Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 June 4, 2024 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES June 4, 2024 PRESENT: Kathleen Propp, Meredith Scheuermann, Karl Loewenstein, Margy Davey, Kristopher Ulrich, John Kiefer, Thomas Perry EXCUSED: Ed Bowen, Council Member Nichols STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager; Brian Slusarek, Principal Planner; Emma Dziengeleski, Assistant Planner; Brandon Nielsen, Associate Planner; Jeff Nau, Planner; Emily Tardiff, Economic Development Specialist Chairperson Perry called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of May 21, 2024 were approved as presented. (Davey/Scheuermann) I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Lyons called for nominations for Chair. Ms. Davey nominated Mr. Perry for Chair. Mr. Lyons called for other nominations. Mr. Lyons made a final call for other nominations. No commissioners made other nominations. Motion by Ulrich to make Mr. Perry the Chairperson. Seconded by Kiefer. Plan Commission members unanimously approved Mr. Perry as Chair, 6-0. Mr. Lyons called for nominations for Vice-Chair. Ms. Propp nominated Mr. Kiefer for Vice-Chair. Mr. Lyons called for other nominations. Mr. Lyons made a final call for other nominations. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 June 4, 2024 No commissioners made other nominations. Motion by Scheuermann to make Mr. Kiefer the Vice-Chair. Seconded by Ulrich. Plan Commission members unanimously approved Mr. Kiefer as Vice-Chair, 6-0. II. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A DECK ON THE FRONT FAÇADE AT 407 W 11TH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp, Ms. Scheuermann, and Mr. Ulrich 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 for a deck on the front façade at 407 West 11th Avenue. 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 property is a residential lot approximately 10,000 square feet in area. The property is a corner lot with 11th Avenue running along the north and Iowa Street to the east. The property contains an 1,818 square-foot 1.5 story two-family residential structure that was built in 1920 according to the City Assessor’s website. The subject property and surrounding properties are zoned Two-Flat Residential-10 (TR-10). The home, detached garage, and driveway are positioned in such a way that this property essentially does not have a rear or interior side yard. The applicant is proposing to construct a 29’ x 14’ 7” deck on the façade of the home that faces Iowa Street. Complete work proposed includes replacing existing patio door, constructing a new deck, and steps. Applicable ordinance prohibits decks on street facing facades; therefore, Plan Commission review and a design standards variance are necessary for this project. Staff feel that this design standards variance request is not contrary to the public interest because the proposed deck will meet the principal structure setback requirements for the TR-10 zoning district. Required principal structure front setback for the TR-10 zoning district is 25 feet and the proposed deck will be setback 46 feet per the submitted site plan. Staff also feel that the property provides an unnecessary hardship because the current layout of the home, detached garage, and driveway do not allow for an interior side yard or rear yard, therefore eliminating the possibility for a deck where the zoning ordinance permits them to be constructed. Staff recommends approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to allow for a deck on the front façade with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 June 4, 2024 Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry opened public comment and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Julio Moran, of 407 West 11th Avenue, is the owner. In 2018 he had to reconstruct a garage. It was falling apart. With that he wound up working with the Zoning Department and the Inspections Office. They were excellent to work with. He hopes this variance gets approved. He looks forward to working with the Inspections team. They have helped him out a lot. Looking to make the outside of the home nicer and more modern. Mr. Perry asked if any members of the public wished to speak. Mr. Perry closed public comment. There was no closing statement from the applicant. Motion by Davey to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Scheuermann. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Perry stated this is a property that has two front yards, according to our standards. This is one of those properties that is very difficult for the standards to be met as they are written. We have done these before, and will continue to see them. I fully support this. Motion carried 7-0. III. PUBLIC HEARING: BOSCHWITZ II ANNEXATION FROM THE TOWN OF OSHKOSH, WEST SIDE OF THE 2900 BLOCK OF VINLAND STREET (TOWN PARCELS 018005101 AND 018005301) Site Inspections Report: Ms. Scheuermann reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City is requesting direct annexation (by unanimous approval) of approximately 31.284 acres of land located at the west side of the 2900 Block of Vinland Street in the Town of Oshkosh. Mr. Nau presented the items and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The city is requesting approval of an annexation of two lots (unplatted land, Parcels 018005101 & 018005301) totaling approximately 31.284 acres located on the west side of Vinland Street approximately ¼ mile south of West Fernau Avenue and immediately north of the Canadian and Northwestern rail spur line. The land is undeveloped and is __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 June 4, 2024 approximately 575 feet wide by 2,580 feet deep. The subject site is predominantly vacant and being farmed. The property has a Town of Oshkosh Light Industrial District (M-1) and Winnebago County I-1 Light Industrial District with Shoreland Zoning. The surrounding area has a wide range of uses including industrial to the north, the rail spur and undeveloped lands to the south, and industrial to the east and west. The property will be annexed with temporary and permanent zonings of Heavy Industrial District (HI), which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Industrial land use recommendation. In 2003, the City consulted with Foth & Van Dyke to prepare the Northwest Industrial Park Expansion Area Site Master Plan. This plan was created to analyze the general area and conceptualize future land uses and infrastructure needs to expand the park. In 2009, the City purchased approximately 83 acres of the former Boschwitz Farm property for park expansion. There were no immediate needs or prospects for development on the land so it remained in the Town of Oshkosh. There has been some recent interest in development of this land which has prompted this annexation request. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the request and reported that City water main is available along Vinland Street. Sanitary sewer is not located on Vinland Street; however, it is available via a main flowing east which ends at the east right-of-way line of Vinland Street making extensions possible. The Oshkosh Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the annexation request and do not have any concerns with providing services to this property. Staff recommends approval of the Boschwitz II Annexation with temporary and permanent zonings of Heavy Industrial District (HI) as requested. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Scheuermann wondered what the pros and cons of doing the annexation at the time of purchase versus now. I know there was no interest then and there is some interest now. If you purchase your intent is to do something at some point. Mr. Lyons stated it was purchased at a time when the property was available. There was not a need to expand the park at that time, that is why it did not move forward to be annexed into the City. The land was available, so the City took the opportunity to purchase it. Annexations occur when they become necessary. Ms. Davey wanted clarification regarding one of the PowerPoint maps, and what the black and green loop is. Mr. Nau stated that is the County Shoreland Zoning Overlay. There is a creek, that the DNR considers navigable, so there is a 300-foot buffer around there which has to be considered before developing. The County has jurisdiction over that area, otherwise the rest of the land is Town of Oshkosh zoning. Mr. Perry opened the public hearing and asked if any members of the public wished to speak. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 June 4, 2024 Amanda Miller of 2798 Hamilton Street, at the very end of the cul-de-sac that this area is a part of, has a lot of questions. What is the road access that you plan for the industrial site. We want to know, from a family standpoint, how much traffic is going through the area. What is the noise allowance. Are you allowing second and third shift for a high industrial area. I have 20 to 30 feet of property behind my house, and then we have this beautiful farm, animals, and things like that. What I am picturing right now is that whoever buys the property is going to put a chain-link fence and a parking lot behind my home, that is within a softball throwing distance of my backdoor. I bought my house in 2019. I would never have bought the home if I knew a heavy industrial would be behind it. We just got tax reassessed. My property went up seventy-two percent, over a hundred thousand dollar increase from 2019 when I bought it. At a minimum you are decreasing that by another fifty thousand. Do we get reassessed, because my home value is not what you guys just reassessed it to. What are the requirements for the borders. Is there a requirement of an easement, how far off the property line do they need to be. A visual of what the quality of materials used, whether or not there is a blockage of a certain distance that they need to see. I do not have enough technical information about what could be going into this area and requirements on whoever purchases it. As a landowner in this area, I am highly concerned. Mr. Perry thanked her for her comments, and stated that her comments are for the next agenda item, not this one. Ralph Guenther, of 2787 Minerva Street, also abuts the property. It is proposed to be heavy industrial which is very bothersome. We are in a residential area, and have lived in our home for seventeen years. We have a beautiful field in back of us. We see wild animals, deer and turkeys, almost daily. The cranes come to visit. I have checked with the DNR and they said they have not heard anything about this proposal to turn this into heavy industrial. I ask for your consideration on this, let the heavy industrial go by the tracks and then give us a big buffer zone. Turn it into a park or something, the animals can play, and we will enjoy it. The residential people in the neighborhood will enjoy life much better. We appreciate your consideration. Mr. Perry reminded everyone this agenda item is for the property north of the railroad tracks, and the next agenda item is for property south of the railroad tracks. Mr. Perry 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. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Scheuermann wanted clarification on how long ago the designation was made for this area. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 June 4, 2024 Mr. Nau stated since at least the 1993 Comp Plan. Mr. Lyons stated the zoning district is industrial manufacturing in the County right now. Industrial is the long-term plan for this area north of the tracks. Motion carried 7-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: BOSCHWITZ III ANNEXATION FROM THE TOWN OF OSHKOSH, WEST SIDE OF THE 2700-2800 BLOCKS OF VINLAND STREET (TOWN PARCELS 0180152 AND 0180153) Site Inspections Report: No one reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City is requesting direct annexation (by unanimous approval) of approximately 51.696 acres of land located at the west side of the 2700-2800 Blocks of Vinland Street in the Town of Oshkosh. Mr. Nau presented the items and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The city is requesting approval of an annexation of two lots (unplatted land, Parcels 0180153 & 0180152) totaling approximately 51.696 acres located on the west side of Vinland Street approximately ¼ mile south of West Fernau Avenue and immediately south of the Canadian and Northwestern rail spur line. The land is undeveloped and is approximately 950 feet wide by 2,580 feet deep. The subject site is predominantly vacant and being farmed. The property has a Town of Oshkosh Light Industrial District (M-1) and Winnebago County I-1 Light Industrial District with Shoreland Zoning. In 2003, the City consulted with Foth & Van Dyke to prepare the Northwest Industrial Park Expansion Area Site Master Plan. This plan was created to analyze the general area and conceptualize future land uses and infrastructure needs to expand the park. In 2009, the City purchased approximately 83 acres of the former Boschwitz Farm property for park expansion based on the recommendations in the Plan. Its location south of and adjacent to the existing park with the existing rail access made this a logical area for expansion. There was no immediate need or prospects for development on the land so it remained in the Town of Oshkosh. There has been some recent interest in development of this land which has prompted this annexation request. We did not do the prior annexation request (Item III) and this one together, because annexations per State Statute have to be contiguous. The railroad will remain in the Town of Oshkosh as a connection to a Town property located on Clover Street. The railroad will remain in the Town until such time as the property on Clover Street annexes into the City. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 June 4, 2024 Staff recommends approval of the Boschwitz III Annexation with temporary and permanent zonings of Heavy Industrial District (HI) as requested. Mr. Lyons stated right now HI zoning is being assigned because we have to assign zoning on full parcels, we cannot split zoning when properties are being annexed. There is an ANR pipeline that runs through this area that you cannot build over. The southwest side of the pipeline is identified as residential in the initial concept for bringing this into the City. We cannot split the zoning for this property until we have industrial development started. Buffering will be required between residential and industrial. Ms. Scheuermann wondered what assurances there are for the neighbors to know that the southwest area will be residential not heavy industrial. Mr. Lyons stated the City owns the property, and would follow through on those plans. It is extremely unlikely that anything can cross the pipeline, because they are strict regulations. The proposal is for annexation now, there are no development plans at this time. If someone tries to develop, there will be a neighborhood meeting, and it would come before Plan Commission and Council. We recognized early that having industrial and residential back up to each other is not a great idea. We would want significant landscaping and buffering. All of those things to protect the neighbors. We would never allow industrial access to Clover Street. We do not want industrial through residential; we need separation. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Ulrich wondered if the neighbors might be allowed to purchase property behind their homes to create a buffer of their own. Mr. Lyons stated yes that would be something they could discuss if neighbors are interested. Mr. Perry opened the public hearing and asked if any members of the public wished to speak. Amanda Miller’s comments, 2798 Hamilton Street, from Item III: What is the road access that you plan for the industrial site. We want to know, from a family standpoint, how much traffic is going through the area. What is the noise allowance. Are you allowing second and third shift for a high industrial area. I have 20 to 30 feet of property behind my house, and then we have this beautiful farm, animals, and things like that. What I am picturing right now is that whoever buys the property is going to put a chain-link fence and a parking lot behind my home, that is within a softball throwing distance of my backdoor. I bought my house in 2019. I would never have bought the home if I knew a heavy industrial would be behind it. We just got tax reassessed. My property went up seventy-two percent, over a hundred thousand dollar increase from 2019 when I bought it. At a minimum you are decreasing that by another fifty thousand. Do we get reassessed, because my home value is not what you guys just reassessed it to. What are the requirements for the borders. Is there a requirement of an easement, how far off the property line do they need to be. A visual of what the quality of materials used, whether or not there is a blockage of a certain distance that they need to see. I do not have enough technical information about what could be going into this area and requirements on whoever purchases it. As a landowner in this area, I am highly concerned. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 June 4, 2024 Ms. Miller stated that most of her prior questions have been answered. She has some new questions now. Is anyone interested in building near her property currently. Mr. Lyons stated there is no interest at this time. Ms. Miller wanted to know dimensions of the ANR pipeline. Mr. Nau stated there is a seventy-five-foot easement that runs through there. Ms. Miller stated she is calmer as long as the area behind her home is used as a subdivision or nothing. Ralph Guenther’s comments, 2787 Minerva Street, from Item III: It is proposed to be heavy industrial which is very bothersome. We are in a residential area, and have lived in our home for seventeen years. We have a beautiful field in back of us. We see wild animals, deer and turkeys, almost daily. The cranes come to visit. I have checked with the DNR and they said they have not heard anything about this proposal to turn this into heavy industrial. I ask for your consideration on this, let the heavy industrial go by the tracks and then give us a big buffer zone. Turn it into a park or something, the animals can play, and we will enjoy it. The residential people in the neighborhood will enjoy life much better. We appreciate your consideration. Mr. Guenther stated a number of years ago the City came and did a survey on that property and designated areas for a retention pond. Is that something being considered. Mr. Lyons stated that was not for retention ponds, it was a wetland delineation to see what was wetlands and what was buildable. If someone looks to develop the area, they will need to meet storm water management, and may have to put in ponds at that time. Andy Wilson, 3432 Sheppard Drive, had questions. It seems like there are multiple issues here. First is if the City should annex it. The City owns it so it is probably natural they would want to do that. The next is what the zoning should be. It sounds like it is currently light industrial going to heavy industrial. Could you explain the distinction between the two. Mr. Lyons stated heavy industrial is a more intense industrial use than what light industrial would be. Mr. Wilson wondered if the lots could be split now, and one designated heavy industrial and the other as a lighter use or residential. Mr. Lyons stated the Comprehensive Plan for that area calls for industrial so we could not assign a residential district to it. When you do a zone change per State Statute you have to match your underlining Comp Plan. There is a process that will take place when it is appropriate to start splitting the property to get it into that residential district. Mr. Wilson wondered if there is a lesser industrial classification. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 June 4, 2024 Mr. Lyons stated there is urban industrial but it would not be appropriate for this area. Mr. Perry closed the public hearing. There was no closing statement from the applicant. Motion by Davey to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Scheuermann. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Kiefer stated this is the very first step, annexing this into the City. There will be many more steps before anything will be built here. Mr. Lyons stated before any development would take place, the neighbors would receive a meeting notice, just like for today. Mr. Ulrich stated he is leery of the he-said she-said kind of assurances. I trust Mr. Lyons and I understand how the process works. I believe there will not be building over the pipeline, and that the most profitable future is going to be residential to the west of that diagonal line. It is our responsibility to follow the Comprehensive Plan which is why I will be voting in favor of this. I trust the process. It would be nice to see something more in writing, in addition to just the motion to adopt the recommendations. I understand the concerns of those who spoke. Mr. Perry stated this pipeline comes up three to four times a year, in various parts of the City. We are very limited on what can be put anywhere near it. It almost makes a good portion of this property very unusable for anything even in the heavy industrial scale, so we will have to see what comes up in the future. I imagine this property will come to us three or four times before it is finally developed because of all the things needed to get it to go. I will support this as well. Motion carried 7-0. V. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR AN ADAPTIVE REUSE LAND USE AT 1675 OREGON STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp, Ms. Scheuermann, Mr. Ulrich, and Mr. Loewenstein reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for an Adaptive Reuse at 1675 Oregon Street. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 June 4, 2024 Mr. Nielsen presented the items and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The subject site is located at the northwest corner of West 17th Avenue and Oregon Street. The subject parcel is about 6,750 sq. ft. in size and includes a residential unit in the upper level and an art studio in one of the lower-level units. The site is surrounded by a mix of single-family and commercial uses. The site went through Conditional approval for the current art studio in 2019, while the second lower-level unit went through Conditional approval to be converted from a barber shop to a coffee shop in 2022. The applicant is requesting approval of an Adaptive Reuse through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment to establish a one-bedroom apartment in an existing lower-level unit that was previously approved to be a coffee shop. According to the applicant this unit never fully transitioned into a coffee shop due to financial reasons, and therefore that land use is no longer being considered by the applicant. Mixed use buildings can have no more than 30% of the ground floor for residential uses. The Adaptive Reuse approval is needed due to the ground floor area, as proposed for a residential use, is 35%. The existing art studio and upper-level apartment are not changing. The Inspection Services Department noted that the conversion from a commercial tenant space to an apartment will likely require a sprinkler system to be installed and that all other building, HVAC, and plumbing plans will need to be submitted for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. Staff is supportive of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment for an Adaptive Reuse as the proposed overall Mixed-Use Building is an appropriate use for this site and should have a relatively low impact on the surrounding area. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit Amendment for an Adaptive Reuse as proposed with the findings listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Nilla Dee Oehlke, is the owner and instructor of the art studio at 1675 Oregon Street. I am looking to keep the options open for local people to use the studio. I look to have people from across the state. I want to be able to keep the studio open, and by having the apartment on the adjacent side, it will substantiate having income coming in. Which will enable her to keep the art studio open. I have worked with the Plan Commission before and they have been very agreeable and helpful. I look to continue that relationship. I would appreciate your understanding in my wanting to keep the studio open for the local community and beyond. Thank you very much. Mr. Perry asked if other members of the public wished to speak. Mr. Perry closed the public hearing. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 June 4, 2024 There was no closing statement from the applicant. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Kiefer. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-0. VI. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR MONUMENT SIGN AT 2130 SOUTH WASHBURN STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp, Ms. Scheuermann, Mr. Ulrich, and Mr. Perry 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 monument sign at 2130 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 site is a 3.09-acre property located on the east side of South Washburn Street, south of West 20th Avenue. The property is zoned Suburban Mixed-Use District with a Planned Development Overlay (SMU-PD Plans were previously approved to convert the building to an optometry clinic (NEW Vision). No changes are being proposed to the existing use of the site. No changes are being proposed to the existing site design. The applicant is proposing a new 10’ tall, 54 sq. ft. monument sign along South Washburn Street, with a 10’ setback from the front property line. A base standard modification (BSM) is required for reduced setback as 25’ setback is required for the SMU district. According to the applicant, the reduced setback is needed as the existing parking lot is built out to the setback line, restricting the ability to meet the setback requirement. Staff is supportive of the requested BSM for reduced setback as it will be consistent with the existing monument sign for the neighboring Fox World Travel site immediately to the south. The Fox World Travel sign is 8’ tall, 56 sq. ft., and has a 6’ 6” front setback. Also, the proposed sign is well under the maximum monument sign height of 15’ and maximum square footage of 1 sq. ft. per linear foot of street frontage (261 sq. ft.) for the SMU district. A landscaping plan has not been provided. The approval of the Fox World Travel sign included a condition that landscaping be planted around all sides of the monument sign and shall be approved by the Department of Community Development. Staff is recommending that the same condition be applied for the proposed monument sign to offset the BSM for reduced setback. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 June 4, 2024 Staff recommends approval of the Specific Implementation Plan amendment as proposed with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry opened public comment and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Andy Wapneski, from Signarama, wants to know when the landscaping would need to be completed. They are looking at completing in September or October, so would like to push the landscaping to spring. Mr. Lyons stated the ordinance would be set up to require planting in the following planting season. So, if it is not completed until September or October, it would allow you to plant in the spring. If you finish ahead of schedule, such as August, then you’d be required the plant this fall. Mr. Perry asked if any members of the public wished to speak. Mr. Perry closed public comment. There was no closing statement from the applicant. Motion by Kiefer to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Ulrich. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-0. VII. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 555 SOUTH WASHBURN STREET Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp, Ms. Scheuermann, Ms. Davey, Mr. Ulrich, and Mr. Kiefer reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner requests General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan approval for a drive-through restaurant 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 included in this request consists of a __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 June 4, 2024 0.99-acre commercial property located on the west side of South Washburn Street, north of West 9th Avenue. The site had previously been utilized as a multi-tenant office building. It is zoned SMU District with a Planned Development Overlay. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and parking lot on the subject site for development of a new drive-through restaurant (Freddy’s Frozen Custard & Steakburgers). The proposed drive-through restaurant use is permitted in the SMU district. The plans also include an outdoor seating area on the front of the building, which is considered outdoor commercial entertainment and is permitted in the SMU district. The proposed development will be accessed from a two-way entrance/exit to the site and will also utilize a shared two-way driveway to the north of the site. The site will also have shared driveway access along the rear (west) property line. The applicant has provided an easement document and stated that they have the ability to utilize the existing driveway. As this is a civil matter regarding property access, the City does not have the ability to review or enforce the provided easement document. Staff has received concerns regarding the access to/from the drive-through from the neighboring driveway to the north, as neighboring property owners had concerns regarding stacking and congestion of the shared driveway. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting at the site to discuss the project, however no neighbors were in attendance. Following the meeting, staff was notified that some of the neighboring property owners did not receive the invitation. The applicant coordinated a second, in person/virtual, meeting where the plans were discussed with the neighboring property owners who did not receive the first meeting invitation. The applicant has provided a traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed site design. According to the TIA, the repurpose of the two existing driveways, which will access Freddy’s, are expected to operate safely and efficiently. The drive-through lane is not expected to back up beyond the available storage, as shown in the site plan, based on other similar Freddy’s restaurants in Wisconsin. The applicant is requesting base standard modifications (BSM) for reduced front and rear yard setbacks. As proposed, a portion of the parking lot will extend into the front yard to within 16’ of the right-of-way line. The proposed refuse enclosure placement will have a 1’ setback from the rear (west) property line. According to the applicant, the reduced setbacks are needed due to an ANR pipeline easement running through property which prohibits permanent structures from being placed within the easement. Staff does not have concerns with the setback reductions as the ANR easement limits the buildable area on the site. Also, the refuse enclosure will be abutting a neighboring parking area with shared driveway access. The reduced parking setback is also needed to provide the necessary parking for the site. The proposed setbacks will be consistent with reduced setbacks on the existing site Provided parking for the site meets the code requirement of 1 parking space per 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area for restaurant uses. The maximum number of parking stalls is 125% of the code __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 14 June 4, 2024 minimum. However, up to 25 parking spaces are permitted for smaller developments that would have a maximum of less than 25 spaces. The applicant is proposing the maximum number of stalls allowed (25). Staff has received concerns that parking on the site will be insufficient to meet the needs of the restaurant and will result in overflow parking on the neighboring commercial sites. Staff feels that the provided parking will be sufficient as it more than doubles the minimum parking requirement per code. The proposed site layout is meeting the drive-through stacking length requirements of 100 ft. in front of each order station, 55 ft. between the order station and pick-up window, and 25 ft. after the pick-up window. The total proposed impervious surface area for the site is under the maximum of 70% for the SMU district. The building elevations show wall signage on the front and side facades. Wall signage will be limited to a maximum of 1 sq. ft. per linear foot of building frontage per the sign ordinance. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing pylon sign and replace it with a new pylon sign. The proposed sign placement is within the 10’ side yard setback, at 3’ from the south property line. The applicant is requesting a BSM for the reduced setback as site constraints related to the ANR pipeline easement limit available area that meet setback requirements. Staff does not have concerns with the proposed BSM as the parking lot will be built to the south side setback and the sign placement will be consistent with that of the existing site. The side yard setback reduction for the sign should not have a negative impact on the adjoining City-owned property to the south. The sign will need to meet the front yard setback requirement and will be limited to 35’ in height and 200 sq. ft. per SMU standards. The applicant is requesting a BSM to allow increased lighting to 0.75 fc along the north property line and 0.99 fc along the south property line. According to the applicant, the increased lighting is needed due to limited available area for light pole placement. Staff does not have concerns with the increased lighting level along the north property line as it is adjacent to a shared driveway and is only minimally exceeding the code maximum. Staff also does not have concerns with the increased lighting along the south property line as it is adjacent to the Oshkosh Fire Dept. property. The Fire Dept. is supportive of the increased lighting level at the property line. The applicant has been in contact with the Department of Public Works regarding storm water management for the site. Final storm water management plans will be reviewed during the Site Plan Review process. The building foundation landscaping point requirement of 40 landscaping points per 100 linear feet of building foundation is being met for the proposed building. The plan is meeting the requirement that 50% of the required points be on the main entrance side of the building. The applicant will need to relocate one of the medium evergreen shrubs to the street side of the building to meet the requirement that 25% of required points be along the street facing side. This can be addressed during Site Plan Review. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 15 June 4, 2024 The paved area requirement of 50 landscaping points per 10 parking stalls or 10,000 sq. ft. of paved area is being met. The plan is also meeting the requirement that 30% of all points will be devoted to tall trees and 40% will be devoted to shrubs. Code also requires a shade tree at all parking row ends, which has been provided with the exception of the parking row end at the northeast corner of the site. This can also be addressed during Site Plan Review. The plan currently provides 117% of the required landscaping points. As multiple base standard modifications are being requested, staff is recommending the applicant provide 125% of the required landscaping to offset the BSMs. This would result in an additional 40 landscaping points and would be consistent with the level of landscaping that has typically been requested/approved to compensate for BSMs. Section 30-243 of the zoning ordinance requires commercial buildings to be clad in 50% Class I materials, with the rear façade being exempt from this requirement. The petitioner has provided elevations for the building as well as a material list and material breakdown for the front and side façades. The elevations meet the 50% Class I material requirement and substantially exceed the Class I requirement on the front facade. This serves to offset requested BSMs. The proposed refuse enclosure will be clad in fiber cement composite wood siding to match material used on the principal building. Staff recommends approval of the General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Kiefer asked if the driveway goes all around the building to the west. Mr. Lyons said the driveway loops around the building and heads back north. He also mentioned there are shared access drives that go to the buildings behind it. Ms. Scheuermann asked what the purpose of asking for 125% of landscaping points when they have 117 already. Mr. Lyons said that staff has consistently seen 125% as the standard for when there is reduction of setbacks and increased BSMs that other developments have been held to. Ms. Scheuermann asked if the Traffic Impact Analysis was something that the applicant did on their own and not something that was required by the city. Mr. Lyons said that the applicant did the TIA as a requirement of the city. Any time there is a planned development, the city does have the ability to require a TIA. Given some of the feedback and concerns that were brought up from adjoining property owners, staff felt that it was warranted to require it in relation to how it would function for the north access drive. Ms. Davey asked if there was a neighborhood meeting. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 16 June 4, 2024 Mr. Lyons replied that there was an in-person meeting offered that was not attended possibly due to miscommunication. There was a second virtual / in person meeting offered following that, and it was attended. Mr. Perry opened public comment and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Corey Vanevenhoven; Park Place Holdings LLC, 179 Marion Avenue. Mr. Vanevenhoven said that they worked with civil engineering and did multiple revisions and the TIA. He believes that they have resolved any issues that the neighbors might have had. The applicant is also willing to assist more with the easement and share ongoing maintenance. Mr. Perry asked if any members of the public wished to speak. Chris Keller; ENT Specialists, 515 South Washburn Street. Mr. Keller said that building tenants are looking forward to a drive-through restaurant joining the area. He said that Park Place Holdings has been responsive to their concerns, and they are happy with the TIA that was completed. He is support of this project and with the Plan Commission’s request for 125& points of landscaping. Mr. Perry closed public comment. There was no closing statement from the applicant. Motion by Scheuermann 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 said that this sounds like an excellent result based on the ability to get the neighbors and developer together. Mr. Ulrich said that he would appreciate more plantings. Ms. Davey said that she appreciates the neighbor’s participation and coming to a resolution. Motion carried 7-0. VIII. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT FROM COMMUNITY FACILITY TO LIGHT DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 929 WINNEBAGO AVENUE (WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL) Mr. Perry stated he will be voting present. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 17 June 4, 2024 Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp, Ms. Scheuermann, Mr. Loewenstein, Ms. Davey, Mr. Ulrich, and Mr. Kiefer reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Recommended Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan. The subject area is designated for Community Facility land use; the applicant is requesting a change to a Light Density Residential land use designation. 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 petitioner is requesting a comprehensive land use map amendment of the Washington Elementary School site. The subject area consists of one 2.66- acre parcel with frontage on Winnebago Avenue and School Avenue, east of Bowen Street. The surrounding area consists of single and two family uses. The City is in the process of acquiring the subject site and has agreed upon preliminary terms with Habitat for Humanity for workforce homes on the subject site. In order to allow for construction of single-family homes on the subject site, it will need to be rezoned to a zoning district that allows single-family residential uses, and split into residential-sized lots through the platting process. The assigned zoning district of the property must be consistent with the future land use map for the area. Therefore, the City is requesting an amendment of the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Map from the existing Community Facility designation to Light Density Residential. Staff feels that the proposed Light Density Residential land use designation is appropriate for the site as it allows for single and two-family residential land uses which is consistent with the surrounding single and two-family uses of the established neighborhood (Stevens Park). It is also consistent with the Light Density Residential future land use designation of the surrounding area. Staff recommends approval of Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from Community Facility to Light Density Residential for property located at 929 Winnebago Avenue. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry opened public comment and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Betty Schroeder, 1034 School Avenue, would like to keep the fence along her property and the school property. Mr. Lyons said that when the property is surveyed, it will help to determine the exact location of the fence. The preference for staff is to leave the fence if possible and work with the neighbors outside of what happens with Plan Commission. Ms. Schroeder asked if there would be consideration in leaving a small park there. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 18 June 4, 2024 Mr. Lyons said this was discussed during the neighborhood meetings. It is trying to keep the balance of what is in the area, and the costs of making the project work at a workforce affordable level. As the lot number goes down, the price goes up. The goal is to match the style and character of the neighborhood as much as they can. There is not a final plat yet, and will come to Plan Commission at least 3 more times. Ms. Schroeder said that although it is sad to lose the school, she is glad there are single family homes going in instead of apartments. Mr. Perry asked if any members of the public wished to speak. Jane Mikkelsen, 906 Winnebago Avenue, has concerns about green space and leaving recreational space for kids in the neighborhood. Renee Maki, 1025 School Avenue, said she agrees with her neighbors that a small area should remain a park. She asked if the homes going in will be similarly styled. Mr. Lyons replied that staff is currently working with a consultant group to design homes that are similar in size and character to the surrounding neighborhood, so they blend in. Matt Mikkelsen, 906 Winnebago Avenue, vaguely recalls a study that was done a couple years ago stating a lack of park space in the city. We are underdeveloped when it comes to park green space. He suggested having community involvement and doing fundraising to raise money for a park in this area. Mr. Perry closed public comment. There was no closing statement from the applicant. Motion by Scheuermann 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. Davey wondered if this was a developer that was not the city, and they were building 18 houses, then what would their green space requirement be. Mr. Lyons stated in this situation they would recommend fee in lieu of, just like the City would have to pay to do it. Given the size of the area, we have frequently found the development cost and maintenance cost of something so small becomes very difficult and challenging. Ms. Scheuermann wondered if we have ever had a plot of land and a development where they did a true park, not just green space. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 19 June 4, 2024 Mr. Lyons stated yes, Ripple Avenue Estates, Ripple Avenue Apartments on the southside, Pickardt Estates, and the Farmington development. This area of the Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (CORP) does not call for additional parkland. The character of the area is largely what Parks and the CORP use when they analyze whether fee in lieu of or parkland dedication is appropriate. Ms. Scheuermann wondered if the proximity to Menominee Park and Stevens Park makes a difference. Mr. Lyons stated that is largely why the CORP does not recommend additional parkland in this area. Ms. Scheuermann remembers about twenty-eight years ago when she built over by Carl Traeger, there was a planned park. Twenty-eight years later they still do not have one. Mr. Lyons stated Rusch Park should hopefully be built this year. The CORP is being updated this year. As part of that Council approved a fee in lieu of and a park development policy to be reviewed by a consultant. Mr. Ulrich stated he knows we have fewer parks per capita. He knows a lot of people living on Winnebago and School, and the consensus in the area is overwhelmingly in support of green space here. Even if we allot two lots to it and do not put playground equipment on it. Just trees and greenery for people to run and get a little bit of space would be beneficial. I hope to see something come from the financial analysis that could maybe incorporate that option. He has talked to some of the people doing the design standards for the housing that is being proposed. The designs look really nice. He is optimistic that the styles will be similar to what is there now. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Perry voted Present. IX. PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW 2024 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Staff report accepted as part of the record. Staff requests review and acceptance of the 2024 Annual Action Plan for the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). Ms. Tardiff presented the item. Staff is proposing the project allocations that are laid out in the staff report under 2024 entitlement allocations. These projects are housing initiatives, Central City Redevelopment, public facilities, public services, planning and administration similar to what you have seen in the past. For this item the Plan Commission is being asked to make a determination of consistency that the proposed activities in the plan are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, as updated in any other official maps, or planned activities of the City in addition to recommending the plan submission to the City Council. Staff recommends approval. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 20 June 4, 2024 Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry opened the public hearing and asked if any members of the public wished to speak. Mr. Perry closed the public hearing. 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 Kiefer. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-0. PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT Mr. Lyons stated there is an opening for an alternate on the Extraterritorial Zoning Committee. We are looking to see if anyone is interested. The group has met once in the past four or five years. Ms. Davey, Ms. Propp, Ms. Scheuermann, and Mr. Kiefer are currently on the committee. Mr. Loewenstein is interested in being an alternate on the committee. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:24 pm. (Kiefer/Propp) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager ML/km/hs