Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 April 2, 2024 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES April 2, 2024 PRESENT: Council Member Esslinger, Kristopher Ulrich, Kathleen Propp, Meredith Scheuermann, DJ Nichols, Ed Bowen, John Kiefer EXCUSED: Margy Davey, Karl Loewenstein, Mamadou Coulibaly, Thomas Perry STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works/Utilities General Manager; Brian Slusarek, Principal Planner; Emma Dziengeleski, Assistant Planner; Kay Qualley, Assistant Community Development Director Vice-Chairperson Kiefer called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Ms. Propp arrived at 4:01 pm. The minutes of March 19, 2024 were approved as presented. (Propp/Scheuermann) Mr. Bowen arrived at 4:04 pm. I. GRANT UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC AND COMMUNICATION EASEMENT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CLAIRVILLE ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 91 TO WISCONSIN POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY Site Inspections Report: Ms. Scheuermann reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh is requesting the granting of an underground electric and communication easement to Wisconsin Power and Light Company on City-owned land at the northwest corner of Clairville Road and State Highway 91. 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 on three separate parcels owned by the City of Oshkosh. The property is located in the Southwest Industrial Park and is envisioned to be sold and developed with industrial uses. Wisconsin Power and Light Company is requesting this easement to expand its electric and communication facilities. This easement will allow Wisconsin Power and Light Company to access the property, install underground electric and communication lines, and maintain or replace its facilities as needed. The City Attorney’s Office is coordinating with the Public Works and Community Development Departments, and Wisconsin Power and Light Company, and has prepared a draft of the easement documents. Staff recommends approval of the granting of the proposed electric and communication easement. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 April 2, 2024 Mr. Kiefer opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Kiefer opened the public hearing and asked if any members of the public wished to speak. Mr. Kiefer closed public comments. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Ulrich. Mr. Kiefer asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-0. II. PUBLIC HEARING: VALLEY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL ANNEXATION FROM THE TOWN OF OSHKOSH, EAST SIDE OF THE 3100-3200 BLOCKS OF VINLAND STREET (TOWN PARCELS 0180063, 018006303, AND 018006302) Site Inspections Report: Council Member Esslinger, Mr. Ulrich, Ms. Propp, Ms. Scheuermann, Mr. Bowen, and Mr. Kiefer reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioners are requesting direct annexation (by unanimous approval) of approximately 36.843 acres of land currently located at the 3100-3200 Blocks of Vinland Street in the Town of Oshkosh. 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 owners are requesting approval of an annexation of three lots (Lots 1 & 2, and Outlot 1 of Certified Survey Map Number (CSM) 5975) totaling approximately 36.843 acres. The site is located on the east side of Vinland Street approximately ½ mile south of West Snell Road. The site is predominantly vacant and being farmed except for the City-owned lot (Outlot 1). The property has a Town of Oshkosh General Farming District (A-2) zoning designation (Lots 1 & Outlot 1), and Light Industrial District (M-1) (Lot 2) zoning designation. The property will be annexed with zoning designation of Institutional District with Planned Development Overlay (I-PD), which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Mixed- use land use recommendation. It is planned that Lot 1 will be developed as the new Valley Christian High School. The development will require base standard modifications which is the reason the Planned Development Overlay is being added to the Institutional zone designation. Outlot 1, which is owned by the City, is part of a planned extension for West Fernau Avenue connecting east to Jackson Street. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the request and reported that City sanitary sewer and water main are available along Vinland Street. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 April 2, 2024 Staff recommends approval of the Valley Christian School Annexation with zonings of Institutional Zoning District with Planned Development Overlay (I-PD) as requested. Mr. Kiefer opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Scheuermann wanted further explanation regarding unanimous consent. Mr. Lyons stated it means unanimous approval from the property owners, which in this case is the City of Oshkosh and Valley Christian. Ms. Propp asked if Lot 2, owned by Valley Christian, was going to be part of the school. Mr. Lyons stated it is anticipated right now that there will be some storm water needs as part of the development, and the road development. The City end up purchasing a portion of Lot 2 for storm water management for the new road that is going in. Mr. Nichols asked about ownership of the lots to the east of Outlot 1, which extend to Jackson Street. He also inquired if they are located within the City, or if we should be annexing those as well. Mr. Lyons stated they are owned by the City of Oshkosh. He believes they are in the City but will have to verify (they are