Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 September 17, 2024 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES September 17, 2024 PRESENT: Joshua Belville, Margy Davey, Karl Loewenstein, Ed Bowen, Kathleen Propp, Thomas Perry EXCUSED: Meredith Scheuermann, Council Member Nichols, John Kiefer STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Ray Maurer, Parks Department Director; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager; Brian Slusarek, Principal Planner; Emma Dziengeleski, Assistant Planner; Brandon Nielsen, Associate Planner; Jeff Nau, Planner; Katrina Malson, Office Assistant Chairperson Perry called the meeting to order at 4:03 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Mr. Loewenstein arrived at 4:05pm. The minutes of September 3, 2024 were approved as presented. (Davey/Propp) I. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT 0 BOWEN STREET, COMMONLY KNOWN AS VACANT PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST MURDOCK AVENUE AND BOWEN STREET (PARCEL 1504830300) Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a General Development Plan (GDP) for a multi-family development. 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 2.26-acre vacant lot on the southwest corner of East Murdock Avenue and Bowen Street. The site is zoned Urban Mixed Use District with a Planned Development Overlay (UMU-PD). The surrounding area consists of industrial uses to the north, commercial and institutional uses to the east, commercial uses to the west, as well as vacant to the south. The 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends Neighborhood Commercial use for the subject area. A Plan Commission workshop was held on April 16, 2024 and Plan Commission was supportive of this proposal. The applicant is proposing a multi-family development, which will include two 8-unit apartment buildings, one 16-unit apartment building, with detached garages. The proposed 32 units results in __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 September 17, 2024 a density of 14.2 units per acre, while the maximum density is 36 units per acre for apartment buildings in the UMU district. The minimum lot area is 1,200 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, and the applicant is proposing 3,049 sq. ft. per dwelling unit which exceeds the necessary requirement. The UMU district allows apartments of 3-12 units per building. Apartments with 13-16 units are allowed as a Conditional Use. Staff does not have concerns with the proposed 16-unit building as the site will remain under the maximum density and is not adjacent to lower intensity land uses. A neighborhood meeting was held on September 9, 2024. Neighbors in attendance voiced questions and concerns related to surrounding land uses, traffic, and recreation areas. The proposed site will utilize an existing driveway access on East Murdock Avenue and Bowen Street. Cross access agreement will need to be registered with the Winnebago County Register of Deeds to allow the shared accesses. The applicant is providing 32 garage parking spaces and 36 driveway spaces to meet the parking requirement of 1 space per dwelling unit. The applicant is requesting a Based Standard Modification (BSM) to allow a reduced rear setback to 18.7 feet, where code allows a minimum of 25 feet. Staff is supportive of this BSM request as the rear property line is adjacent to an existing parking lot and access drive. Code requires recreation area for multi-family developments at a minimum of 200 sq. ft. plus 25 sq. ft. per bedroom, for a total of 1,800 sq. ft. of recreation area. The applicant is proposing a recreation area of 2,100 sq. ft which exceeds the necessary requirement. According to the conceptual landscape plan, all requirements are being met. However, the provided street frontage landscaping calculations do not specify points for the individual street frontages. This will be addressed during the Specific Implementation Plan (SIP). The provided yard landscaping points exceed the total requirement. Additional yard landscaping serves to offset the requested BSM for reduced rear yard setback. All site lighting and building facades will be addressed during SIP and Site Plan Review. Staff recommends approval of the General Development Plan with the findings and conditions listed within 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. Mr. Perry asked if any members of the public wished to speak. There were none so 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. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 September 17, 2024 Seconded by Loewenstein. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp stated I'm sorry that the applicant is not here because I have a major issue. First of all, not with the land use. I think this is a wonderful development for that area. This is my neighborhood. I know it well. My problem is the driveways. The driveway access that's already there for Piggly Wiggly on the north and on the south. Those are fine driveways except that they're not. They lack adequate base, and they don't even stand up to grocery store traffic. In the spring, you'll see the big patches in the driveways. That's where giant potholes appear every spring in the driveway because it is not adequate to meet the needs. I believe that when they bring back a specific plan, they need to come up with a scheme to improve the driveways. I know those are grocery store driveways that they don't want to have to improve, but somebody needs to. They will not be able to withstand the apartment traffic. Mr. Bowen wondered procedurally if we approve this, as it sits, it approves the form and placement generally of these items on the site. Mr. Lyons stated that is correct, general locations and concept layout. If something significant would change in a layout, they would have to amend the GDP when they came back for SIP. This is really locking in that base land use of saying, yes, 32 units of apartments and an 18.7-foot setback on the west is okay. But it doesn't mean they couldn't seek to amend it if a building moved or something or had to be changed. They could ask to amend it during the SIP, and then it would be the full review. The GDP is designed as an approval for concept layout and then really locking in the land use of a site. Mr. Bowen stated that's where I struggle a little bit with this one because I have no problem with the underlying land use. If there was a general GDP approval where we could approve the concept of putting 32 apartment units on this site, we would do that. There are just some things on this site plan that I feel are sort of afterthoughts placed on a drawing to meet certain aspects of the code. I don't know that the recreation area makes sense to be 5’ from the road. It just sort of seems shoehorned in there. I think Kathy's right about the driveways, and this is an overall development that is going to function in concert with Murdock and Bowen Street and those driveways and the aprons to those driveways that are going to serve this development. It meets 95% of the requirements in sort of technicality here, but I don't look at this site plan and think, boy, that's a really good site plan. So, I don't know that I'm okay approving it, even though I am okay approving sort of, like you said, the general concept of 32 apartment units, setback, all that sort of stuff. Mr. Lyons stated Plan Commission has some options. You could simply want it fixed now, table this item, and the feedback will be given to the applicant. They would need to address your concerns before Planning Commission will reconsider it. You could also condition it moving forward and then look for them to address your concerns during SIP. Mr. Bowen questioned if it was workshopped. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 September 17, 2024 Mr. Lyons stated it was. Ms. Propp wondered if we should table it, ask for another workshop, or something because it's quite disappointing that the developer or his representative is not here to answer these serious questions. Mr. Bowen wondered if we make a motion to table will the discussion get fed back to the developer. Mr. Lyons stated we will have the minutes and staff will be able to update the applicant on the concerns we've heard today. Mr. Bowen stated, when it's appropriate, I will make a motion to table. I don't want to cut off discussion if there are other concerns that should be read into the record to feed back to the developer. I think I got most of mine out. Ms. Davey stated she is having the same concerns plus a little. I go through this intersection probably ten times a day. I'm quite familiar with it. I don't feel it’s a very safe place to have your recreation space, not that it's going to matter because every side of this is going to have roads on it. I also have concerns where their driveways are coming in and out. I don't really know where I would say to put them, and maybe this is wider and bigger than I think it is, but it just feels to me like it's going to cause a lot of grief, especially during busy shopping times where people are in and out of there a lot. As Kathy mentioned, the current blacktop road that's there know will just fall right down, before they get this built. The potholes can swallow a small car as it is. So, we drive very carefully through there. I have many concerns about that, and I think that some of these questions do need to be addressed before I'm willing to discuss it more. I will definitely support tabling it. Ms. Davey withdrew her motion. Mr. Loewenstein withdrew his second. Motion by Bowen to table this item until the 10/15/24 Plan Commission meeting. Seconded by Davey. Motion carried 5-1. II. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PHASE II OF A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO 1710 OSHKOSH AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey, Mr. Loewenstein, Mr. Bowen, and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 September 17, 2024 Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) for Phase II of a commercial development at the northwest corner of Oshkosh Avenue and North Westfield Street. 