Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 February 20, 2024 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 20, 2024 PRESENT: Karl Loewenstein, DJ Nichols, Margy Davey, Council Member Esslinger, Kristopher Ulrich, Kathleen Propp, John Kiefer, Thomas Perry EXCUSED: Meredith Scheuermann, Ed Bowen, Mamadou Coulibaly STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Brandon Nielsen, Associate Planner Chairperson Perry called the meeting to order at 4:01 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Mr. Perry stated there is a correction to Item III. He will be asking for a motion to table it, once they get to that point in the agenda. Wanted to bring that up now, in case there were people here for that item. Mr. Lyons stated they received word from the applicant yesterday. They are trying to work with their neighbors on some potential changes to the site layout. They want ample time to address questions, and concerns, so that is why Item III.A and III.B will be tabled today. The minutes of February 6, 2024 were approved as presented. (Davey/Propp) Mr. Loewenstein arrived at 4:06pm. I. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW A HOME ADDITION ON THE FRONT FAÇADE AT 2008 MITCHELL STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Nichols, Mr. Ulrich, and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to allow a home addition on the front façade at 2008 Mitchell 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 property is a residential lot located at 2008 Mitchell Street, just north of West Linwood Avenue, and is approximately 6850 square feet in area. According to the City of Oshkosh Assessor’s website the subject property contains a 594 square foot one-story single-family residential structure. The neighborhood surrounding the home varies in styles with the majority of them being one story; there are a couple of two-story structures just __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 February 20, 2024 on the southwest corner of West Linwood Avenue. To the north of this property are the Mitchell Park Condominiums, that are all one-story homes. In December of 2023 the applicant submitted design plans for an addition on the front façade. At that time the applicant was made aware that the submitted design plans did not meet the City’s Residential Design Standards and therefore could not be approved. The applicant requested a variance and staff provided the appropriate application. The applicant proceeded to submit a Design Standards Variance application to allow for an addition on the front façade. The applicant would like to add a 600 square foot, two-story addition to the front façade of the home at 2008 Mitchell Street. According to the applicant the proposed placement of the addition was done so because of the home’s current layout, explaining that the rear of the home is where the kitchen and bathroom are located; which contain major components like electrical, gas, water, and cabinetry. The applicant feels that proposing an addition off this side of the home would incur unnecessary financial hardships because those major components would have to be redesigned. The applicant also stated that these Design Standard codes restrict doing a project that would allow a reasonable way to expand the footprint of this home. The applicant also stated that the current front setback does not look proportioned to the neighboring properties and this addition would provide curb appeal to the property and the neighborhood. While staff understand the applicant feels that an addition on the rear of the home would cause an undue financial hardship, financial and self-imposed hardships are not sufficient reasons for granting a variance. In conversations with the applicant staff explained that, per the City’s Residential Design Standards, the proposed plans could not be approved because sufficient space is available off the rear of the home to build an addition; and that the Design Standards do not provide an exception from this requirement based on a home’s current layout. Furthermore, and based on the provided drawings, staff explained that the City’s Design Standards also do not allow for an addition’s roof ridgeline to be taller than the principal structure’s dominant roof ridgeline and that the addition’s height shall not overpower the overall scale and massing of the principal structure. An exception to this height standard can be made if an addition conforms and is compatible with the principal structure’s overall architectural style and roof shapes, and becomes an integral part of the structure’s overall building form and design. As proposed, the current roof design of this two- story addition does not meet the requirements of that exception and granting a variance would set an unnecessary precedent for future requests. It should also be noted that the Building Inspections Division has concerns with the plans as proposed because the second story is showing a double canteliever design, and there is no explanation of how they were going to accomplish that. Due to the available area for the addition off of the rear of the home, and the non-existent attempt to incorporate the existing roof line into the proposed new roof line, Staff does not support the variance request as it would be contrary to public interest and run contrary to the ordinance’s intent. Staff recommends denial of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to allow a home addition on the front façade with the following findings: __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 February 20, 2024 1. Financial and self-imposed hardships are not sufficient reasons for granting a variance. The applicant has selected to place the addition on the front façade of the home while there is sufficient area on the rear of the home and rear yard. 2. The variance request is a result of financial and personal preference of the applicant/owner instead of being specific to the property’s circumstances. 3. Granting this variance request would be contrary to public interest as it would be arbitrary and run contrary to the ordinance’s intent. 4. Granting this variance would set an unnecessary precedent for future requests. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Nichols asked if this was a vacant lot, would they be able to build the house shaped this way, or would there be any restrictions. Mr. Lyons stated there is a separate set of design standards for in-fill lots versus an addition. A two-story would likely not be permitted through our in-fill design standards as it is predominantly a ranch style area. We have compatibility requirements within the code. Mr. Nichols asked if it was a one-story, and they wanted to build it, are there any setback issues or any other issues at the lot. Is the problem just that it is on the front of the home. Mr. Nielsen stated they use the averaging of the block in order to determine where the front façade could be. There are also other provisions in the code when you are doing an addition specifically that state is should not be allowed off the front of the home, provided there is room in the rear. Mr. Lyons stated it is always intended that variances are granted when there is a true hardship to the property. That there is a physical limitation of the property that says I cannot do this, therefore I should be granted a variance to do it in another way possible. In reviewing this application, we do not see that standard being met. There is an alternative in this case. It may not be the most desirable for the applicant, but when we review it with our ordinance requirements that is the way we have to look at it. Mr. Nichols wondered if they tore the building down, would they be able to put up the same footprint they are proposing, except as a one-story instead of a two-story. Mr. Lyons stated yes but Brian verified it would have to meet the infill of no closer than the adjoining lot, so minimal relief would be allowed without a variance. Mr. Perry opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Chris J Kidd, of 2966 Crusade Lane in Green Bay, is the builder proposing the addition. Wondered if a front entrance is required. Currently the home has two side accesses (entrances). Looking at the garage and where it is located, going to the rear of the property the garage has to get tore down. The garage has to be removed to go to the back of the property. That had a lot to do with the design of where to put the addition. There is no access to that rear area even if we moved the __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 February 20, 2024 rear wall to the west over and try to get into that space. Of course all the other things that we had mentioned in our variance has a lot to do with those factors as well, with the plumbing and all of the utilities are pretty much there. We tried to also do the front façade of the home with 27% of it with windows, to enhance the area and the neighborhood. The cantilevers are so we don’t disturb too much soil in the front of the home. Trying to keep it a clean project. It is a crawlspace. There won’t be a lot of issues with erosion control. As far as the design on the roof, if we clipped the gables and made it the design of the other roof lines, I don’t know if that’s a part of the recommendation. Mr. Perry asked if other members of the public wished to speak. Mr. Perry closed public comments. There was no closing statement from the applicant. Mr. Lyons stated he checked the ordinance requirements. On existing additions there is no requirement for a front entrance, however if it was an in-fill lot it would require an entrance on the front. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Ulrich. Mr. Perry stated that means if you vote yes, the motion is defeated. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp stated the proposed plan would push the house forward toward the street in an awkward kind of way. Right now it is sort of lined up with the right setback from the street. Mr. Nichols stated he thinks the property owner is trying to make an existing home larger so they can continue with their purposes in it. He thinks we do not have enough housing in the City as is. This person is trying to make due with what they have. He thinks with what the staff said that this footprint could be built on an in-fill lot, we should modify the findings to say the two-story cannot be built under the variance, however they can build a one-story addition on the front of the house, because that footprint will be allowed under the code anyway. He doesn’t think we should require residents to tear down their home to build the exact same footprint that they could have been given otherwise. He would like to modify the motion so they can have a front addition. Mr. Lyons stated if the Plan Commission wants to go down that route, they should make a new motion to approve with the findings and conditions that they feel would be appropriate. The motion we currently have on the table, to deny the design standards variance, could not be modified to make that change. The current motion could be retracted, and a new motion could be made. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 February 20, 2024 Mr. Loewenstein stated it seems to him that, given what Mr. Nichols stated, they should reject this current two-story proposal and recommend the City and applicant/owner work on a one-story addition plan. Work to find a different solution to expand the footprint of the house. Mr. Nichols asked if there is a fee associated with a variance request. Ifo so, then with a new variance request they would have to pay an additional fee. Mr. Lyons stated yes and that is correct. He suggested that maybe Plan Commission table this item and give the City time to work with the applicant, if they are open to it, and then bring it back at a future Plan Commission meeting. It could be brought back under the current application, just with it updated. Ms. Propp stated she wants to know more about the front setback requirements. Mr. Nielsen stated they would take the average of the other homes on the block. Mr. Lyons stated there is also a lineup provision that says you are not supposed to go any closer to the street or any further back than the homes on the lots on either side of you. The subject property would only get maybe a couple of feet because the adjoining lot homes are already so far back. Mr. Nichols wondered if City staff discussed the possibility for a one-story front addition. Mr. Lyons stated it would have still needed a design standards variance. Mr. Nichols said his opinion is that the applicant should have the opportunity to talk to City staff about all of these options. There is not enough housing as it is. He thinks expanding the footprint, the concerns about the garage, and the fact they want to use their existing home are all valid. Having reasonable designs with the city makes a ton of sense here. He wondered if he could make a motion now. Mr. Lyons stated they would have to either rule on the current motion or have it withdrawn. Mr. Perry talked about setting a precedent. We’ve talked as a board many many times about what we do to set a precedent or could this action set a precedent that we can or can’t live with, in the future. He has always been a proponent to not setting those precedents when we have other things around there, and because of that, this is one thing that he would not be able to support. He will be voting in affirmation of the motion on the floor. Mr. Esslinger stated he believed it was Mr. Ulrich that seconded the motion. He wondered if Mr. Ulrich removed his second, and there was no other second, what would happen. Mr. Lyons stated the motion would die for lack of a second, and then a new motion would be needed. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 February 20, 2024 Mr. Ulrich stated he would be keeping his second, for the sake of having the vote go through. He also agrees about the precedent being set. Does not want this to trickle down to historic neighborhoods or other places. Motion carried 6-2. The variance is denied. II. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY CAMPGROUND AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST RIPPLE AVENUE & SOUTH WASHBURN STREET (PARCELS 1309141000, 1367000000, 1367490000, & 1367500000) Site Inspections Report: Mr. Nichols, Mr. Esslinger, Mr. Ulrich, Ms. Propp, Mr. Kiefer, and Mr. Perry reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan amendment for a temporary campground at the southwest corner of West Ripple Avenue & South Washburn Street. 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 area consists of four vacant parcels totaling 68 acres located at the southwest corner of West Ripple Avenue and South Washburn Street that were previously used for camping, parking, and ingress/egress at Ford Festival Park. In 2016, Common Council approved renewal of the CUP/PD for the former Country USA and Rock USA events through 2026. The site was last utilized in 2019, and therefore the CUP/PD has expired. The applicant is requesting SIP amendment approval to establish a use similar to the previous use. The applicant is requesting to utilize the subject area for 10 temporary events per year. The concert performance area will remain in the Town of Nekimi, to the west. The area within the City’s jurisdiction contains the main entrance off South Washburn Street, festival grounds signage, parking, and campground area. The applicant intends to hold events between the months of April and November. The use of the subject properties is considered a temporary campground, which is not permitted in the Suburban Mixed Use (SMU) District. Staff is supportive of a BSM to allow the temporary campground use, but is recommending a condition that the temporary campground be limited to 5 events per year and only be used when a City-issued special event permit is active. Given the temporary nature of the use and historical use of approximately 3 events per year, staff feels that a maximum of 5 events, of up to 8 days each, per year is appropriate. The site is accessed from a single primary entrance within the City on South Washburn Street and 5 access points from West Ripple Avenue in the Town of Nekimi. Two gated emergency entrances are also shown along South Washburn Street within the City. Staff is recommending a condition __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 February 20, 2024 that only one primary access be permitted off of South Washburn Street and that the additional two access points are gated and used for emergency access only. The applicant is requesting base standard modifications (BSMs) to allow the temporary campground use without code-compliant parking stalls; to allow gravel drive aisles and grass parking areas without curbing, lighting, and striping; to allow the commercial use without the code-required pedestrian/bicycle access. Staff is supportive of these requested BSMs as they are unique to the proposed temporary campground use and will be utilized only on a temporary/seasonal basis for events. The proposed site design is consistent with the functionality of the site for previous events. The applicant has submitted plans for a two-sided 11’ X 36’ electronic message center (EMC) sign on the south side of the South Washburn Street entrance along with a two-sided 11’ X 36’ static sign along South Washburn Street on the northern parcel. These two permanent signs would be in addition to the existing monument sign located at the entrance on the southern parcel (91367500000). Both of the proposed signs have an overall height of 30’. The zoning ordinance allows up to 400 sq. ft. of signage for each of these parcels. However, electronic message boards are limited to one per lot with a maximum area of 100 sq. ft. A BSM is being requested to allow