Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 November 21, 2023 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 21, 2023 PRESENT: Margy Davey, Council Member Esslinger, Kathleen Propp, Meredith Scheuermann, Ed Bowen, Mamadou Coulibaly, John Kiefer, Thomas Perry EXCUSED: Karl Loewenstein, DJ Nichols STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Jeff Nau, Planner; Brandon Nielsen, Associate Planner, Emma Dziengeleski, Assistant Planner; Kelly Nieforth, Community Development Director Chairperson Perry called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of November 7, 2023 were approved as presented. (Davey/Propp) Ms. Dziengeleski presented the items and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in the area for items I.A and I.B together. Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey, Mr. Esslinger, Ms. Propp, Ms. Scheuermann reported visiting the site. Staff reports accepted as part of the record. I.A. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM SUBURBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT (SMU) TO INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (I) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 505 NORTH WESTFIELD STREET The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Suburban Mixed Use (SMU) to Institutional (I) for the property located at 505 North Westfield Street. The subject site consists of a single lot with a total of 0.6026 acres located at the southwest corner of Taft Avenue and North Westfield Street. The site includes a 4,104 sq. ft. office building and associated parking area that was previously used as an office for an insurance agent. The surrounding area consists of multi-family uses to the north, south and west, and institutional uses to the east. The applicant approached the city about utilizing the existing building on the subject site for a church. The proposal was brought to a Plan Commission workshop on March 21, 2023. Plan Commission was supportive of the proposal. A neighborhood meeting was held on August 2, with no neighbors in attendance. On September 19, Plan Commission reviewed and Common Council subsequently approved a land use map amendment from Light Density Residential to Community Facility on November 14, 2023. This request is intended to provide appropriate zoning for future indoor institutional use of the property. The proposed Institutional (I) zoning is __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 November 21, 2023 consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommendation of Community Facility for the subject site. The proposed rezone will be consistent with the land uses to the east. For this reason, staff is supportive of the proposed rezoning of the subject site. Staff recommends approval of the zone change with the findings listed in the staff report. I.B. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN INSTITUTIONAL USE (CHURCH) AT 505 NORTH WESTFIELD STREET The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval for an indoor institutional use at 505 North Westfield Street. According to the applicant, the building footprint will remain as existing and is sufficient for their proposed use. No additional structures are planned at this time. Staff is in support of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the indoor institutional use as the conversion of the site to a church should not have an adverse impact on neighboring properties due to the relatively small scale of the use with up to three employees present Monday through Friday, along with four or less visitors occasionally each week day. Sunday mornings will have approximately 30 people as well as one to two staff people present for worship services. According to the applicant, the church will generally have office hours from 8am-5pm similarly to the previous use as an insurance office. The proposed use is also compatible with the surrounding land uses. The existing parking area provides a total of 17 parking stalls, which will be sufficient for the expected number of employees and visitors. The Inspections Services Department has noted that plans are required to be submitted to show the layout of the building and the room sizes for review to determine if the space would have the capacity to hold less than 50 people and the building use could remain the same. A building permit may be required if modifications are needed to the building or if the building needs to apply for a change of use. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit for an indoor institutional use at 505 North Westfield Street with the findings listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Coulibaly inquired if the parking was confined to the resident parking or did it include street parking. Mr. Lyons stated per the code there is sufficient on-site parking based on the expected occupancy. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Michael Kinjerski, 6616 Woodenshoe Road, Neenah WI 54956, made himself available for questions. He stated he believes this site would be a great fit for the church. The general __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 November 21, 2023 membership is between thirty to thirty-five. There is ample on-site parking in the lot. They look forward to being a productive member of the community. Mr. Perry closed public comments. There was no closing statement from the applicant. I.A - Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Scheuermann. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 8-0. I.B - Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Scheuermann. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 8-0. II. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A BUILDING ADDITION AT 3792 JACKSON STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp and Mr. Bowen reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) amendment for a building addition at 3792 Jackson Street. Mr. Nielsen presented the items and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The subject site consists of a 1.47-acre property located on the east side of Jackson Street, north of West Snell Road. The property is zoned Suburban Mixed Use with a Planned Development Overlay (SMU-PD) and contains the Stay and Play Pet House. The surrounding area consists of vacant land to the north and southwest, residential uses to the east, and gas stations to the south and west. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan recommends General Commercial land uses for the subject property. On November 14th, 2017, Common Council approved a Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development (Resolution 17-539) to allow for a Dog Daycare with overnight boarding at the subject property. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing SIP to allow for a new __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 November 21, 2023 5,520 sq. ft. building addition, and an additional fenced in outdoor play area. A neighborhood meeting was held on September 14th, 2023, with no neighbors in attendance. The proposed building addition will be attached to the east side of the existing building and extend towards the south. An accurate photometric lighting plan has not been submitted with this request; however new building wall lights are being added as part of the addition. A code compliant photometric plan will need to be submitted as part of the final Site Plan Review. Building foundation and yardscaping was required with the building addition. According to the plans submitted they are meeting the point requirements for each of those. The Department of Public Works has noted that the site was given a variance for the 2017 development plans which eliminated some of the stormwater requirements. This new plan has substantial deficiencies in the storm water management for the site. The deficiencies are potentially severe enough that they may impact overall site layout. If resolving the storm water management issues during final Site Plan Review results in major impacts to the overall site design and layout the applicant will need to seek an amendment to their approved Specific Implementation Plan prior to the project being able to proceed. The City’s Exterior Design Standards apply to Commercial Uses and Mixed Uses. The applicant provided elevation views for the existing building with the addition. The north and south exterior sides of the existing building consist primarily of painted corrugated metal paneling, which is now a prohibited material for commercial buildings. The west exterior has existing stone and vinyl siding. The applicant is not making any changes to these existing facades. The exterior of the proposed addition will be constructed with a combination of glazing, brick, and vinyl siding. As proposed, the new addition meets the Class I exterior material requirement of 50% with veneer stone or brick siding and glazing on all of the street facing facades. The east side of the building does not currently meet the facade articulation requirements outlined in Section 30-243(B) of the Zoning Code because the facade has a section greater than 70 feet without any articulation. The applicant will need to make the proper adjustments to this facade so it meets this standard. Final elevation drawings can be reviewed during Site Plan Review to make sure this standard is being met. Staff recommends approval of the Specific Implementation Plan amendment as proposed with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Bowen wanted Justin Gierach, the Engineering Division Manager, to go over the specifics of the 2017 variance that was granted. Mr. Gierach stated the original variance would not have come through Plan Commission. The Board of Public Works granted the variance after the Plan Commission process. Basically, there were three different conditions on that variance based on the site’s original impervious disturbance, what they were doing for the original construction, and then some storage that they were going to provide in some of the play areas, which was going to be pea gravel. Under the __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 November 21, 2023 proposed plan, it is the City’s opinion that those variances now go away and the site has to be brought into compliance. Mr. Bowen wondered if the applicant would be able to employ the same mechanisms from 2017 with this plan if it is found to be not in compliance … Mr. Gierach stated the City is willing to work with the applicant and owner to get this to work. At this time, we just don’t have anything that we are able to approve. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Rick Fisher with Fisher and Associates, Architects, W13654 Balsam Lake Road in Crivitz, WI. He is the architect for the project, and was not part of the original design of the building. As he toured the building it was fairly tight. It was an existing building that was converted into the dog daycare space, and now with this expansion it organizes it into a modern facility. It makes it better for the staff and all the animals that come to visit. At the far south end of the building there will be an indoor play area added, which will be nice during inclement weather. They will be adding a new indoor overnight stay space, and an indoor cat space. The existing building will be remodeled into primarily a care space where they can do grooming and washing. The capacity is not substantially larger, just the spaces are bigger, modern, and more organized. He made himself available for questions. Mr. Perry closed public comments. There was no closing statement from the applicant. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Kiefer. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 8-0 III. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH A RIVERFRONT OVERLAY (UMU-RFO) TO URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH RIVERFRONT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAYS (UMU-RFO-PD) AND APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A PERSONAL STORAGE FACILITY USE AT 627 BAY SHORE DRIVE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey, Mr. Esslinger, Ms. Propp, Ms. Scheuermann, Mr. Bowen, Mr. Kiefer, and Mr. Perry reported visiting the site. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 November 21, 2023 Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Urban Mixed Use District with a Riverfront Overlay (UMU-RFO) to Urban Mixed Use District with Riverfront and Planned Development Overlays (UMU-RFO-PD). The applicant also requests approval of a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan to allow a personal storage facility use at 627 Bay Shore Drive. Mr. Slusarek presented the items and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The subject site is located at the southwest corner of Bay Shore Drive and Mill Street. The site has a two-story building on the north side of the site that is currently used as multi-tenant office space as well as a recording studio. The site also includes a second, smaller, office building on the south side of the site. A proposal for an indoor storage use was brought to a Plan Commission workshop on October 3, 2023. Plan Commission was generally supportive of the proposal; however, they did question the long-term viability of industrial use in the area. They also raised concern related to aesthetics of the existing site and would need to see building façade and landscaping improvements as part of the planned development request. The applicant is requesting a zone change from the existing Urban Mixed Use District with a Riverfront Overlay (UMU-RFO) to Urban Mixed Use District with Riverfront and Planned Development Overlays (UMU-RFO-PD). The requested Planned Development Overlay designation is intended to allow for flexibility in the zoning ordinance to accommodate a new use on the property. Staff is supportive of the proposed rezone as it will provide opportunity for an additional use on an under-utilized property. It may also serve to accommodate future improvements to the site and help to address site design difficulties due to having two street frontages and a water front. The applicant is proposing to convert 30,913 sq. ft. of the north building to climate controlled personal storage, with 10,672 sq. ft. of the southern portion of the building to remain office space. The applicant is requesting a base standard modification (BSM) to allow the storage use, as personal storage facility uses are not permitted in the UMU district. Staff is supportive of the proposed use but feels that the best long-term use of the site is for commercial, residential, or mixed-use. However, due to the current site conditions and marketability of the site, personal storage facility is an appropriate use for the existing building. Staff also feels that it will allow for opportunity to enhance the appearance of the site. No changes are being proposed to the site layout, with the exception of a new refuse enclosure being proposed to the west of the building on the existing parking lot. The refuse enclosure will have a 5’ setback from the west property line and will be constructed of masonry exterior. There will be a reduction of 4 parking stalls on the existing parking lot. The site will have a total of 76 parking spaces which meets parking needs for the site. The applicant has noted that the existing overgrown invasive growth along Bayshore Drive, abutting the building, will be removed and replaced with the new landscaping, resulting in a total of 108 landscaping points. The proposed landscaping appears to be in the Bay Shore Drive public right-of-way (terrace). Any landscaping placed in the public right-of-way shall be approved by the City Forester and Department of Public Works. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 November 21, 2023 The building will be given a fresh coat of paint and any needed masonry repairs will be made. A new row of cultured stone will be added to the base of the building along Bayshore Drive and failed or damaged windows will be replaced. New architectural metal panels will be added to the east, south, and west elevations to give it an updated look. Staff feels that the replacement of the existing stone with new stone on the front of the building along with new architectural metal panels will enhance the appearance of the building and the new materials will serve to offset the requested BSM for the use. Overall the applicant has provided new landscaping and updated the building materials. Staff is comfortable that these site enhancements sufficiently offset the requested BSM and the overall site is being improved. Staff recommends approval of the zone change, General Development Plan, and Specific Implementation Plan with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Scheuermann thought seventy-six parking spots for a location that is public storage seemed like a lot. She questioned if they would be doing an addition in the future, not have so much parking, and if that would come before Plan Commission. Mr. Lyons stated any future site modifications would have to come back through Plan Commission and Council. The parking spots are likely higher than what they will need. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Madeline Dumke, 1340 Cambridge Avenue, Oshkosh WI 54902. Purchased 627 Bay Shore Drive roughly a year ago, and the intent was to move into the small office building along the river. They are in the process of remodeling that right now and are going to relocate there. After the purchase they realized the despair that the larger building was in. The main tenant left and stopped paying rent. They looked at residential use but it did not pencil out especially with the current climate. Maybe that is a possibility down the road when building costs go down and the neighborhood surrounding the area improves. They have the building for lease and have received no interest, so this is their idea of how to beautify the property and improve the neighborhood. Mr. Perry closed public comments. There was no closing statement from the applicant. Motion by Coulibaly to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Scheuermann. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 8-0 __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 November 21, 2023 IV. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A MIXED MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 0 WEST 20TH AVENUE (PARCEL 1329343000) Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey, Mr. Esslinger, Ms. Propp, Ms. Scheuermann, Mr. Bowen, Kiefer, and Mr. Perry reported visiting the site. Mr. Perry reported that one member of the area approached him and mentioned a positive comment. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan for a mixed multi-family and commercial development at 0 West 20th Avenue. Mr. Slusarek presented the items and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The subject site consists of a 17.3-acre vacant lot on the north side of West 20th Avenue. On February 28, 2023, a zone change was approved to add a Planned Development overlay along with a General Development Plan (GDP) for a mixed multi- family residential/commercial development. The GDP approval included a Base Standard Modification (BSM) to allow indoor sales and drive-through sales. The proposed development will include (10) 16-unit and (6) 8-unit apartment buildings along with a clubhouse which will have a drive-through coffee shop. The proposed 208 units is consistent with the approved GDP and meets density requirements for the MR-12 zoning district. The applicant is providing 286 surface parking stalls and 212 garage parking stalls to meet parking requirements. Code requires recreation area for multi-family developments. The proposed site plan indicates three outdoor recreation areas at the north/west areas of the site for a total of 9,099 sq. ft. to meet this requirement. The provided elevations for the clubhouse/drive-thru coffee shop include conceptual wall signage on the north and south elevations. These signs will be limited to a maximum area of 25 sq. ft. per façade per multi-family district sign standards They are meeting building foundation landscaping requirements for all apartment buildings as well as the clubhouse. Code also requires street-facing and main entrance landscaping points and those are being met, with the exception of the main entrance (north) side of the clubhouse/coffee shop building. Staff is supportive of a BSM to allow the reduction to 57 points, where code requires 79 points on this façade, as the applicant has exceeded the overall building foundation requirement. The landscaping requirement for paved area is being met. The applicant is requesting a BSM to allow reduced street frontage landscaping as the allowable area to place the street frontage landscaping is minimized by vision clearance triangles at the __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 November 21, 2023 driveway entrances as well as a water main running along the front property line. Staff is supportive of a BSM to allow the proposed point reduction from the required 808 points to 765.5 points, due to the limited available area. Staff is also supportive of a BSM to allow the street frontage landscaping to be placed further than 10’ from the right-of-way line as is needed to accommodate a water main easement. The plan exceeds the yard landscaping point requirement. That helps to serve to offset the BSMs being requested. A 0.2 opacity bufferyard is required along the neighboring Single Family Residential -5 (SR-5) zoned properties to the east and west of the site. The applicant is providing a 25’ wide bufferyard along both of these properties along with medium/tall evergreen tree plantings to meet the bufferyard requirement along both property lines. Buildings will be constructed primarily of brick and will also include composite siding around the window and door areas. The applicant is requesting a BSM to allow the primary building entrances for the apartment buildings to be on the back (north) façade of the building, rather than the street facing façade which is required by code. Staff is supportive of this BSM request as the buildings are oriented toward the centralized parking area on the site. The applicant has offset the requested BSM by increasing the window area on the street-facing facades. Also, the buildings are constructed primarily of Class I materials (brick and glass) to provide an attractive appearance. As the clubhouse/drive-through coffee shop includes a commercial use, commercial design standards apply. The applicant is requesting a BSM to allow reduced Class I materials on the south façade to 45.2%, where code requires 50%. Staff does not have concerns with this slight reduction as the large proportion of glass on this façade along with brick and composite siding provide an attractive appearance. The applicant has exceeded the overall Class I material requirement for the overall building to offset that request. Staff recommends approval of the Specific Implementation Plan with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Lyons reminded Plan Commission that they are evaluating the SIP against the already approved base land use during the GDP. The SIP is not here to discuss whether or not apartments and a coffee shop are an appropriate land use. Those have already been approved by Council during the GDP. You are here evaluating if the final plans (landscaping, lighting, etc.) are appropriate and consistent with the already approved GDP. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Kiefer wondered if there would be trail connections to the Rusch Park trail system. Mr. Lyons stated there are two planned connections on the north side of the site. Mr. Kiefer had concerns as to why a parking study was not done, and not put forward by Council. He stated there is going to be a lot of extra traffic in a really bad area with Traeger Middle and Elementary School. With 209 dwelling units there could be 300-400 cars coming and going at the __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 November 21, 2023 same time that a youth basketball game gets done in the evening. It is going to be a bigger mess than it already is. Mr. Lyons stated ultimately Council chose to remove the request for the TIA. With Council removing that condition, City staff did not have a way to enforce it as the project moved forward. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Corey Wallace with Wesenberg Architects, 240 Algoma Boulevard in Oshkosh, stated he is available for questions. Raymond Carver, 1914 Preserve Drive in Oshkosh, is the president of Sawyer Creek Preserve Condo Association. The whole community has a large concern about the water drainage issues. We are located the west of the subject property and have an underground water drainage system that goes to an inground sump pump that was installed by the builder. It is the same builder that is on this project. We already have a north pond that was not designed to be a pond that is retaining large amounts of water. Being on the west side of the subject property we are going to get additional drainage. Concerned about the elevation of the property and water coming towards us. There are at The Preserve that were not finished by this builder yet. We already have water issues at individual homes. Sump pumps are going out. The north pond is overflowing at this point, damaging trees, and we feel it is going to exasperate this situation even more for us. There is a swell that is proposed that will go that way but the water is already building up on the corners of our property. We have concerns about landscaping between the properties to the west to limit automobile, garage, and unit lights and noise. The builder, Chet Wesenberg, talked about tree landscaping on both sides of the west swell on our property area and his. The plan does not show any trees on our side to help with noise, water, and lights. We are requesting additional consideration regarding landscaping to help limit the noise as part of this project, as well as trees and landscaping on our side. We would like you to consider having garages on the west side to help limit some of the noise and car lights. Maybe consider putting the buildings further back. There are two playgrounds on the west side. We would like the playgrounds moved to the north side of the property, back towards the Rusch Trail area or somewhere else to help with the noise. Nancy Bongert, 3374 West 20th Avenue in Oshkosh. She is the property just on the west lot line of the proposed development. When we were here in February there were a few of us neighbors that had a hard time catching up with what the whole process was and what we were voting on. There is an opportunity when developments like this unfold where the communities have neighborhood meetings and a follow up report after. Some sort of middle ground between what the neighbors and the developer want. Looking back, there is probably a real missed opportunity. Some of the neighbors asked the developer for a meeting and the meeting went okay. We did not get a lot of answers to our questions but there was meant to be some follow up. The developer stated they would definitely send us a new revised plan. I think we have opportunities for improvements to the landscaping, drainage, mitigation of noise & lighting. Traffic is always a concern. Consider movement of the playground, and any additional buffers such as fencing. When I look at the elevation and the grading that has to take place towards the west lot line where spruce trees will __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 November 21, 2023 be planted, I do not understand how you can have that gradeage and have successful spruce trees planted in that area. In a conversation with Travis Derks, City Forester, of the Parks Department he stated spruce trees need specific drainage. At one point Mr. Wesenberg asked for an easement on our west-side properties to grade down to a swale. That has not been brought up again, so it is assumed that he is going to handle all of the drainage himself. Thanks to Mr. Lyons and others I know there is an inlet to take some of that water away but for those of us that live out there, there is a water problem. There really is. In regards to the lighting layout, the first apartment building and then the adjacent parking stalls and garage are perpendicular to the lot line. When new neighbors turn down that area to park, or go into their garage, their lights will shine into the back third of lot along with other neighbors. There is nothing to buffer that. Not sure that a tree will fix that problem, but maybe a fence. Want to enjoy their backyards without lights shining in every time a car comes. Would appreciate any consideration regarding any playground movement. Want to be good neighbors, make it a good neighborhood, and a good fit for everyone. Shawn Lynch, 2318 Shore Preserve Drive in Oshkosh, mentioned the traffic not only with Traeger schools, but also the 20th Avenue YMCA that is almost adjacent to this development. He is a member of the YMCA, and recognizing all of the different events that go on there especially with the hockey complex and the aquatic facility sometimes the YMCA parking lot is full. Events happening at the schools and YMCA already impact traffic. The biggest consideration to recognize in regards to this development is the additional impact to traffic on 20th Avenue, and that the particular section is dimly lit. Traffic is moving so fast coming from the west side heading into the City. Consider the impact of 100-150 new cars with the traffic already there. Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Mr. Wallace stated I think it’s in everybody’s best interest to have a working relationship. I think it’s in the developer’s best interest to work with neighbors as well and address some of these concerns. I know that Chet is more than willing to add to trees. I heard him say that himself on the preserve end of the site. It doesn’t show up here because we are not trying to approve anything for the Preserve. We are trying to approve and get reviewed for this site. We are more than willing to add trees to buffer and help with the noise and lighting, and just the overall buffer between to the two sites. As far as the headlights from the parking lot are concerned, we are going to plan on shifting some of those trees. That is why there are some conifer trees as to oppose the deciduous trees along the site. We’re reviewing with the landscaper more about whether or not the environment is conducive for some of those conifers and change some the species if we need to. That swale that showed up on the site is not thought to be holding water, it is just sloped grass that is designed to shed water. The water is going to the north and not into the pond from the Preserve. I don’t think it is going to contribute to the issues that are there right now. We think it is in everyone’s best interest to work and try to smooth out some of these issues and make some compromises. Make it work better for everybody. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Coulibaly. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 November 21, 2023 Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp asked Mark if there is a way through the staff review for the developer to bring in some changes to the landscaping plan, the lighting plan, and perhaps even the drainage if we approve what is here now. Mr. Lyons stated drainage is a separate ordinance that Public Works addresses. You have to meet the drainage ordinance. Mr. Gierach has had some conversations already with some of the neighbors trying to find out some of the issues that are going on out there, both on the preserve site as well as questions relating to this site. There will be a strict review making sure storm water management plans are met, adhered to, followed up on, and maintained. Public Works staff will make sure the development, going forward, meets the city ordinances and continues to meet those requirements as it moves forward. Through site plan review I think the landscaping, lighting, and playground area can be addressed. We have one condition at the end of the SIP that final landscape plan lighting and signs will be reviewed as approved by the Department of Community Development. If there are specific elements you want to see or have moved, I would like you to articulate that so we make sure we follow through with your wishes. If there are specific things you would like to see I would like you to add them as conditions. Ms. Davey said I don’t think we should penalize the developer for the Council’s decision to forgo the traffic study but I’m really uncomfortable with the lack of information for the potential traffic impact and I’m wondering if we have any recourse for that at all. Mr. Lyons stated this body can add conditions. If you want to add it back in as a condition you could. Again, as a recommending body only this will go to Council for their final decision. Ms. Davey ask if we have any idea why Council chose to forgo the traffic study. Mr. Perry said he has no idea. Mr. Lyons stated that would have been before Council Member Esslinger. Mr. Lyons stated if there are things Plan Commission wants to articulate, to please do so as a condition. He has met with the neighbors to understand exactly what their concerns are. Mr. Bowen ask for clarification on where the play areas were shown on the site plan. Mr. Lyons pointed out where the play areas are on the site plan. There are two, one at the very northwest corner of the site and one on the left side of the site. They are both part of the recreational space requirement. Mr. Bowen asked if northwestern one is more of a passive play area, or a recreational area. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 November 21, 2023 Mr. Lyons stated the code requires sufficient recreational space opportunity. It does not articulate specifics. Mr. Slusarek stated the narrative called out where the recreational areas are and the square footages of them but did not specify what is going to be in that area. Mr. Lyons stated he had an opportunity, after the staff report was issued, to speak with Mr. Wesenberg who felt there could be opportunities elsewhere on the site. If Plan Commission wanted to rearrange those, for example just east of the main path going out of the north side of the site, there is some green space there that potentially one of them could be moved. Mr. Wesenberg was open to shifting things around to help. Mr. Bowen stated if you are looking for specific input as it relates to site plan concerns and potentially incorporating some of the commentary, I think my view here is that it looks to me that the recreational space is loaded to the west. There is nothing available to the east. I would like to see one of those relocated or added to the eastern half of the property. Mr. Lyons would like Plan Commission to word that into a condition if they so choose, and it would be number seven. Mr. Kiefer asked to follow up on the play area and asked it was the same as required parkland. Mr. Lyons responded about the difference between the code between required on site recreational space and parkland dedication requirements. Mr. Kiefer ask if the project would require a fee in lieu of for parkland. Mr. Lyons responded with out the existing parkland fee structure would apply to the project and mentioned the City is working with a consultant to update those requirements. Mr. Kiefer asked if the school was consulted and if they responded. Mr. Lyons said that the school was notified of the project. These type of developments with multi- family, traditionally have a very low family component and typically have a low percentage of school aged children. The school has not responded. Mr. Bowen made a motion to amend condition 7 for staff to review the location of the existing recreational areas with the goal of providing a recreational space on the east half of the property. Ms. Propp seconded the motion to amend. Council Member Esslinger made a request to have the applicant approach the board and see if there any issues with the motion. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 14 November 21, 2023 Mr. Wallace said that there is ample room on the east side to increase the recreational area there and diminish some of the areas on the west side, so it will not be a problem. Motion to amend carried 8-0. Ms. Davey asked about making a motion to add a condition that accommodation will be made for increased buffer between Preserve Dr and the new development to help buffer sound and light. Mr. Lyons said that a condition must be something enforceable like landscaping points, relocation of landscaping or fencing. Ms. Davey asked Mr. Wallace if it would be a better request to ask for fencing at the end of the drive aisles or to relocate landscaping so it is denser there. Mr. Wallace said his preference is natural landscaping to fencing, if it’s a coniferous tree that works for blocking light during the winter as well. He asked staff if there was any bufferyard requirements at all on what was presented to staff. Mr. Lyons said there is a bufferyard requirement of .2 opacity. The requirements can be met in different ways; setback distance, amount of landscaping and fencing. They are not required of fence and as shown, they currently meet the requirement. Neighbors have asked for them to go a little more and then maybe more in specific areas. Plan Commission can decide where to specific allocate the additional bufferyard. Ms. Davey asked about relocating the landscaping along the drive aisles to block light and sound. Mr. Lyons asked for clarification on if Ms. Davey just wants to see the landscaping relocated and not any additional landscaping. Currently along the west property line, they are proposing 788 points where 650 are required. He asked if Ms. Davey wants staff to work through and make sure those 788 points are in areas to minimize impact of lighting trespass on neighboring properties. Ms. Davey asked if she leaves it as is, and someone seconds it, it could be up for discussion. Mr. Lyons said correct. Ms. Davey made a motion to add a condition to relocate landscaping points to minimize light and sound to neighboring properties. Scheuermann seconded the motion. Ms. Scheuermann said she isn’t comfortable to make that determination and it should be up to City staff in working with the developer to determine that. She believes that adding additional amendments can open it up to something else and then something else. She asked if there is any sort of generic language that Plan Commission can add that can give Staff authority to make the determination. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 15 November 21, 2023 Mr. Lyons said that Plan Commission can provide direction to staff and staff can do their best to work with the neighbors and the applicant. However, staff has no authority to require something in the end. The neighbors can work back and forth with the applicant, but it is the applicant’s final decision as long as it meets code requirements. A condition gives staff authority to say that per the approved plan, it has to meet what was approved. Council Member Esslinger said there was a similar issue with the development on Oregon St. when it came to deciding buffers such as berms, fencing and trees. He suggested a different plan that be put together and reviewed with the Association president so he has a chance to talk with the Association members so they can decide what they want in their neighborhood. Mr. Lyons said that in order to do that, staff would have to ask the applicant to push this item to Council on December 12th because it is set to go to Council next week. It could be challenging to get it in front of the neighbors in time especially with the holiday. Council Member Esslinger asked Mr. Wallace if it would be okay to push this item to the December 12th Council meeting. Mr. Wallace said that there wouldn’t be an issue with pushing it to December 12th but thought that perhaps it could be approved based on the one condition being worked out. Mr. Lyons said that decision will lie with Council if they want to do it or not. Council Member Esslinger said they could add an amendment to develop a plan that would be approved by the Association. Mr. Lyons said they cannot grant the City’s authority to a neighbor to approve or deny. They can provide input but a condition could not be added that a neighbor has to approve. Mr. Coulibaly asked if the base of his question was to either relocate landscaping or add more points. He would suggest to add more points, not knowing what relocating would mean in other areas. It would feel safer to add more points since the developer has agreed to work with staff and the neighbors. Mr. Lyons said that Evergreen plantings, which is typical for this type of land use, would range in a point value of about 33-45 points per Evergreen. There are two main east and west drive aisles for the southwest building, one on the north side of the parking garage and one on the south side of the garage that seem to be the main areas of concern. There’s a little bit of potential between the buildings as well, but there’s not a ton of area. From a staff perspective, Plan Commission could say add and relocate 70 points per and relocate. That would be enough that Staff can work with the developer to make it happen. This will give some flexibility to add a bit and relocate if necessary. Ms. Davey withdrew her amendment to add a condition to relocate landscaping points to minimize light and sound to neighboring properties. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 16 November 21, 2023 Ms. Davey made a motion to add a condition of 200 additional landscaping points around the end the of drive aisle between the two buildings. Council Member Esslinger seconded the motion. No further discussion on the motion. Motion to amend carried 8-0 No further discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-1 V. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PHASE 1 OF A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT THE WEST 3400 BLOCK OF LAKE BUTTE DES MORTS DRIVE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey, Mr. Esslinger, Ms. Propp, Ms. Scheuermann, Mr. Bowen, Mr. Coulibaly, Mr. Kiefer, and Mr. Perry reported visiting the site. Mr. Perry reported he is in the notice area and received notice at his home. He also reported he has spoken to six neighbors, some for and some against. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Mr. Lyons stated this is a request from the Common Council, so they are the applicant. They voted at their October 24th meeting to bring the SIP amendment to Plan Commission. It is the identical plans from Plan Commission’s original March decision. No new plans were submitted. Looking at Phase 1 only. The applicant requests a Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) amendment for Phase 1 of the Lake Butte des Morts multi-family development. Mr. Slusarek presented the items and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The plans are code compliant with the exception of one Base Standard Modification (BSM) that was requested for the apartment building height. The heights of the apartment buildings are shown at 52 feet, exceeding the 35-foot maximum height permitted in the NMU District. This number has been revised from the original SIP (59 feet) as Planning staff noted that building height is measured at the midpoint of the roof, rather than the peak as originally listed. There is no change to the actual building design. Staff is in support of a BSM to exceed the maximum height due to the site’s isolation from other developments and the increased setbacks to over 1,000 feet from the neighboring properties. It is in good planning practice to offset increased building height with larger setback distances and centralized building __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 17 November 21, 2023 placement. The applicant has also provided 150% of the required total landscaping points for the site to improve the appearance of the site and mitigate impacts on the surrounding area. The use of underground parking also serves to reduce the footprint of the site. The overall impervious surface ratio for the site of 39% is well under the maximum of 50%. The applicant is also exceeding multi-family design standards by exceeding the window area requirement by 36% and utilizing a substantial proportion of Class I materials (brick veneer and glass). The enhanced building facades improve the appearance of the property and also serve to mitigate the visual impact on the surrounding area. Staff feel the increased setbacks, increased landscaping, reduced impervious surfaces, and increased or enhanced materials serve to offset that increased building height and offset the BSM for the increased height which has not changed from the original request. Staff recommends approval of the Specific Implementation Plan amendment with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments. The applicant is the Common Council. Dan O’Callaghan, 222 West Washington Avenue Suite 360 in Madison, is a land use and zoning attorney working with the development team. Not applying for this request but we are the owner of the property. A few things have happened since the Plan Commission saw this in March. The Plan Commission recommended approval, in March, of the GDP for the entire 522 unit multi- family development, which consisted of a number of four-story buildings as well as some two- story townhomes that buffered the neighboring properties. Plan Commission also recommended approval of the SIP for Phase 1 of the development. Those recommendations were taken to Council, who then heard a number of neighbor concerns. The Council tabled their decision and requested another neighborhood meeting be held. That meeting was held, and then on April 11th, Council approved the GDP as recommended and an amended SIP that would limit the development to three stories. Council asked the developer, who was represented by Jake Buswell, if the project would still work with the reduced height. Jake did the best he could in answering that question, stating honestly I don’t know, I haven’t penciled that out, I don’t know if it pencils out, I’d have to run the numbers. It takes quite a while to put a project of this scale together. It takes months to work on a proforma, reviewing the construction costs, working with a lender to get a budget approved. Jake did what he said he would do, and went back to run the numbers and worked on it with his development partners for several months. They ran and reran the numbers, noting the project is not feasible as a three-story development project. It results in a loss of 102 of the 522 units, if you take a fourth story off of each of those buildings, and results in a budget gap of about five million dollars. The project simply cannot move forward at three stories. Jake asked City staff if we requested tax increment financing is that something the Council would consider. Staff said they would take it to Council and so they did. On September 24th it went to Council, followed by a closed session on October 12th, and another open session on October 24th. On October 24th Council Member Buelow introduced a resolution, that was ultimately adopted 6:1 by Council, proposing to restore the SIP to four stories so there is no need for tax incremental financing to make the project move forward. For all of the same reasons for which you approved __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 18 November 21, 2023 the project originally, we are asking you to make the same recommendation tonight back to Council. Stephen Cox, 320 East Buffalo Street Suite 700 in Milwaukee, an attorney at Halling & Cayo. He is representing Protect Our Wetlands Inc, which is a group of Oshkosh citizens in the area that live adjacent to this development. He referred to a letter sent by Ted Warpinski of his office, and wanted to summarize it. How we got here is important. The SIP is being kicked back because the developer could not get TIF assistance for this development. Frankly with these high-end developments they need to stand on their own. When the developer went and penciled it out, it sounds like they have a shortfall, but ultimately it is not the City’s job to make sure the development is profitable or that it can move forward. It is the City’s job to ensure the comprehensive plan is upheld, the aesthetics of Oshkosh are continued, and we plan for sensible growth moving forward. With that in mind, nothing has changed from the underlying decision back when it was made in April until now. The Common Council saw fit, after hearing concerns from citizens in Oshkosh, to reduce the development height in Phase 1 from four to three stories. The reason they did that is because in a neighborhood mixed use development there are no other buildings that are more than three-stories. It is a three-story zone. When you look at all the buildings in that corridor everything is under three stories. Allowing this development to go in and bring it to four stories, just because they want to make a profit on it, is not appropriate when you look at the comprehensive plan. That is the reason the Common Council denied it in the first place. Faced with the fact that the developer ran the numbers and it is not feasible, it is back here but those objections, although not articulated with actual dollar values, were articulated at the April 11th meeting in which that height restriction was imposed. I say to you nothing has changed with the Common Council’s decision and therefore the Plan Commission should accept that nothing has changed and deny the recommendation that the SIP be amended to allow it back to four stories. Kathy Brewer, 2311 Shore Preserve Drive in Oshkosh, stated the developer indicated they cannot make it work at three stories and that is because what they brought back to the City was three stories for all phases not Phase 1. The developer also indicated Council Member Buelow requested to revisit the amendment due to new information but there was no new information other than the developer claiming they could not make three stories work. When in fact they can make it work because they have for other projects. Specifically including the one that was the model for this Red Earth project to The Abbey in Onalaska. There is no NMU in the City that contains more than three stories and most are two stories. There is no complex in the City larger than 300 units. The housing study that was used to justify the project actually illustrates that these expensive multi- unit complexes are not the greatest need. The housing study calls for only 679 rental units by 2030 with only 129 at this high market rate. Since that market study was developed 528 in this high market segment have been built and that does not even include this additional project. That is 400% more than we need so we are getting into that over saturation stage. I have heard, used quite often, that the developer and Planning Services Department like to use the 2040 Comprehensive Plan in their justification of the density per acre for this project, however zoning comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances perform differently. I am taking a direct quote from the comprehensive plan: “A comprehensive plan is a guide to the physical, social, and economic development of a local government unit and the enactment of a comprehensive plan by ordinance __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 19 November 21, 2023 does not make the comprehensive plan by itself a regulation. Comprehensive plans provide a vision for twenty years while zoning ordinances have an immediate impact on land use decisions. In order to rectify the difference rezoning is completed on an ongoing basis in a manner consistent with the overall vision of the plan. The timing of rezoning is dependent on market forces, political climate, and the accuracy of the plan’s predictions while the comprehensive plan holds that the Plan Commission and City Council must continually ensure that any future zoning changes are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” No formal zoning request was made in this instance yet the Planning Services Department and the developer are updating their plans as if it was. In fact, the Planning Services Department, by their own admission and emails over two years ago and in a notification to the developer, indicated