in the Town of Oshkosh). There is some additional right-of-way work that we are doing to be able to make the road go through. You will probably see more on this Fernau extension at future meetings as the rest of the necessary pieces are ready. Mr. Kiefer opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Dean Schulz with Excel Engineering, out of Fond du Lac, made himself available for questions. He stated Brad Dunn, Head of Schools with Valley Christian, is also in attendance and available for questions. Mr. Kiefer asked if other members of the public wished to speak. Craig Simon, of 3185 Jackson Street, asked if there was a site plan showing where they are planning to put a road, how are their water needs going to affect the property, and is there going to be runoff from their property. Seeing that most of the land between the buildings and the back property line are pretty close to wetlands. Has there been research there as to how you are going to handle that. Are you going to increase the level of flooding and usefulness of my backyard. Mr. Lyons stated, by ordinance, they will have to maintain all storm water on their own site. They cannot discharge storm water onto the adjoining property. Once development takes place it should actually improve any water that is currently the farmland run off. Soon as it gets developed, by the school, they now have to withhold all of their own water and discharge it into the storm sewer system. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 April 2, 2024 Mr. Simon asked if plans have been submitted. Mr. Lyons stated we have not seen any plans yet for the school. Mr. Simon stated most of the people in that area actually hunt in that section. It is the Town of Oshkosh so it is a legal area to gun hunt. Are they going to be very squirrelly when people are shooting towards their football field. Mr. Lyons stated he would defer that to the Valley Christian representatives. Teresa Doemel, of 3243 Vinland Street, owns the house directly across from where this proposed school will be. There is probably nothing I can do but we enjoy that open area. There is lots of deer and turkeys. My main concern is that it will increase traffic on my road. It is going to be a pain to get in and out of my driveway. Noise as well. We chose that area because it is quiet. We have a well and septic in the Town of Oshkosh, and I do not want to be forced to have to pay for City water and sewer. Do you know if that is going to be a situation. Mr. Lyons stated right now if you are not in the City that would not be relevant. Mr. Gohde stated until you are attached or annexed into the City there would be no means for the City to force you to attach. Mr. Lyons stated the City does not do forceful annexations. Ms. Doemel asked if sidewalks would be installed on both sides of the street. Mr. Lyons stated that if sidewalks are put in, they could only be done the City side. Mr. Kiefer closed the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make a closing statement. Mr. Schulz stated they have done a wetland delineation of their property, and they know where the wetlands are at. We will be addressing developing around with the DNR. Motion by Ulrich to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Scheuermann. Mr. Kiefer asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Scheuermann wanted to discuss annexation. If neighbors wanted to annex, do you have to have three-fourths of a neighborhood. What are the specifics around that. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 April 2, 2024 Mr. Lyons stated there are many different types of annexations. There is unanimous annexation, like this one, where all property owners are choosing to. There are areawide annexations where a certain percentage of the properties could request to be brought in. We had one maybe about two years ago up towards the lake that was that scenario. Each situation is a little bit different. State statute outlines how that process would work if there was an areawide annexation. I think you maybe need 51% of the area to make the request, and then it would be up to Council to determine if they wanted to annex that area in or not. It is generally a City’s policy to not do forceful annexation. Mr. Esslinger stated anything the developer would like to put there would have to come back to the City staff, go through Plan Commission, and be voted on by Council. Mr. Lyons stated that is correct if the annexation is completed. That is why the I-PD zoning district is expected. That means any development would have to come back through Plan Commission, Council, and neighborhood meetings, for what the actual development plans are going to look like. Motion carried 7-0. III. APPROVAL OF DESIGN ALTERATION REVIEW FOR FAÇADE MODIFICATIONS AT 216 STATE STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Ulrich, Ms. Propp, Ms. Scheuermann, Mr. Nichols, and Mr. Bowen reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a Design Alteration Review for façade modifications at 216 State Street, located within a Central Mixed Use Zoning District (CMU). Ms. Dziengeleski 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 0.27-acre commercial property located on the east side of State Street, south of Waugoo Avenue. The property includes a vacant two-story 17,280 sq. ft. commercial building. The property is currently zoned Central Mixed Use District (CMU) and the surrounding area consists primarily of commercial uses. The 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends Center City use for the subject area. The applicant plans to convert the building to a first-floor restaurant (phase 1) and also add hotel accommodations above the restaurant and in the building immediately to the north (224 State Street) as future phases. The proposed restaurant conversion will include front façade, east façade, and south façade modifications. Plans for the west façade were approved by Plan Commission on January 2, 2024. The applicant has submitted revised plans for Design Alteration Review. The previously approved renovations to the west façade included the following: Removal of the existing metal panel and aggregate __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 April 2, 2024 panel exterior to showcase the original brick exterior; add storefront windows back into the spaces where windows were located previously; the front entrance will also be modified for ADA accessibility. The proposed plans today include only minor changes to the west façade from the previously approved plan, including more decorative façade details and an awning. According to the applicant, these changes are intended to increase accessibility and improve the front elevation of the proposed restaurant. The Department of Public Works has noted that anything that will protrude off the face of the building and will encroach into the public right-of-way will need an encroachment agreement. The proposed exterior renovations to the east façade will include the following: Removal of existing brick infill and installation of new windows; replacement of existing windows. The proposed exterior renovations to the south façade will include the following: Removal of existing brick infill and installation of 10 new windows. Staff is supportive of the proposed building façade alteration updates as the exposure of the original brick and added window areas will serve to enhance the appearance of the façades. The west façade will result in the exterior consisting of 100% Class I materials, which is an improvement from the existing façade. The east and south façades will result in more windows to break up the blank brick façades. Staff recommends approval of a Design Alteration Review for building façade modifications as proposed. Mr. Kiefer opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Propp asked about a historical photo, of the front of the building, in the PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Lyons discussed all four images on that PowerPoint slide. Ms. Scheuermann had questions about the awning and possible encroachment agreement with the Department of Public Works. Mr. Lyons stated the building has a zero foot lot line. It sits right up to the property lot line. Anything that extends over the public right-of-way, like the awning or if any type of lattice work that would extend, needs an encroachment agreement with the City. The agreement would need to go into effect immediately. They are done a lot and all over the City. If you meet the standards you get the encroachment agreement. Mr. Kiefer opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Susan Hirschberg with RH Design Build, 1951 Bowen Street, was available for questions. Kelsie Lally with Ameena Design and D & J, and also the owner’s representative, stated when they submitted design plans and originally got approved in January they had no idea what was behind the metal and aggregate panels. Since then, they have removed the metal and aggregate panels __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 April 2, 2024 and have found the historical façade, with some damage from the metal and panels. Their intention is to bring this back to original. The owner fell in love with the historical façade, from 1913, so that is why the design is changing. They will be introducing some modern applications, such as enclosing the lead glass windows between two panes of glass to keep the integrity of the lead glass for longer than what it typically lasts. In regards to the awning, the height would be 10’4” above the sidewalk. The second floor will be hotel rooms. Mr. Kiefer asked if other members of the public wished to speak. Mr. Kiefer closed public comments. There was no closing statement from the applicant. Motion by Ulrich to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Scheuermann. Mr. Kiefer asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Esslinger wanted to say thank you to Ms. Hirschberg, Ms. Lally, and the owner. When you do things like this it can get very expensive. What is being done here is phenomenal. To do that with that building is just fantastic. Kudos to them. Mr. Ulrich agrees with Mr. Esslinger, and echoes that statement. There are so many people in Oshkosh that really appreciate it when historical architecture is preserved and maintained for future generations. Thank you for discovering this and running with it. He wondered if the applicant/owner has worked with the state historical preservation office in order to register the property or to get any historic documents that might aide in the design work. Ms. Lally stated they have not, because this building was not on the register. Now that they have opened the façade, they might consider it but they do not have plans to right now. Motion carried 7-0. IV. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER AT 2350 STATE ROAD 44 Site Inspections Report: Council Member Esslinger, Mr. Ulrich, Ms. Scheuermann, Mr. Nichols, and Mr. Bowen reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) amendment for a new electronic message center sign (EMC). __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 April 2, 2024 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 property is located on the north side of State Road 44, west of South Washburn Street. It is zoned Business Park District with a Planned Development Overlay (BP-PD), contains an existing drive-thru restaurant building, and is located within the Universal Business Park. In 2016, a PD amendment was approved to allow a 25 sq. ft. (per side) EMC (Resolution 16-96), which is on the existing monument sign. No changes are being proposed to the use of the property, as it will remain a drive-thru restaurant. The new restaurant will be called Foodies. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing monument signage, including a 25 sq. ft. EMC and 22.36 sq. ft. static sign cabinet above the EMC, and has submitted plans for a new 38.6 sq. ft. EMC to be placed on the existing monument sign base. The Business Park zoning district (BP) allows EMC signage of up to 100 sq. ft. per lot. However, the Universal Business Park covenants prohibit EMCs. The previously approved Planned Development amendment (2016) limited the EMC to 25 sq. ft. The applicant is now requesting approval of an increased EMC size to 38.6 sq. ft. In addition to Planned Development amendment approval, a variance to the Universal Business Park covenants would be required to allow the increased EMC size. According to the applicant, the increased EMC area is needed to provide greater visibility for the new drive-thru restaurant (Foodie’s). The applicant believes that the previous drive-thru restaurants at this site (Taco John’s and Pizza @ 44) failed due to lack of visibility from the street. Staff has concerns with allowing additional EMC signage area as the applicant already has the ability to utilize 25 sq. ft. of EMC area, while neighboring businesses along State Road 44 within the Universal Business Park are prohibited from installing an EMC. Staff also feels that a larger EMC at the subject site will be incompatible with the character of the surrounding area as only one nearby property along State Road 44 has an existing EMC (Verve Credit Union). This EMC is 11.65 sq. ft. (per 2006 building permit), which is smaller than the existing EMC on the subject site. Staff feels like the proposed larger EMC would be of a higher intensity than signage in the surrounding area. Staff recommends denial of the SIP amendment as proposed. If approved, staff recommends a condition that a variance from Universal Business Park covenants is required for increased EMC sign area to be reviewed and approved by Greater Oshkosh Economic Development Corporation (GOEDC). Mr. Lyons stated this is a situation where it is not only the City’s decision. Even if Council would approve the request, the applicant would still need to a get a variance from the Industrial Review Committee. That is because of covenant restrictions. Mr. Kiefer opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Nichols wondered if typically, the variance request is done before or after coming to Plan Commission. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 April 2, 2024 Mr. Lyons stated they see them both ways. Sometimes applicants want to know if the City is going to approve it first, before they go to the Industrial Review Committee. Sometimes we have seen them go to the Industrial Review Committee to get their feeling first. It is up to the applicant to decide which process they want to do first. Mr. Nichols asked, in this case, if the applicant has asked for the variance yet. Mr. Lyons thinks they have not. Mr. Nichols asked if the applicant is asking to build a smaller sign. Mr. Lyons stated he believes the overall size of the sign is smaller than the existing one there today. It is just transitioning to more EMC. Ms. Propp wondered how the existing, Area 44, sign got approved. Mr. Lyons stated it went through a PD and a variance in 2016. GOEDC approved that variance. There was also a use variance granted from GOEDC for the original Taco John’s, because this type of restaurant was never an allowed use within that business park. Prior to Taco John’s going in they were also granted a variance, from a use standpoint, to put the restaurant there. Ms. Scheuermann wondered if it is time to update, since it has been eight years since the existing sign was approved. She does not think the proposed sign looks intrusive. Mr. Lyons stated the City is not the controller of the business park covenants. The business park membership is. Base zoning allows an EMC here. It is the business park covenants, in this case, that are more restrictive for that area than City code. Mr. Esslinger stated, from a council member standpoint, this is something that needs to be reviewed, there are unanswered questions at this time at cannot be answered today, so he will be voting present. Mr. Nichols wondered if this could be tabled, and if the applicant could be asked to submit a variance request first. Mr. Lyons stated yes. To follow up on that, this portion of the project for this site was filed by the sign company. Just last week we received a set of plans from the architect for the rest of the proposed site improvements that will need plan development review. So, if you table the sign portion, it could come back to Plan Commission with the rest of the package. Do not know why one piece of the project got filed before the other, instead of all being submitted at once. Mr. Kiefer opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 April 2, 2024 Greg Jens, of 1414 Monroe Street, and owner of Mid-State Sign Service LLC, stated his client says there have been failed businesses in there. We are trying to streamline the sign, and make it more communicable to the target audience, being the people driving down highway 44. The sign is thirty feet off the road. The existing sign is obsolete. It has a border around it and the proposed sign does not. If the client buys a sign from me, according to the rules that are set there in place right now, it would have to be 22.15 square feet. They only make them in certain size increments. The next larger version would be over the twenty-five square feet by 1.5 square feet. They are saying this sign is more intense, but it is not any more intense than the Verve sign, or the Arena sign. The pixels of the sign are no more intense than the Verve sign, or the Arena sign across from a residential neighborhood. We are talking about an industrial park, and instead of communicating two separate messages at once, they are going to see one single message. This orientation is becoming more & more popular. You see very few billboards along the expressway where there are two billboards next to each other. The new ones, where they are putting EMS’s up, are one solid one message. You have rules in place for the amount of time and the intensity of the message. The new sign will turn down to 5% power at night and still convey a beautiful message to the customer. What public service is served by restricting it from twenty-five square feet up to thirty-eight feet, when we are reducing the entire size, and it is not going to be as congested as having two signs in place of one sign. He made himself available for questions. Mr. Kiefer asked if other members of the public wished to speak. Mr. Kiefer closed public comments. There was no closing statement from the applicant. Mr. Lyons discussed procedural options for making a motion. Typically, it is easiest to have a motion where yes means approve and no means denial. Motion by Propp to approve the request as submitted by the applicant. Seconded by Scheuermann. Mr. Kiefer asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Bowen stated he would like to table this because it does not make any sense to vote on it as a stand-alone item. There are a lot of mitigating factors here. … Mr. Nichols stated he agrees with tabling this for the same reasons. We probably need to establish rules for when a variance is needed from a third party, that it is required to be done before it comes to Plan Commission, not after. We should discuss how that can be done, so the order of operations is correct. Ms. Propp stated her feelings are that the sign company representative made some very good points, and this feels like the cart before the horse. She would rather hear from the business park folks first, on if they approve of this or not. That would help her make a decision. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 April 2, 2024 Mr. Lyons stated we had reached out to GOEDC about this and have not heard back. We will reach out again and see if they have had a chance to get it scheduled for the Industrial Review Committee. Ms. Propp stated that is not going to help us today. Ms. Scheuermann asked if staff told the applicants to bring all their proposals as one. Mr. Lyons stated we asked if they wanted to table it and bring them as a single request, and we were told no. They wanted to move forward with this one tonight, and then follow up with the remainders in May. Staff would rather move this forward as a single project Ms. Scheuermann asked why the applicants did not want to bring this forward as one. Mr. Lyons stated he did not know. The project submittals were from two separate applicants. The sign company is representing tonight’s proposal, and the architectural design firm represents the other portion coming to Plan Commission in May. Ms. Scheuermann stated, given that information, she would be okay tabling this as well. Mr. Esslinger stated he thought Mr. Bowen laid it out quite well. He also thinks it would be appropriate to lay this over. He questioned if that would be okay with the developer. Mr. Jens stated the sign was paid for last year. They need to get a decision on this as soon as possible because they will not start configuring the sign until there is a permit in hand. That is why he is here today. They submitted their application at the very beginning of the year, so they would like to keep moving on the sign portion, have that built and ready to go. Mr. Nichols asked if they have the variance from the business park. Mr. Jens said no. That was the owner’s deal. He does not know who the owner has talked to. The owner has not instructed Mr. Jens to talk to them, but he will move forward on that as soon as he talks to the owner. Mr. Ulrich wanted to clarify. If Plan Commission would vote to approve the sign today, it would still have to go through the variance and GOEDC. Mr. Jens stated that is correct. We would like to move forward today. Mr. Kiefer wondered when the next piece of this project was coming to Plan Commission. Mr. Lyons stated May 21st the rest of the project for this site comes before Plan Commission. The Industrial Review Committee typically does not meet very often. They meet on an as needed basis. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 April 2, 2024 Propp removed her motion to approve the request as submitted by the applicant. Scheuermann removed her second. Motion by Bowen to table this until we have the full SIP submittal. Seconded by Esslinger. Mr. Kiefer asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp said meanwhile staff will follow up with the business park to get their decision. Mr. Lyons stated we will push for them to have that completed prior to the May 21st Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Esslinger wanted to clarify. I was going to vote present because we were voting for or against the proposal. We are not doing that anymore; we are just allowing more time. I think this needs more time and clarification. Motion carried 7-0 to table this until the May 21st Plan Commission meeting. V. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (I) TO INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (I-PD) AND APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR OUTDOOR AND INDOOR STORAGE AREAS AT 4311 JACKSON STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Ulrich, Ms. Propp, Ms. Scheuermann, Mr. Nichols, and Mr. Bowen reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Institutional District (I) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD). The applicant also requests approval of a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan for outdoor and indoor storage areas at 4311 Jackson 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 site is a 94-acre property located at the southwest corner of County Road Y and Jackson Street. It includes the Winnebago County Sherriff’s Office, County Highway Department Facility, and Waste/Recycling Transfer Station. The applicant is requesting a zone change from the existing Institutional District (I) designation to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD). It is intended to allow for __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 April 2, 2024 flexibility in the zoning ordinance to accommodate a new use on the property. Staff is supportive of the proposed rezone as it will allow for necessary County government uses on the site. The applicant is proposing to construct a 20,000 sq. ft. outdoor evidence storage area, to the north of the sheriff’s building, and a 5,427 sq. ft. evidence storage building adjacent to it, and that will include a morgue. They are requesting a base standard modification (BSM) to allow the outdoor storage use as outdoor storage (exceeding 500 sq. ft.) uses are not permitted in the I district. Staff is supportive of a BSM to allow the proposed outdoor evidence storage area as it is needed for use by the County Sherriff’s Department. It is also compatible with surrounding land uses. The outdoor storage area and building will exceed setback requirements for the Institutional district. It will also be surrounded by fencing. The fence height will need to be increased to 8’, must include pre-woven or interwoven privacy slats, and be at least 90% opaque to meet solid fencing requirements. A BSM is required for the 8’ tall solid fencing as fencing within the I zoning district is limited to a maximum height of 6’. Staff is supportive of a BSM for the increased fence height as it is necessary to sufficiently screen the evidence storage area. The landscape plan shows some arborvitaes along the outdoor storage area and some shrubs along the indoor evidence storage area. The applicant will need to revise their plan to provide additional foundation landscaping points to meet the code requirements. The applicant will also have to provide additional yard landscaping points to meet the code requirement for outdoor storage and indoor storage combined. Staff is also recommending the applicant provide an additional 127 yard landscaping points beyond the code requirement to offset the BSM requests for outdoor storage and increased fence height. Exterior Design Standards do not apply to Institutional land uses under the zoning ordinance. However, the exterior design is subject to public building review (State Statute 62.23(5)) and may be reviewed as part of the Planned Development review process. The storage building will consist primarily of brick exterior. Staff is supportive of the proposed building elevations as they will be primarily Class I material (brick). Staff is supportive of the facades as proposed as they are appropriate for a storage building. 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. Lyons stated there is a chance they will be fine with the landscaping. They have not given us quite enough information on the existing landscaping on the site. We will continue to work with them, and get more information about species of trees and sizes that are already out there. We did not want to delay the project, so the staff report states what is known at this time and required, but more discussion is needed to find out what currently exists on site. Mr. Kiefer opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Kiefer wondered if the outside storage area is going to be gravel. He wondered if the impervious surface would be increasing. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 14 April 2, 2024 Mr. Lyons believes it is gravel, or asphalt, which are both considered impervious surfaces, and will be handled by storm water management. Mr. Kiefer wondered if the brick on the new building is similar to the existing building. Mr. Lyons stated someone from Winnebago County would be coming up to discuss that. Mr. Kiefer opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mike Elder, Director of Facilities for Winnebago County, stated they have outgrown their current space and need to expand. We are trying to consolidate the needs of our medical examiner and sheriff in one central area. We will do whatever we have to do with landscaping, and storm water. The brick is going to matching the existing as much as it can. It is a natural product so every lot is a different color, so the idea is to match it as best we can. The driveway going to the north is connecting to our transfer station, and would only be used intermittently if we have need. Mr. Kiefer asked if other members of the public wished to speak. Mr. Kiefer closed the public hearing. 