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 subject site is a 1.33-acre partially developed parcel at the northwest corner of Oshkosh Avenue and North Westfield Street. The property is zoned Corporate Business Park with a Planned Development Overlay (CBP-PD) and the surrounding area consists of commercial uses to the east and west, hotel to the north, and residential uses to the south. This will be the fifth time this property has come before this body, last time being in May of 2023 for a General Development Plan (GDP) and SIP approval for Mr. Brews Taphouse restaurant development located on the property. The applicant is proposing the second of a two-phase development. Phase I is the now completed 4,200 sq. ft. single story restaurant and sports bar, which is Mr. Brews Tap House. Located at the corner of Westfield Street and Oshkosh Avenue. Phase II is proposed to be a 4,479 sq. ft. commercial building (Golden Nest Pancakes & Café) with a 308 sq. ft. outdoor patio. The development will have a single access from the existing shared access drive across from North Westfield Street, to the north of the site. A cross-access agreement has been recorded with the Winnebago Count Register of Deeds as part of Phase I of this development. The applicant is requesting a Base Standard Modification (BSM) to allow 71 parking spaces for both phases, where a maximum of 42 spaces are allowed. According to the applicant, the increased parking is needed as the maximum capacity of the sports bar is up to 150 people. The applicant is trying to get closer to 71 stalls which is closer to one space per two people at maximum capacity as originally requested with the Phase I approval. Staff is supportive of the BSM for increased parking as dine-in restaurants may need more parking than code currently allows. The request is not dissimilar from other restaurant developments requesting BSMs for increased parking. A dumpster enclosure was constructed as part of Phase I at the northwest corner of the site. It was sized appropriately to accommodate both restaurants. The development is meeting all building and parking setbacks as required by the CBP District. There was a BSM approved with the Phase I SIP for a reduced rear yard setback to 5’ from the code requirement of 25’. This development will not be encroaching anymore within that setback. Storm water utilities were constructed with the Phase I development. The facilities were designed and constructed to accommodate both Phase I and II. The Department of Public Works reviewed the Phase II development and reported that no changes should be needed. This will be confirmed during Site Plan Review. The landscape plan shows a combination of shrubs only along the building’s south elevation, adjacent to where the proposed patio will be. No foundation plantings along the west (main __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 September 17, 2024 entrance) and north elevations. The applicant is deficient with the total point requirement of 40 points per 100 linear feet of building foundation (180.4 points required, 172.6 points provided). With the substantial foundation plantings provided for the Mr. Brew’s building, staff is not supportive of a BSM to omit plantings along these two facades. City staff will work with the developer during Site Plan Review to have this addressed. The landscape plan is meeting the paved area requirement of 50 landscaping points per 10 parking stalls. As proposed, 470.5 points are being provided where 355 points are required, which is 132% over the minimum required. Similarly, street frontage they are proposing approximately 106% of points needed, and 120 points beyond what is required for yard landscaping. The applicant has not submitted sign plans, however, the elevation plans show proposed wall signage in the form of channel letters illuminated by gooseneck lamps on the south (Oshkosh Avenue-facing) and west elevation. The signs are proposed to be 18 square feet each and are within the maximum area of 1 sq. ft. per linear foot of building frontage. Phase I of this development included a 9’ 8” tall retail monument sign with three 20 sq. ft. sign panels along the corner of Oshkosh Avenue and North Westfield Street. It has been constructed and meets the code requirements of the CBP district. A photometric plan has been provided by the applicant. The provided plan meets the minimum lighting level of 0.4 fc for all parking/drive areas. Lighting levels do not exceed the maximum of 0.5 fc at the east, south and west property lines, however, the lighting along the north property line has values going up to 0.67 fc. Staff is recommending a BSM for the light level to exceed the maximum allowed as the increased lighting will be illuminating the main drive entrance and would not have any detrimental effect on the neighboring property to the north. The Corporate Business Park standards require buildings to be clad on all sides with at least 75% Class I materials. Also, window and door area shall comprise of at least 40% of the ground floor level of the street facing facade. The elevations provided greatly exceed these requirements with 95.5% Class I materials on the north. 95.4% on the south, and 95.6% on the west side. The east side is abutting Mr. Brew’s so that is not applicable. The street facing side is show to provide 40.4% of window and door area. Overall, the applicant is requesting BSMs to increase parking, and excessive lighting along the north property line. To offset these BSMs, the applicant will be exceeding the overall landscaping point requirement for the site and is proposing Class I materials greatly exceeding the 75% minimum on all facades. Staff is comfortable that the applicant has adequately offset the requested BSMs and the overall site is complimentary to the surrounding area. Staff recommends approval of the Specific Implementation Plan for Phase II 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. The applicant was available for any questions. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 September 17, 2024 Mr. Perry asked if any members of the public wished to speak. There were none so 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 Propp. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp stated this is a nice complimentary use, important for the two hotels, and neighbors. She likes it. Mr. Belville stated he has been to the Golden Nest in Sun Prairie. It is a trendy place, and he mentioned while there that he wished we had one in Oshkosh. He thinks this is a great addition for this location. Mr. Perry stated he has no problem with increasing the number of parking spaces to 71. He wishes we could make it 171, because it can get pretty busy there. Mr. Bowen discussed the parking codes, and how staff is looking at where it works and does not work. Clearly 42 parking spaces allowed for this type of development (are not enough); we shouldn’t have to do a BSM for this. He knows staff is reviewing the code. Mr. Lyons stated as we have learned, not all restaurants and traffic generation are created equal. Motion carried 6-0. III. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE DISTRICT (NMU) TO NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (NMU-PD) AND APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A MIXED USE BUILDING AT 1700 OREGON STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Neighborhood Mixed Use District (NMU) to Neighborhood Mixed Use District with a Planned Development Overlay (NMU-PD). The applicant also requests approval of a General Development Plan (GDP) and Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) to allow for a mixed-use building. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 September 17, 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 a .64-acre parcel with frontage on Oregon Street and West 17th Avenue. The site contains a parking lot, one 30’x60’ garage, and a roughly 7,000 square foot commercial building that was previously used as a tavern (with kitchen) and banquet hall; formally known as Witzke’s Bar Food & Banquet Hall. The second floor (above the tavern) contains an apartment. In 2005 the banquet hall, kitchen, storage, and ADA bathroom were added to the existing building. In recent years, apparently there have been some weather- related damages which caused the building to be closed. The current owners have started making the necessary repairs to make it safe and useable again. The applicant is requesting a zone change to allow for the GDP, which will be needed in order to allow for the ground floor unit to exceed 30% of the total ground floor area. The applicant has submitted plans to convert the existing banquet hall into a single apartment and to repair the existing tavern and second floor apartment. Staff is supportive of this because the NMU-PD zoning will be consistent with the neighboring property to the east. The Planned Development Overlay will allow for changes and improvements to the site which otherwise may not occur. The applicant plans to remodel the entire building to make it a functional tavern again and is proposing to convert the existing banquet hall into a first-floor apartment. If approved, the property will have two apartments and a tavern, and the banquet hall will no longer exist. A neighborhood meeting was held on Thursday, September 5th, 2024 and three neighbors attended the meeting. No one had any objections to the proposed project. The proposed new apartment is roughly 3,150 square feet in size and the total ground floor area is to be roughly 6,000 square feet. A Base Standard Modification (BSM) will be needed to allow that area to exceed the 30% for ground floor residential area. Staff is supportive of the BSM request to allow for that ground floor area to exceed 30%. Mr. Lyons stated this is a great example of looking at ways to support more housing in the city, in a non-traditional sense. Unfortunately using the Plan Development (PD) is the way we have to do it today. This could be another opportunity where we need to look at the code and see how we can promote housing in non-traditional ways. When the code was written in 2017 and we capped ground floor residential at 30% it made sense during that climate. Knowing the housing challenges we face now, as a community like most, these are some of the things we may want to look at changing in the code to make it easier to do and add housing units. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry opened the public hearing and asked if the asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Susan Hirschberg, of RH Design Build in Oshkosh, (applicant) wanted to elaborate on what was said. The owner plans to occupy the first-floor unit, so they would be essentially watching over the tavern and running it, which helps with the neighborhood. It also decreases the amount of traffic, by eliminating the assembly space. She thinks it is a win for the area. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 September 17, 2024 Ms. Propp asked if exterior improvements are planned. Chris Morth, of 611 Oregon Street, (owner) stated they will be cleaning up the building and yard to make it a nice facility internally and externally. We want to have a nice establishment, and want to be closed by 10pm or 11pm. We plan to make things nicer outside. A new roof will be installed, railings will be cleaned up, back steps will be replaced, and some exterior areas will be painted to make it look beautiful again. Ms. Propp stated her main concern is paint needed on the turret/tower. Mr. Morth stated there is a lot of history with the building, and they want to make it look as good as it possibly can. They want to keep the character to it. Mr. Nielsen stated the applicant did not propose any additional signage, lighting, or landscaping. If they want to, that can be addressed at Site Plan Review. Mr. Perry asked if any members of the public wished to speak. There being none, 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 Belville. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 6-0. IV. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE 600 BLOCK OF NORTH MAIN STREET AND THE WEST SIDE OF THE 600 BLOCK OF JEFFERSON STREET: PARCELS 0402300000, 0402260000, 0402240000, 0402230000, 0402370000, 0402360000, 0402340000, 0402330000, 0402320000, 0402310000, 0402280000, 0402250000 Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey, Mr. Bowen, Mr. Loewenstein, Ms. Propp and Mr. Perry reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a General Development Plan (GDP) and Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) for a mixed-use development. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 September 17, 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 subject site consists of twelve vacant parcels located on the west side of Jefferson Street and east side of North Main Street, which will be combined into one parcel. The neighboring land uses include commercial to the north and west, residential and commercial to the south, and residential to the east. The applicant is proposing a mixed-use development consisting of a 3-story mixed commercial/residential building along North Main Street and townhouses along Jefferson Street. The ground floor of the mixed-use building will consist of commercial space to be used as a daycare and the upper floors will consist of 39 apartment units. The townhouses will have 8 units per building. Two neighborhood meetings were held to show the neighbors the plans (June 18 and August 12, 2024). Neighbors in attendance voiced concerns related to additional residents in the area, buffering the development from neighboring properties, parking, building material compatibility with the surrounding area, and building/tenant management. A Plan Commission workshop was held on August 6, 2024 with Plan Commission voicing support for the project. The proposed site will have driveway access off North Main Street and Jefferson Street. The applicant is providing 50 surface parking spaces. A Base Standard Modification (BSM) is needed to allow reduced parking as code requires 1 parking space per residential unit in the Parking Requirement Exemption Overlay (55 spaces). Staff is supportive of the BSM request for reduced parking as site constraints limit the ability to provide the additional 5 required stalls. Staff feels the additional on-street parking, in the area and center city location, of the site with alternative transportation modes will adequately compensate for the slight parking deficiency. The applicant is requesting a BSM to allow reduced front yard setback along Jefferson Street to 0’, where code requires a 25’ setback. Staff is supportive of the BSM for reduced front setback as site constraints limit the ability to meet setback including the fire separation from the mixed-use building and needing the additional area to maximize their parking layout. The applicant is also requesting a BSM for reduced side yard setbacks along the north property line to 4’ where code requires a 5’ setback. Staff is supportive of a BSM to allow reduced side yard setback as they need to maximize their parking area and it gets them out of the 10’x 10’ vision triangle where that building would be along the entrance. They are also requesting a BSM for reduced side yard setback along the remaining neighboring parcel to 0’. However, staff is recommending increasing that to 2’ by reducing the proposed parking lot width for the two-way drive aisle from 26’ to the code minimum of 24’. Recommending a slight adjustment to provide a 2’ setback along that remaining property. Code requires recreation area as it is a multi-family development. Based on the square footage of the building and number of bedrooms, they would need 3,400 sq. ft. of recreation area. They are requesting a BSM to allow 1,650 sq. ft. of recreation area. Staff is supportive of a BSM to allow the reduced recreation area as site constraints limit the ability to provide additional outdoor recreation areas. The applicant notes that indoor community areas are available for occupants, such as an __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 September 17, 2024 indoor exercise room, kitchenette, and community room. This is a center city area which would commonly be zoned Central Mixed Use district (CMU), which does exempt outdoor recreation area requirements. The building foundation landscaping point and paved area requirements are being met. However, the parking lot design does not meet the requirement of having the parking end rows be 125 sq. ft. in area and 7 ft. in width, and also not providing shade or deciduous trees in those islands. Staff does not have concerns with that BSM request as it is needed to provide circulation for the site and the applicant has exceeded the total paved area landscaping