the proposed 396 sq. ft. EMC sign. Staff is supportive of the increased EMC size due the large scale of the site and events. Staff is comfortable that the applicant has offset the BSM by only providing signage on two of the three parcels with South Washburn Street frontage. The applicant would otherwise have the ability to have another 400 sq. ft. ground sign on the middle parcel (91309141000). Signage displays must be directly related to on-site events. The applicant is requesting a total of 1,800 sq. ft. of temporary signage, including 800 sq. ft. of temporary signage over 8’ tall, up to 20’ tall. Code allows a maximum of one board/banner sign per lot or one waving sign per street frontage with a maximum area of 32 sq ft. and maximum height of 8’ for board/banner signs and 20’ for waving signs. By code the applicant would be permitted three temporary signs for a total of 96 sq. ft. The requested 1800 sq. ft is almost 19 times larger than base code. Staff feels it is appropriate to allow temporary signs within the maximum height of 8’ for board/banner signs and 20’ for waving (feather) signs. Staff is supportive of BSM to allow increased signage height up to 20’ for the gateway entrance. In exchange for the increased temporary sign height staff is proposing the gateway entrance sign to be setback a minimum of 120’ from South Washburn Street. Staff is also recommending a BSM to allow up to 835 sq. ft. of temporary signage. 675 sq. ft. of the total temporary signage would be accounted for by the gateway entrance and an additional four 5’x8’ temporary signs. Staff is recommending a condition that temporary signs are only placed on the site when a City-issued special event permit is active for the site and all temporary signage displays must be directly related to on-site events. 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. Ms. Propp wondered if the driveways were gravel before. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 February 20, 2024 Mr. Lyons stated yes; all the internal access drives are in various states of gravel, deteriorated gravel, or dirt. They were all previously like that. Ms. Davey wondered if the existing sign would be removed. Mr. Lyons believes the Ford sign will go away, and be replaced with one of the two new signs. Mr. Perry wants to know about the sanitation situation with the temporary campground permit. Mr. Lyons stated the applicant/owner would go through County Health for those permits. Mr. Ulrich wondered if the recommendation is for five events per year to be evaluated in the future, then does Plan Commission have to set an actual timeline to evaluate. Mr. Lyons stated that if at some point they grow to a point where they believe they would want to exceed five, it would trigger the need for them to come back to this board through an SIP Amendment. Mr. Perry opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Corey Bliss, (no address given) is the GM of Oshkosh Festivals. Crossroads 41 music event is their inaugural event August 8th through 10th. He noted some of the owners and a manager in attendance. He has been doing music festivals specifically since 1996. In that time, there have been well over 50 music festivals he’s organized and produced. The one thing we are doing here that’s different than what was done with Country USA and Rock USA is we are developing an event that is very much more on the high-end of the common music festival. Higher end experiences, more customer service focused elements, and some unique experiences within the experience. Our hope, our goal is to have the Midwest premier event located here in Oshkosh. Other premier events in the country, Coachella on the west coast, is one that comes to mind that has been around for a long time. They execute things really at a high level from a fan experience standpoint. That is one of our goals. Our number one goal is safety. Unfortunately, in the world we live in it is not foreign anymore for a mass gathering event to be the target of some sort of nefarious activity. Everything we are doing with our planning and the strategy around this event is with public safety in mind, and the safety of our staff, artists, and guests that attend this event. Some of the improvements we have currently gone underway with are public safety improvements, and grounds improvements to handle some of the water or mud that was common with the previous event. Long-term there is certainly a desire to build some permanent infrastructure that can replace temporary infrastructure: tents, port-a-johns, things of that nature. Have to get this first event under our belts and identify what the flow, personality, and culture of the event is. Will be largely temporary infrastructure for this first event, so tents, port-a-johns, mobile offices, and things of that nature. We are super excited to be doing an event in this area. We love the community and the event city mindset that Oshkosh has become famous for. Not to be too bold or overconfident, but we think we can do an event better than anyone else has done an event for this community. I think what you will see in our plans and presentations, as it relates to __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 February 20, 2024 any permitting and public record items, is that we put a lot of thought into it. Such as traffic planning; how do we alleviate and try to mitigate unnecessary congestion on the roadways and things like that. All that is coming down the pipeline in the near future. We are fine with the recommendation that was presented, and are available for questions. Mr. Perry asked if other members of the public wished to speak. Mr. Perry closed public comments. There was no closing statement from the applicant, but Plan Commission had questions. Ms. Propp stated is sounds like the petitioner has standards and she appreciates that. She is primarily interested in high-end grounds standards. She has heard and seen horror stories about the