that the current zoning does not allow apartments as a permitted use, only three to four units per building and a density of ten units per acre. So, in essence a zoning change was bypassed. They are pushing through this as part of the PD, which by definition a plan development overlay requires public input and a higher level of scrutiny. There was no public input prior to when this came to Plan Commission. If it had been open about this project from the start there would have been more public engagement, and more scrutiny to it. This could have helped address key issues before the Plan Commission’s GDP review in March. As Oshkosh citizens we must hold the City staff and elected officials accountable. This is crucial to the government and to our City. Even though the City has tried to rectify their error by now involving the community, it is insufficient and far too late. Trust has been eroded and the perceived favoritism towards this developer and the lack of continued transparency are concerning. If the Plan Commission chooses to reverse the amendment made by Common Council, then I believe it is the duty of the Commission that Council and the City revisit all of the plans including the GDP. There was no new information that causes the Plan Commission to reverse the amendment made by the City Council. The amendment was to Phase 1 to make it from four stories to three. Dana Hartel, W141 Welsch Road in Winneconne, wanted to put forward a little different viewpoint, as she does not live in the area but she drives by the area all the time. I have a concern for the wetlands that are in the area. I understand that Phase 1 is not on the footprint of the wetland. The values of wetlands are that they reduce flooding, slow the flow of water, provide clean water, recharge the water supply, provide shoreline restoration, provide habitat for fish and other wildlife, decrease sediment, and provide recreational opportunity with open space. By putting in a development in an area like that, it could be a concern for the wetland area because it is now creating some area where there is potentially going to be a lot of light pollution, and a lot of noise pollution just with all the additional activity. Wetlands are known for providing half of our threatened and endangered species use of those areas throughout the world. Providing an area that could be a disturbance to that is a concern because people benefit from wetlands but also amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and fish. Oshkosh has a population that likes to fish, hunt, and enjoy that recreational area. If there is a development in that area it can create a disturbance to that wetland that could be detrimental. Wetlands help against flood. Back in 2008 Oshkosh was under a very high flood. At that point there were so many areas of the city that were affected by the flood that it was an estimate that twenty-nine million dollars had to be used because of flood damage. That included the university where almost every single building on that campus had some flood damage, including a building that was ultimately destroyed because of the flood. Wetlands are areas we need to have because they mitigate so that there won’t be any flood __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 20 November 21, 2023 damage. Economically it is better to be able to protect that area rather than adding developments that could disturb those areas. Cheryl Borgardt, 2971 Sunset Point Lane in Oshkosh, wanted to correct a couple of things that were said. First of all, there was no public meeting held. No opportunity for our community to have any input whatsoever in this. It was a decision made that there would be no community notification when this first came to the Planning Committee. The only way we found out about it was when we saw the construction going on to put the sewer and utilities to that site, then neighbors started questioning what was going on and came to the Planning Committee. It went to the City Council. They postponed it so that we could have a town community meeting. There was no going back to the community. There was no going to the community in the first place. Second, the City Planner did notify the developer that there could be, and possibly more than likely would be, a request to have a reduction in height and that they should be prepared for it at the City Council meeting. So, for the developer to get up and come here and say that they were not aware that this was going to happen, so they were not able to prepare anything, is not true. They were able to prepare. He stated right in that meeting that he had told them that it would more than likely happen. So, I just wanted to correct a couple of things: They did have the opportunity to come back and say. There is no new information here. They knew from the get go that they wouldn’t be able to make this happen. My 401K is underperforming so my retirement is kind of not working out like I’d want it to. Is that a concern for you as well. I don’t understand why them making this work financially is a concern for you. It doesn’t make any sense. Jim Erdman, 2492 Hickory Lane in Oshkosh, also chairs the Town of Oshkosh which is adjacent to this area. These folks that live out there, some of them are in the City and some are in the Town. Where this Phase 1 is, that area there is an old farmhouse right near there. The elevation on that property is 14’ above the surrounding floodplain, wetland, cattail marsh which surrounds part of the Red Earth property on three sides. That’s lake elevation there. So, you are 14’ above, now nothing has changed. You want to put these buildings up. They are going to be, whether you call it 52 or 59 the peak of the building will be 59’, plus 14’. So, what are you looking at, 73’ above the surrounding area. You can’t change that floodplain. You can’t fill that in. Seventy-three feet sticking up above, in the middle of a wildlife area. It is just too tall. Good project, bad location. Good project, needs to not be there in the middle of this, right at lake level. The Town of Oshkosh bought three acres recently, this summer from DOT, bordering that property on the south. We did some work in there. I spent two days out there a month ago removing the dead and dying ash trees. I was really surprised at the noise. The lane right across from where they want to do Phase 1 is US 45. Every truck there is throttling down, and it is a roar. That is what you are going to have there, right by Phase 1. I don’t know if you are 100’ from that most westerly lane of the interchange, but go out there and spend some time out there once. Wow. For high-end apartments, and the higher you get the more you are going to hear the noise. There is no place there to put a sound barrier wall for DOT. It drops off going up that off ramp to that roundabout. It drops right off, so how are you going to stop the noise from the highway affecting all that development. You are surrounded on three sides by floodplain water on your own property with cattail marshes. That’s solid mosquitoes. Good project, bad location, and too tall. Mr. Perry closed public comments. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 21 November 21, 2023 There was no closing statement from the applicant. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Scheuermann. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp stated she is struggling with this once more. Originally, she voted no on this plan because she felt that it was too tall or too large a development rising out of that lake. There have been some good points here, but it is a difficult site as Mr. Erdman pointed out, and it is limited to where it is. Development will have to retain its own water will it not. Mr. Lyons stated correct regarding the water question. Ms. Propp stated she personally did not like the City Council’s decision to remove the fourth story and state they could only be three stories high, because she thinks that is a developer decision. The developer wants what he or she wants and needs. She did not think that was appropriate, so she is going to vote yes for this because she did not like that Council action and this is an opportunity to revisit that. Mr. Bowen asked if there was an opportunity to ask the owner to come up. He wanted to know if the owner had any response to the commentary. Mr. O’Callaghan stated there were a number of concerns raised tonight and they would like to respond to those. There has been some new information presented to the Council and that was the impetus for Council Member Buelow’s motion to bring this back. That information is the financial feasibility of the overall project. Without the fourth story the project in 101 units fewer, there is a five million dollar gap in the budget, and it cannot move