requirement as well as the specific point requirements for tall trees and shrubs. The applicant is meeting the street frontage point requirements along both street frontages. However, code also requires those street frontages to include 50% of the points being medium trees. They are deficient of that along both Jefferson Street and Main Street. Staff is supportive of a BSM to allow that point reduction for medium trees as they have reduced minimal setbacks along those frontages which does not allow for them to meet that medium tree point requirement. The applicant is exceeding total yard landscaping points and that serves to offset some of the requested BSMs. There is a bufferyard requirement along the south property line, as it is abutting residential zoning. The applicant is providing a 10’ wide bufferyard along with about 24’ of 6’ tall solid fence. There is also neighboring 6’ tall solid fencing running along the neighboring residential property. So rather than having the 6’ fencing going all along that property line, they are only proposing where there is not neighboring fencing, but increasing the evergreen tree landscaping points. They are about four and a half times what would be required for evergreen tree landscaping points to meet that bufferyard. Staff feels that is an appropriate trade-off to have more evergreen trees rather than back-to-back fencing along that property line. For site lighting the applicant is meeting the .4 foot-candle minimum requirement for parking areas, but the drive areas are deficient of that requirement. Staff is supportive of a BSM as they have minimal area to provide those light fixtures along the property line without causing increased excess lighting on neighboring properties. Staff is supportive of the lighting reduction along the drive entrances specifically. The proposed townhomes are two-story buildings with the exterior consisting primarily of wood siding and the elevations are meeting all multi-family residential design standards. Looking at the elevations for the mixed use building, code requires the front and side facades to be 50% Class I materials. The applicant is requesting a BSM for the west. Main Street facing, façade to be 44% Class I materials. Staff does not have concerns with that reduction as it is a relatively slight reduction and the applicant has exceeded the Class I material requirement on all other facades. Overall, the applicant is requesting BSMs for reduced parking spaces, setbacks, outdoor recreation area, lighting levels, Class I materials, and specific landscaping requirements. To offset the __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 September 17, 2024 requested BSMs, the applicant has provided 129% of the required landscaping points and exceeded the Class I material requirement for the mixed-use building by 6.4%. Staff is comfortable that the applicant has adequately offset the requested BSMs and the development is compatible with the surrounding area. Staff recommends approval of the General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Lyons stated there appears to be a lot of BSMs however it is less than a block north of where CMU cuts off. If this was a block further south many of these would no longer be required. Given the urban nature and the logical extension of the urban core, it makes sense for this to be an urban style development. When you combine that with the need for housing in the community, I think it makes a lot of sense to be supportive of the project even though there are a number of BSMs. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Loewenstein wondered what exterior building materials are allowed on the Main Street side, instead of Class I materials. Mr. Lyons passed samples around and stated the architect would later explain them in further detail. As Brian noted, they are using Class I materials but only at a ratio of 44% instead of the 50% required. Mr. Perry opened public comment and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Justin Mitchell, of 652 Monroe Street in Oshkosh, complimented Mr. Slusarek on his overview of the project. The Redevelopment Authority (RDA) put together, multiple years in a row, a request for townhomes along Jefferson Street. Future land use plan calls for mixed-use development. Other plans in the city talk about tucking the parking behind the buildings so that it's not a parking lot directly on Main Street as it is just north of our site. So many different aspects from the housing needs assessment and the downtown action plan from, I think, 2001, went into formulating what this project was going to be. This is the result of those plans, so congrats to the city. Joining me here, we've got David Juniel with WIRE Capital. He's part of the ownership and development team. Josh Sommerfeldt is an architect with M&A Design. Sue Van Houwelingen is the chair of the board of the Oshkosh Child Development Center, which would be the nonprofit child care operator. Jason Day with Excel Engineering. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. Mr. Belville wondered if the outside material was primarily wood. I'm just thinking about downtown. A majority of it is brick or stone. I want to know the coloring and the mock-up, if that's the exact coloring that we'll get. I'm just kind of wondering how we chose almost all wood and then how we got the coloring for the building. Josh Sommerfeldt, of 24 South Brooke Street in Fond du Lac, stated the ended up deciding on wood because originally I had fiber cement on here, but what I'm finding is fiber cement doesn't perform well in our climate. What we have is Class I, a lot of brick on there. Almost all the black __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 September 17, 2024 that you see is all the brick. The main entry has a pillar of gray brick to accent it. The rest of the material that you see there is LP. The white stuff that you see is LP. It's a wood manufactured product. I propose a smooth panel with a metal channel in between. It'll have a little half-inch reveal. It'll be a very contemporary, modern vibe. You probably won't even know that it's wood, to be honest. There are samples of the colors too. On the left side is the lap siding. That's what you're going to see on the townhomes. On the right side is the smooth siding, and that's what you're going to see on the mid-rise to give it that contemporary, commercial vibe on the main street there. Mr. Lyons stated what you see here that is called out in wood in the white, we have traditionally seen in recent years developers using fiber cement board. And as Josh mentioned, what they're seeing is that product does not have the same longevity that some of the wood products do. We used to have a fiber cement board that mimicked wood, and now we've made a transition now to some wood that mimics fiber cement. So, it's a product analysis kind of thing. Ms. Propp wanted a better description of where each of the materials goes on the building. Mr. Sommerfeldt referred to the building materials being passed around and described where each material would be placed on the building. Mr. Perry asked if any members of the public wished to speak. Seeing none Mr. Perry closed public comment. 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 Davey. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Davey stated wow, I like this very much. Thank you. Ms. Propp stated I see Justin's fine hand in this, and I appreciate it. Experience pays off. Thank you. Mr. Perry stated this is a quality project and I fully support it. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Bowen left at 5:01pm. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 14 September 17, 2024 V. APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE OUTDOOR RECREATION PLAN (CORP) Staff report accepted as part of the record. The CORP is a document that assists the community in the development of park and open space amenities that will satisfy the needs of the citizens. Mr. Slusarek stated this is an update to the CORP that was last adopted in 2018. Planning staff has worked with the Parks Department and made suggestions on the CORP, and the review is for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. We have a slide show made by Rettler Corp and the Parks Director. Rebecca Ramirez, a Landscape Architect with Rettler Corp, stated her company is a Stevens Point- based landscape architecture, civil engineering, design, and planning firm. We also do construction management, and have a survey department in-house as well. Rettler Corporation has assisted the city with the preparation of the last two comprehensive outdoor recreation plans, and we are honored to be able to be doing that again. While I go through this presentation, please feel free to let me know if you have questions. Ms. Ramirez went through the slide-show. Ms. Davey asked how people knew about the surveys being available via Polco. Ray Maurer, Parks Department Director, stated we did social media posts, then shared then with all city departments, and they shared it online. We include it in the City Manager newsletters. If you've done the Polco surveys in the past you should have received an e-mail. Mr. Loewenstein wondered what happens when we approve a plan to allow half the appropriate outdoor space. Do you do something on the public side to make sure those kids have enough public space within the radius. Mr. Lyons stated outdoor recreational space, as required within the zoning ordinance, is not intended to be a replacement for park space. It is intended to be outdoor green space that is usable by the residents of a specific development. It is only required in multifamily developments that are not in the urban core because it is recognized, that in the urban core, the value of land is more from a priority of buildings and improvement standpoints than park land. Looking at the neighborhood map you can see there are needs for some increased park space in the urban core. That is identified within the plan. We also recognize within that plan there are a number of opportunities for increased park space. Looking at the broader community, not a specific element of a development. I'm going to talk during the Director's Report later about parkland impact fees and updating our fee in lieu of and our parkland dedication requirements. There is an ongoing study that is being done, that was approved by Council, to look at how we improve the monetary side of parks from parkland impact fees to address our growing populations, and how we make sure we are receiving adequate land based on the size of developments. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 15 September 17, 2024 Mr. Loewenstein wondered if Plan Commission could condition a project stating that in-lieu-of providing more space we would like you to fund the Parks Department, in some way, instead of doing a Base Standard Modification (BSM). Mr. Lyons stated no, you cannot condition a land use approval on something of that nature. When looking at a development you can take into consideration if there is enough parkland available in the area to offset the ask. You could not say, I'm only going to approve this if you then give money to the parks department. That is fee in lieu of, which is a separate element of the ordinance where the ordinance requires it. Part of what we're doing with the parkland impact fee study is looking at how we level the playing field for fee in lieu of versus parkland dedication. The way the code reads now is if you need to create a plat for your development, you have to do parkland dedication or fee in lieu of. If you have a standalone single parcel that you are taking ownership and development of, you are not required to do parkland dedication or fee in lieu of. That does create some inadequacies in the way that the current plan works. You could build 500 units on a parcel that needs no CSM, and you have to do nothing to assist with the parkland needs of the city. You could build that same development and need a CSM, and now you have to do fee in lieu of or parkland dedication. Those same 500 units have the same impact on the city and its needs either way. That's why we're doing the study to get those things brought up to speed. Ms. Propp stated the CORP is incredibly detailed, and I appreciate all the photos. It helps to understand what is here. Oshkosh is still deficient in park area, and this is a soapbox I've been on for quite some time. And that's why the study about how the heck can we beef up funding of park acquisition and then park development, both. Parks have been underfunded by this community for a long time, in my opinion. Motion by Propp to approve the Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Seconded by Belville. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp wanted to thank the Parks Department and Board for paving the loops in Lakeshore Park on the trail. She discussed the restrooms in the area, and how it is a long way between them. There are new wayfinding signs along the Riverwalk and she suggests more specifics on them. Mr. Maurer stated we have been working on this for probably five years. The signs have been requested by visitors, the Convention Visitors Bureau, and businesses. We have restrooms on both sides of the river at both ends of the Riverwalk, basically. Trails generate economic development. If we can help out a business by trail users going in and using their restroom and purchasing a beverage or purchasing some food or a product, we hope that is what's happening. It would be nice to have more public restrooms. Mr. Lyons stated the signs are recent and we can improve them. Motion carried 5-0. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 16 September 17, 2024 PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT Mr. Lyons stated the October 1st Plan Commission meeting is cancelled, due to no items being submitted for that agenda. There will only be one meeting in October on the 15th. Similarly, in November there is only one meeting on November 19th. The first meeting fell on Election Day, and our meeting rooms are needed to accommodate that process. In December there is only one meeting on December 3rd. There is no December 17th meeting because the Council meeting would be December 24th, and I don't think anyone wants to go to Council on December 24th. On Monday, November 11th, we are holding a joint meeting between the Parks Advisory Board and Planning Commission at the Convention Center to talk about the impact fee study. Ellers is currently working on that study for the parkland impact fees, the fee in lieu of the land dedication. So, we want to have a joint meeting between a lot of the boards that are involved in it. You will receive more information as it gets closer. We want the opportunity to talk with both boards that are going to be impacted by that study before it moves on to Council. We're also going to take it to Long Range Finance to get some input from them. It is great that the CORP is here tonight so we can kind of talk about the city has recognized that there's some deficiencies in how we develop parks and how we fund the development of parks. Making sure our metrics are brought up to speed with where we should be with peer communities. A lot more information will be given at that. On October 30th, we're going to be holding a public informational session. We wanted to get public input from the community before we have the board and commission meetings. This will be my last meeting with you. I have accepted a position moving on from the city. I've been here a little over seven years, and really appreciated all your time and effort that you've put into being on this board. I think Plan Commission is really one of the most important elements of the city. I just want to thank everybody for their time. Leaving it in great hands with staff. I think, as you all know, they do a great job with these. There will be some changes as my position is refilled. Plan Commission members congratulated Mr. Lyons and told him they would miss him. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:35 pm. (Davey/Propp) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager ML/km