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. Kiefer asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-0. VI. APPROVE LAND ACQUISITION OF 929 WINNEBAGO AVENUE (WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL) Site Inspections Report: Council Member Esslinger, Mr. Ulrich, Ms. Propp, Ms. Scheuermann, Mr. Nichols, Mr. Bowen, and Mr. Kiefer reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh is requesting approval to acquire the property located at 929 Winnebago Avenue (Washington School) to create infill residential. Mr. Lyons presented the items and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. Back in 2020 the school had done a referendum that led to __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 15 April 2, 2024 the current consolidation plan that the school district is undergoing. Part of that was the new Vel Phillips Middle School, and the Menominee Elementary School. The plan also included the discontinuation of Washington School as an elementary school. The City was involved in a number of neighborhood meetings that the school district held with the three surrounding neighborhood associations and residents. In the meetings they were trying to figure out some potential reuses or redevelopment for the school. That led to the school district putting out a request for proposal in late 2023. They got no proposals, and overwhelmingly heard from developers that the style of structure was not well suited for redevelopment. It wasn’t one of those buildings, like Smith School, that could be converted into apartments. The City decided, along with some conversations with Habitat for Humanity, to see if there was a potential here to do infill residential housing. Ultimately, what we are bringing forward to you today is a request from the City to purchase Washington School, and then do an infill single-family owner-occupied residential subdivision in conjunction with Habitat for Humanity. The City would acquire the property, demolish the school, and then in 2025 begin site preparation for roughly eighteen homes. Workforce housing is generally described as housing that targets a county median income level of 80 to 120%. We are looking at housing that fits in the neighborhood, that an everyday citizen can afford to build. Houses could range, given current construction costs, from 250 to 350 thousand. These would be modest homes that fit the neighborhood, owner-occupied, single-family, and would fit the character of the area. This would not be low income housing. The City is currently, with the help of a consultant, doing a housing design book that will have homes that fit our infill neighborhoods. The goal here is to use the design book to select home styles that fit the Washington School neighborhood. This would be a partnership with Habitat, and they would do half the lots. The City would do a request for proposal (RFP) for a master builder. Staff recommends approval of the proposed acquisition of 929 Winnebago Avenue (Washington School) as requested. Mr. Kiefer opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Nichols wondered why we are not doing rezoning at this time. Mr. Lyons stated the School District wanted to move quickly to get the sale part figured out first. After Plan Commission, approval would need to come from Common Council, Oshkosh School District, and Habitat Board. If approved, then we will do a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and a zone change. Ms. Propp wondered about the split in properties between Habitat and the City, and about how the City would pay for the construction of the homes. Mr. Lyons stated a lot of things still need to be figured out. Habitat would probably have nine lots, and the City would have nine lots. The homes would all be mixed together, not all City in one cluster and Habitat in another. We want to match the cohesiveness of the neighborhood as much as possible. There may be opportunity to use block grant funding for the demolition and remediation of the school site. Habitat, with projects they have done and grant funding they have gotten, also has money to put in for site development. Ultimately the homes would be for sale as owner-occupied residential homes. The City would most likely sell the lots to a master builder, __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 16 April 2, 2024 who would then go out to the open market and find individuals to build for. There will be some deed restrictions, or mechanisms put in place to make sure affordability is maintained. The City’s goal is to make sure it is workforce housing, and appropriate for the neighborhood. We are hoping to use the housing design book, that we are currently working on, to integrate those designs into this neighborhood when we hire a master builder. Mr. Kiefer wondered if the City would require Habitat to use the housing design book for their new homes in this neighborhood. Mr. Lyons stated Habitat cannot build two-story homes because of insurance liability issues. We are trying to work with Habitat on some higher pitched one-story home designs, that still match the neighborhood. Ms. Scheuermann asked if the 50/50 lot split between Habitat and the City is for sure. Mr. Lyons stated that is our plan moving forward given the funding sources that both are trying to bring to the table. We are trying to do this as a partnership. Ms. Scheuermann