forward, so that is the reason why. It is not about padding the developer’s bottom line. The question is should this project happen or not, will it happen or not. That is the difference between three and four stories. That is the new information. There was detailed financial information presented to City staff. Who then vetted that with their financial consultant. Who then validated those numbers. It was discussed with Common Council, who then proposed this amendment to restore the project to four stories. It was a four-story project to begin with. That is what the Plan Commission reviewed and recommended approval of. Council approved a General Development Plan for a four-story project and then inexplicably reduced the height from four to three which killed the project. We did not have the opportunity to prepare an analysis of that. Jake will tell you that he did get notice of that in advance of the Council meeting on April 11th. He got notice of that from the City Manager the day of. It takes months of work to put together these cost estimates, work with contractors, engineers, and banks. You can’t do that in an afternoon, so he did not have an opportunity to fully analyze the impact of a reduction from four to three stories. The wetlands here are certainly a concern for everyone. It is a concern for the developer as well. The development project that is on the table is one that is limited to the area of the site that is currently tilled farm land. As one of the Council __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 22 November 21, 2023 Members noted, at the discussion in public at the October 24th Council meeting, the run off from farm land is one of the top polluters to our wetlands in this state. This is an opportunity to take this farmland that is closest to the water, with its agricultural runoff, and contain the storm water on site, install basins, and engineered storm water improvements. We believe that will enhance the quality of the wetlands surrounding the development, all of which are being preserved. Regarding the comments made about the housing report. We beg you to ask your professional Planning staff if they agree with those comments that the City has already experienced too much housing development. I do not know anyone who would agree with that. If fact one of the Council members, who spoke in support of bringing this back to the Plan Commission and then back to Council on October 24th, said he had just been to an Economic Development Conference and the top issue in this state was economic development followed closely by housing development. He said I am supporting reconsideration of this. None of the Council members said I am voting for this, they said this deserves to be reconsidered, this amendment, this return to four stories. He said I am voting for that because we need the housing. So, I beg you to ask your professional Planning staff for their input on the question of do we need more housing in Oshkosh. In regards to comments about the financial bottom line, Jake is interested in the financial bottom line because he cannot undertake this project, build this housing, if it will lose money out of the gate. That is the important reason why we are here tonight talking about a return to four stories. That is what was proposed initially, what you recommended approval of, and that what we would like you to approve again tonight. Stay with your same recommendation. Mr. Esslinger stated he has a dual role here. He is a Council Member and feels it is his responsibility when he does make a determination to listen to everyone who wants to contact him as one of the seven Council members. He is going to be voting present on this issue tonight, out of respect for those people who still want to get ahold of him via email, text, phone, etc. He stated he needs to be objective here, out of respect for everyone, and not send possible mixed messages. When it comes to Council he will vote. Mr. Coulibaly had a question for the developer regarding the different phases of the project. He wanted to know what the developer would do if they were not approved for other phases. Mr. O’Callaghan stated the entire project is not feasible with the limitation of three stories on all of the phases, or the first phase alone. They do not have a submitted SIP application for future phases yet. He hopes when the time comes the Plan Commission and Council will be guided by the General Development Plan that has already been approved, which indicates four-story development. Motion carried 6-1 Mr. Lyons stated this will go to Council on December 12th, not next week. VI. PUBLIC HEARING: TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE DEFINITION OF A COMMERCIAL MESSAGE WITHIN THE SIGN ORDINANCE __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 23 November 21, 2023 Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh Department of Community Development requests the review and approval of an amendment to the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance related to the sign code. Mr. Nielsen presented. The City of Oshkosh adopted a new zoning ordinance which went into effect on January 1, 2017. Since the adoption of the ordinance, staff has noticed a number of code sections that should be modified following further examination and discussion with the public and developers. At the beginning of 2023 a Mural Ordinance Stakeholder Group was formed from members of the prior Public Arts and Beautification Committee to review the current Mural Ordinance and recommend changes. Throughout the year, the Stakeholder Group and City Staff worked together to update and revise the Mural Ordinance. The outcome of those recommended changes resulted in Planning Staff and City Attorneys Staff feeling that the definition of Commercial Messaging also needed to be updated so the two ordinances did not conflict with each other. Staff proposes an amendment to the following Zoning Ordinance code section, 30-271(G)(5), to change the definition of a Commercial Message. Current Definition: Section 30-217(G)(5) Commercial Message. Any sign wording, logo, or other representation that, directly or indirectly, names, advertises, or calls attention to a business product, service, idea or commercial activity. Electronic changeable copy is regulated as an electronic message board as defined in Section 30-280 Revised Definition Section 30-217(G)(5) Commercial Message. Any sign wording, logo, or trademark that names, advertises, or calls attention to a specific business product, service, or commercial activity. Electronic changeable copy is regulated as an electronic message board as defined in Section 30-280 Ultimately, we are recommending removal of the words “or other representation that directly or indirectly” and the word “idea” out of it. Just tightening up the ordinance a little bit so it is not so broad. Mr. Lyons stated they worked closely with the Stakeholder Group and the City Attorney’s office to make sure the language update was consistent. If approved this would move forward with the Mural Ordinance to Council to make sure they are consistent. The Mural Ordinance does not sit within the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 30), it is in Chapter 8. Mr. Nielsen stated the commercial messaging is referenced within the Mural Ordinance, so we needed to get this updated. Currently murals were getting denied for having images that were indirectly associated to the business activity that was occurring inside the building. They weren’t the logos or the trademarks, just general images. Tightening the language allows more flexibility in the Mural Ordinance. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 24 November 21, 2023 Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Scheuermann wanted an example. Mr. Lyons stated if you were a bake shop and you wanted to put a mural on the side of your building that included bread and muffins you would not be allowed to, under the current definition of commercial message. The proposed amendment would allow the mural to include bread and muffins. Mr. Nielsen stated something that is a logo, trademark, or physical words of that business would be considered a sign. Mr. Lyons stated in the current code you are a mural or a sign. The proposed amendments would allow the ability to incorporate your sign allotment into a mural. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments. Mr. Perry closed public comments. No closing statement from the applicant, the City. Motion by Coulibaly to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Kiefer. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 8-0 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:15 pm. (Kiefer/Propp) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager ML/km