mud, and that is why she had asked about the gravel driveways. She hopes they will start off with enough gravel so at least the driveways will not be an issue. She is also concerned with traffic. If they could offer a shuttle service that would be magnificent. There have been a lot of problems out there in the past with not being able to install sidewalks, or a decent roadway. Mr. Bliss stated they are topping off all the existing roads with gravel. They will then drain off better. Beyond that we have got some water management that we’ve installed. It is no accident the date that we chose for this event. August is typically a drier time of year than June or July. We are hoping mother nature cooperates with us most of the time. I cannot speak real in depth to some of the future improvements to the site but I think what you will see with the group we are working with is an appetite to do things on a high level, not done on the cheap. We want whatever investment that is put into this site to last a long time, and also be flexible for any number of thousands of people that may be attending there. There’s a 1-year plan we have in place for this first event. We have a 5-year and 10-year plan that we are working on. It’s kind of our master plan for the improvement of this site. Ms. Davey is curious about the existing Ford sign, and if they will be getting rid of it. Mr. Bliss stated yes they would be. Mr. Perry stated since there would be a temporary campground, he is very concerned about public sanitation. People will be renting tents, and/or RVs and even if it is three days, he can see a lot of valves being opened into the grass. He wanted to know if there is a plan to address the public sanitation issue or not. Mr. Bliss stated they will work closely with public health and whatever their requirements are. In addition to that we will have a RV pumping service available on site that will connect directly to the outlet on the RV and pump tanks. We found that by introducing that at other events in other locations in the country that is has taken care of the vast majority of those types of issues, but I won’t ever say 100%. We will also have another vendor that will fill water tanks as a customer service. We are really trying to set up all your conveniences right there. Part of the higher-end experience culture starts in the campground with what you tolerate. Do you put together a harder __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 February 20, 2024 approach to it because it improves the overall experience. Campgrounds are where we are going to put that emphasis. Even the cleanliness of your individual campsite, depending on how messy it is, we might make an example of that customer and say I’m sorry but you have to leave because you haven’t complied with cleaning up of your personal campsite. Ms. Davey asked if they are planning to do anything about recyclables. Mr. Bliss stated he has a meeting tomorrow to start to get some of those plans finalized. We will have an active aluminum and carboard recycling program in addition to the food waste and other waste. Mr. Esslinger wondered if the site would host mainly country events, or if there would be rock or pop events. Mr. Bliss stated for this first inaugural and annual event will be country leaning in the talent. It is not all country. It will always be a largely country lineup. The next event we are in the process of planning, which may or may not roll out in 2025, is going to be more programmed on the rock leaning side of the genre. We think country and rock, in this part of the country, is what appeals to the masses. Mr. Lyons stated they will also need special event permits, which get into more of the public safety side of things. Such as traffic, lighting, and all the stuff that goes with public safety. Back when the original events took place on this site, our special event process and permitting did not exist. A lot of what was previously handled by this board and Land Use is no longer in here (staff report) because we now have that special event permitting process that is better equipped to handle the public safety side of things, such as traffic, and traffic control. They will need special event permitting for every event. He appreciates the applicant and their team working with staff. They had a lot of back and forth. This is a unique event both from what it brings to the community but then also the challenges we have dealing with this type of use from a land use and planning standpoint. It does not fit cleanly into a zoning code so thank you to their team. We really appreciate their willingness to work with us. 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. Ms. Propp appreciates the applicant’s answers, and the fact that we have a special event permit process now that might take care of some of the issues we have raised. She hopes for success and no mud. Mr. Nichols is excited with how thorough the applicant was, working with City staff, and City staff’s help in this process. He thinks this event is going to be incredible, and the more events like this we can bring to Oshkosh just makes our City a better place. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 February 20, 2024 Motion carried 8-0 III.A. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM SUBURBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT (SMU) TO SUBURBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (SMU-PD) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 555 SOUTH WASHBURN STREET III.B. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 555 SOUTH WASHBURN STREET Mr. Perry stated Items III.A and III.B have been asked to be tabled by the applicant. Motion by Davey to table III.A and III.B. Seconded by Propp. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried by voice vote There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:52 pm. (Kiefer/Propp) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager ML/km