them. The lowest ranking material is always metal. This is going into discussion about subjectiveness of the material when the code says you’re not allowed to use this material. The subjective compromise is that this material can be used as an accent piece because it does pay that homage to the past. The farthest he’s willing to compromise is that 30% so he is going to support the motion. He said he loves the project, how it’s cited, the connectivity to the water, and doesn’t want to see it goes away. This body has an obligation to the public trust that they respect the wishes of the people when it come to the subjective nature of material approvals. Council Member Ford asked Mr. Wesenberg to expand on his comment about vinyl siding. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 35 March 7, 2023 Mr. Wesenberg said staff has made an interpretation that this is a class four material and it’s not. He doesn’t want to sit here and be told it’s this class when it’s not, and the letter from Muza said it’s not. He said Mr. Bowen is laying it on thick that they have a duty for the public good when somehow vinyl siding is a class three and this material is not. Ms. Scheuermann said that she’s confused on if it’s subjective or not, and if other communities have it classified as a class three or not. She remembers in the last 60 days they didn’t allow someone to come forth with a building off of Jackson due to a durability issue. Mr. Lyons said that was an aesthetics discussion on wanting to preserve higher aesthetic right on Jackson. Ms. Scheuermann asked if this is up for interpretation on what class it is. Mr. Lyons said he can only speak to the city’s code. In his position, it includes reading and interpreting the code. His and staff’s opinion is that it is class four. Plan Commission can tell him he’s wrong and it should be categorized as something else. Ms. Davey said she’s not understanding the section from the code that says it’s not allowed. What we’re doing is arguing over whether these panels are decorative or non-decorative. Mr. Lyons said that is correct. Mr. Perry said there is a lot of opinion and thought about this and he agrees with Mr. Bowen on what he said and it does have to be broken up and more contouring to be added. He will support this over an amendment. Ms. Davey asked what decorative metal panels look like. Mr. Lyons said Oshkosh Corp is a good example. Ms. Davey asked what is the difference? Mr. Lyons said that of course it is subjective, but it’s typically used in accessory use type applications. Standing seam metal is used more for garages, and shed type developments. Community engagement is what we’re supposed to do, and Mr. Bowen mentioned that the public opinion is asked. Standing seam metal is one that is ranked low from the opinions of the public when the code is written, which is why it ended up where it did. It’s possible the opinion has evolved especially as metal roofs are becoming common. Ms. Davey asked how recently the last opinion study was done. Mr. Lyons said it was done as part of the 2017 code update. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 36 March 7, 2023 Mr. Mitchell said he is in favor of doing the minimum that the applicant is requesting which is over the 30% compromise. He would be willing to support an amendment to accept their low-end percentages of the class four material even if other commission members aren’t in favor. Mr. Slusarek said their proposed usage was 39.1% on the east and 30.41% on the west. Mr. Lyons asked if Mr. Mitchell meant he would make them bring the other ones down to match the numbers proposed on the east and west sides. Mr. Mitchell said that is correct. Motion carried 5-3 (Nay Scheuermann, Davey & Propp) VII. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN & SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPROVAL FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF W 4TH AVENUE & MICHIGAN STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen, Ms. Propp, Ms. Scheuermann, Council Member Ford, Mr. Coulibaly and Mr. Perry all reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval for a General Development Plan (GDP) and Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) for a multi-family 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. The applicant is proposing a multi-family development on the subject site, which will consist of 30 apartment units. The proposed use is a Conditional Use in the Riverfront Mixed Use District. A neighborhood meeting was held on October 5, 2021. Neighboring property owners voiced concerns primarily related to storm water impacts on the surrounding area and the appearance of the development and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. A Plan Commission workshop was held on October 5, 2021, with Plan Commission supporting the proposed land use. Another Plan Commission workshop was held on August 2, 2022 to discuss the building materials/design. Plan Commission voiced varying opinions on the proposed standing seam metal building exterior. 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. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 37 March 7, 2023 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 Ford 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. Mr. Mitchell asked about the waterfront parking. Mr. Lyons said it’s a bit of a code nuance. This property is one of the only ones that is zoned RMU- RFO that doesn’t actually sit on the water. The code treats their north side of this site as a waterfront yard even though it’s not and there is a property between it. With the zoning there are requirements of parking, but that is way staff reports the parking because it’s not actually waterfront. Mr. Mitchell asked for clarification. Mr. Lyons said the reason why that exists in the RMU-RFO is that you typically don’t want your waterfront property to be taken up by a parking lot. It’s back to more of the aesthetics. Mr. Mitchell said that when the shoreline zoning was done, the greatest concern was the concrete up near the water because that is the greatest source of pollution. He just doesn’t want this to become a precedent that it’s okay to put parking along other waterfronts. Mr. Lyons said this somewhat a city created hardship because a few meetings ago this was rezoned to RMU-RFO and that was done for consistency with the property to the other side so the developer only has one set of standards to work with for both sides. An interior lot like this typically wouldn’t be in this district. Motion carried 7-1 (Nay Propp) PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT Mr. Lyons said during the prior Plan Commission meeting, the Sawyer Creek Crossing GDP went through and an additional condition of a TIA be done prior to coming back for SIP and at that at the February 28th Council meeting, they decided to remove that TIA requirement. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 8:22 pm. (Davey/Scheuermann) Respectfully Submitted, __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 38 March 7, 2023 Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager