Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 March 19, 2024 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES March 19, 2024 PRESENT: Mamadou Coulibaly, Margy Davey, Council Member Esslinger, Kathleen Propp, Meredith Scheuermann, Ed Bowen, John Kiefer, Thomas Perry EXCUSED: Kristopher Ulrich, Karl Loewenstein, DJ Nichols STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager; Alyssa Deckert, Civil Engineering Supervisor; Brian Slusarek, Principal Planner; Brandon Nielsen, Associate Planner Chairperson Perry called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Mr. Bowen arrived at 4:01pm. The minutes of March 5, 2024 were approved as presented. (Davey/Coulibaly) I. APPROVE AND SUBMIT WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 2023 STORM WATER PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT Mr. Lyons said that when the City did its board consolidation, there had to be a new mechanism for moving the MS4 Annual Report through the approval process and onto Council. It was determined that Plan Commission would be the appropriate body given the board and commission changes. Report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval to submit the 2023 MS4 Annual Report to the WDNR. Ms. Deckert gave a summary of the 2023 MS4 Annual Report. She explained that MS4 is a municipal separate storm sewer system. It is a publicly-owned storm sewer system that collects rainwater runoff, snowmelts, and other drainage that discharge into local waterways. They are issued a permit from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) which was initiated in January of 2007, updated in May of 2014 and will expire in April of 2024 when the WDNR will initiate a new permit. Purpose of the MS4 Annual report is to provide the WDNR an update on the City’s MS4 permit compliance through different control measures that include: public outreach, education, involvement and participation, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site pollutant control, post-construction storm water management, pollution prevention and storm sewer system map. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 March 19, 2024 Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Scheuermann asked if there are any emerging trends or themes that are different. Ms. Deckert said that there is a stormwater management plan, so the City is always striving to better the waters. There is improvement each year, and they try to do additional outreach, but there hasn’t been any significant change in the last year. Mr. Kiefer said that when the Stormwater Utility Appeals Board was in operation, the members pushed for more public outreach or having maps or signage available to explain what retention ponds do in public. Mr. Coulibaly said he was curious about the way staff detects discharge. Ms. Deckert said that the consultant takes samples and runs tests to determine what potential discharges are found, and some potential discharges are visible to the eye, which would result in further testing. Mr. Coulibaly asked if the consultant will take samples and run tests after a potential discharge is discovered or if they seek out issues. Ms. Deckert said that the consultant will help staff track the discharge upstream to identify where it comes from. Mr. Kiefer said that there is a schedule of outfalls that the consultant looks at either every year or on certain years. If something was discovered in one, they will follow up the next year to determine if it is still an issue. Mr. Perry opened the public hearing and asked if members of the public wished to speak. Mr. Perry closed public comments. Motion by Kiefer 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 3 March 19, 2024 II. 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 Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen, Ms. Davey, Ms. Propp, and Ms. Scheuermann reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Suburban Mixed Use District (SMU) to Suburban Mixed Use District with a Planned Development Overlay (SMU-PD) for the property located at 555 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 is a 0.99-acre commercial property located on the west side of South Washburn Street, north of West 9th Avenue. The site is currently utilized as a multi-tenant office building. The surrounding area consists mostly of commercial uses along with a City water tower and fire station immediately to the south. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan recommends Interstate Commercial land use for the subject property. The applicant is requesting this zone change to establish a Planned Development Overlay to provide flexibility to accommodate site constraints for redevelopment of the subject property for a new commercial use. The applicant has submitted plans for a drive-through restaurant development, which included a General Development Plan (GDP) and Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) request that was on a previous Plan Commission agenda. The GDP/SIP request was withdrawn from the February 20th Plan Commission agenda as the applicant is working on revisions to the original plans. The applicant intends to resubmit for GDP/SIP review at a future date. Staff is supportive of the proposed zone change to include a Planned Development Overlay as it will serve to accommodate future development needs for the site. Specifically, the site has hardships related to an ANR pipeline easement running through the property, existing cross- access agreement with the neighboring property, and insufficient space for a second driveway access. Staff recommends approval of the zone change with the findings listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Bowen asked if they are just considering the zone change, not the site plan. Mr. Lyons confirmed. There have been a lot of discussions going on between neighbors, property owners, Engineering, and City staff. If and when a site plan moves forward it will probably look different than what was originally proposed by the applicant. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 March 19, 2024 Mr. Bowen asked if the PD overlay, in this instance, is justified in Staff’s mind by what is anticipated to be some complicating factors of developing the site, such as multiple access points, and the pipeline. Mr. Lyons stated the nature of the pipeline alone cutting through the property is going to make a challenge for any project on this site. It will be extremely difficult because it is really going to limit the usable area on the property. Given the close proximity of the northern entrance where it is literally right at their property line. Typically, we would never have a driveway that close to another parcel. This site will be a challenge for any development, which is why we feel the PD is appropriate. Looking at the surrounding area there are a lot of site constraints, odd shaped lots, pipeline utility issues, and such. Most of it is a PD for a reason. Redevelopment in the 41 corridor is a challenge. Mr. Perry opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mr. Perry asked if other members of the public wished to speak. Larry Mroczkowski, of 3370 Collier Court in Oshkosh, is the property owner to the north. He handed out a one page document of his notes to Plan Commission, and then went through them. The reason why him and some of his neighbors are here is mostly due to the traffic issues that this is going to cause. He is fully on board with the existing building being torn down; it is an eyesore. When it is torn down it will give his building better visibility. If the site ends up being a Freddy’s, he loves custard and burgers more than anyone. If they have a punch card he will probably be their best customer. There are a couple issues. First, on the north driveway he has an easement that is owned by Tower West. He is obligated to pay for 50% of the easement where Freddy’s is trying to make a de facto drive-through. He did some math, based on Freddy’s average unit sales per their website, and figures we are looking at an additional 450 customers a day. If you put that in a 12-hour period you are looking at dozens of extra cars trying to get in. If you look at the map you will notice the property is on a curve. What happens right now is that cars stack up as they are exiting our parking lot. So, when cars are going to try to turn into any sort of new driveway the stacking is going to be to be phenomenal. The stacking trying to get onto Washburn and then into Freddy’s is going to block the entrance coming in. The cost of the repair of the easement is not my main concern. The easement was never built for this type of traffic. Even in the easement’s quick claim deed it says for the grantors to reserve unto themselves the right to ingress and egress the parking lot owned by the grantees, and reserves the right unto themselves the right to install utilities, if necessary, within the property. A drive-through entrance is simply not a utility nor customers of the business a binding party to the easement, as this is reserved for the owners themselves. He sees this as a civil and a public matter. Council should consider whether easements, in general, are entirely civil or indeed a matter of City concern. He believes they are important to the city, which is why they require legal paperwork and public notice. Aside from all this, the easement is only 30’ wide. There are times when cars are exiting the parking lot and stack, as Washburn is a busy road especially on the curve. His suggestion is to use the south entrance as an entrance and an exit, wrap around the east side of the building, and then come back out the south entrance without creating another entrance through the drive-through. Other concerns are parking from the drive-through customers in his parking lot, parking from employees, litter, and __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 March 19, 2024 the bus stop in front of his building. At this time there is much more to consider than simply city code and setbacks. He is not opposed to a zone change at all. He realizes the pipeline runs right through the middle of it all. Our concerns have not been allayed at all, so maybe the zone change should be delayed. Larry Burton Jr, of 486 Sunrise Bay Road in Neenah, is one of the physician members of the Ear Nose Throat Specialists of Wisconsin. They are one of the major tenants of Tower West. He is also a member of the shareholder group that is the landlord. Some of the information that has been shared with him, to be passed on, comes from a number of the other tenants. Two comments and one request. First, they are also very much on board with economic development of this property. It is going to be good for the community, neighboring property owners, and existing property owner that has a building that is just not viable right now to bring income. For the idea of developing this and bringing value to the community we are 100% on board. The second comment is somewhat reflective of what we have heard so far. The site plans had initially shown a number of problems with traffic. The newer ones, which I don’t know if they have come to your level, have shown some additional challenges that include the amount of traffic coming in and out of the north entrance, which has tendency to stack up, and could prevent the ingress into the property. It could also back up the traffic on Washburn. One of the largest tenants in the Tower West building is called Northeast Wisconsin Retina Specialists. They have a large group of visually impaired patients coming into that area. There is some concern for the safety of this group of people. He wanted to thank city staff and property owners in transparency for this development and to keep them in the loop. Mr. Perry closed public comments. There was no closing statement from the applicant. Mr. Lyons stated that staff had the applicant pull their Planned Development request due to the timeliness of the request. The applicant will have to start the Planned Development process over, and there will be a neighborhood meeting required if or when this moves forward. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Coulibaly. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp said that even though are does seem to be some issues, but a Planned Development is a good idea and she is in support of this. Mr. Esslinger said the issue at hand is the zone change request, and staff is in favor of that request. It also sounded like the neighbors are in favor of it as well. It is a challenged property that needs some help, and this would mitigate some of the issues. The two neighbors did discuss some other issues, and if this comes back it could be looked into. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 March 19, 2024 Motion carried 8-0 III. PUBLIC HEARING: TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh Department of Community Development requests review and approval of amendments to the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lyons said that text amendment requests are presented once or twice a year, and this one includes proposed changes to make the ordinances more user friendly. Mr. Nielsen stated that over the past year, Planning staff noted a couple changes that needed to be made. The most noticeable is the request to change the section 30-240 regarding exterior building design standards. Currently the code just prohibits single and two-family homes from boarding up windows and doors. The proposed change would prohibit boarding windows and doors for all properties, and not just single and two-family homes. The other section that is proposed to be removed is the bicycle parking standards for storage land uses. This was a common base standard modification request that would come up in projects. Given the nature of this land use, it made sense to remove the bicycle parking requirements. Lastly, there is some clarification added in the off-premise advertisement section. Non-branded signs with uniform texts are not considered to be an off-premise advertisement sign. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Esslinger said that the biggest challenge that he hears from contractors and developers include the interpretation of the codes. He asked if this will help to clear up some of the gray areas and if so, how it will help. Mr. Lyons said that the goal of these text amendment updates is to take that interpretation and to explain it better in the code so there is less confusion. Mr. Esslinger asked if these code updates were briefed by any contractors. Mr. Nielsen said that it usually happens in reverse order. They get questions from the public in regards to the ordinance, and it can open up the potential for updates. Mr. Esslinger said that it is helpful to the public to make these changes. Mr. Perry opened the public hearing and asked if other members of the public wished to speak. Mr. Perry closed public comments. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 March 19, 2024 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 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:43 pm. (Kiefer/Propp) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager ML/km/hs