asked if a single builder would be used. Mr. Lyons stated, for the City, the thought is to do a request for proposal (RFP). There is a lot to work through still. Mr. Kiefer wanted more details about the purchase. Mr. Lyons stated the proposal to purchase the school is for seventy-five thousand. Habitat is providing the money for the purchase. Mr. Bowen left at 5:13pm. Ms. Qualley stated the City is working with some infill developers as consultants on the housing design book. In developing the book, they are working together with our Inspections Department to make sure UDC codes are met, and they are going to produce scalable blue prints. It is a cost savings for the developer. The blueprints may be modified to change porches, entrances, and such. Mr. Lyons stated a benefit of the City being involved in this project is that we can make sure we get a nice mix of housing, and we match the neighborhood. We are not going to just turn it over to someone who will build the same exact two-story eight times. Ms. Qualley wanted to talk more about the Habitat homes. By increasing the front profile of the one-story homes, it creates a profile that is more neighborhood appropriate. Mr. Lyons stated we really challenged the group doing the design book to mirror neighborhood design and cost. Other communities have done design books, have gotten really great looking __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 17 April 2, 2024 products out of it, but were not reasonable to be built in the areas they were intended. It does not matter how great you make a home design look if it is going to cost five-hundred thousand to build in a two-hundred thousand dollar neighborhood. We need designs that are cost effective and appropriate for our neighborhoods. Mr. Kiefer opened the public hearing and asked if any members of the public wished to speak. Ron Hansche, of 52 Eveline Street, is the coordinator for the Stevens Park Neighborhood Association (SPNA). We have been working on this project for four or five years, and have held a major meeting with all three of the neighborhoods in the area. The major recommendation out of it was for single family homes. He wondered about zoning, what it would be, and if duplexes would be allowed. Mr. Lyons stated, if the project moves forward, the zoning would be the same as the rest of the neighborhood (SR-9). The City’s plan for this project is owner-occupied single-family homes. Mr. Hansche stated presently there are a couple Habitat residences in the Stevens Park Neighborhood, and they are all basically the same. One is across from this project, one is on the other end of the street, and one is on Harney. He wants Habitat homes to have garages because they previously did not. Mr. Lyons stated Habitat now builds garages as part of their houses. Mr. Hansche stated six to eight years ago a group of individuals planted trees in the terrace of the subject property. The neighborhood wants the trees to stay. Mr. Lyons stated driveways would have to get put in so some of them may have to be removed. The City’s subdivision regulations now require terrace trees. If trees have to be removed as part of the new homes going in, they’ll have to have new plantings put in. Mr. Hansche stated the streets will probably have to get torn up and wondered if the City would replace it all at one time. Mr. Lyons stated he does not have an answer at this time. New laterals will have to be put in, which will require cutting into the street. It will all have to be figured out, designed, and engineered. Mr. Hansche wondered if the SPNA will have the opportunity to review the proposals, and total operation of the project. Mr. Lyons stated the City will share all information they can with all the surrounding neighborhood associations in the area of the project. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 18 April 2, 2024 Jerry Heisler, of 1010 Winnebago Avenue, stated his main concern is the damage to the street during the process of the project, due to all the heavy trucks and the laterals. He wondered who would absorb the cost of the street repair. Mr. Lyons stated if the road is damaged as part of a project, it is the project’s responsibility to correct it. Mr. Gohde confirmed that is correct. With the new transportation fund for funding the assessments, we do not have assessments for repairing the roads anymore. Mr. Kiefer closed public comments. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Scheuermann. Mr. Kiefer asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Scheuermann wanted to discuss the zoning. She wondered if duplexes would be allowed. Mr. Lyons stated the City would be putting covenants and/or deed restrictions in place to control what goes there. Mr. Kiefer stated he thinks this is a great project and reuse of this space. He is disappointed that the school district could not find it in its heart to not charge Habitat seventy-five thousand dollars. Habitat could have used that money in a lot of other ways. The school district is saving a lot of money by not having to tear down the facility and remove it. His opinion is that they are gouging this project by seventy-five thousand dollars, which they do not need to do. It is not saving anybody any money. I applaud the City for trying to build houses that are similar to the other houses in this neighborhood. This is my old neighborhood growing up, so it is nice to see that being redone. Motion carried 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:26 pm. (Scheuermann/Propp) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager ML/km