HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________
Plan Commission Minutes 1 October 4, 2016
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
October 4, 2016
PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Kathleen
Propp, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger
EXCUSED: Steve Cummings, Donna Lohry
STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner;
Elizabeth Williams, Associate Planner; Brian Slusarek, Zoning Code Enforcement
Inspector; Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; Deborah Foland,
Recording Secretary
Chairperson Fojtik called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum
declared present.
The minutes of September 6, 2016 were approved as presented. (Nollenberger/Vajgrt)
I. GRANT PRIVILEGE IN THE STREET FOR INSTALLATION OF FIBER OPTIC CABLE
ALONG EAST SIDE OF OREGON STREET
Multimedia Communications & Engineering, Inc. is requesting a privilege-in-the-street to allow for
fiber optic cable connection to Lakeside Elementary School using WPS poles with various
underground stretches within the City’s right-of-way.
Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and explained the
reason for the request. He further stated that the request has been reviewed by the Department of
Public Works to ensure no conflicts with City utilities and reviewed the standard conditions that
are recommended for a privilege-in-the-street.
Mr. Hinz commented that there has been discussion for some time regarding burying power lines
in the city and questioned if the aerial portions of this route would interfere with this process in
the future.
Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, responded that the installation would be a mix of
underground and overhead and this was the preferred method of installation as the aerial portions
of installation could be combined with other utilities and placed underground at a later date.
Mr. Thoms questioned the condition related to the insurance requirements for general liability in
regard to the minimum amount of coverage and that it states that it would require $200,000 per
person and not per occurrence.
Mr. Burich responded that these conditions were standard language that has been used on
previous requests and he could look into the matter as far as the language related to per occurrence
__________________________________
Plan Commission Minutes 2 October 4, 2016
rather than per person. (Condition #6 relating to the insurance requirements was revised after
further review and the revisions are incorporated into the approval below.)
Motion by Vajgrt to approve granting a privilege in the street for installation of fiber optic cable
located along the east side of Oregon Street with the following conditions:
1. The fiber optic cable be installed in a manner that is approved by the Department of Public
Works with no modifications or changes in construction procedure without prior approval
by the Department of Public Works.
2. If no longer needed, the fiber optic cable be properly abandoned and removed in accordance
with City standards and under the direction of the Department of Public Works.
3. Any problem that may arise as a result of the placement of the fiber optic cable be the
responsibility of the petitioner/owner to correct in coordination with the Department of
Public Works.
4. All appropriate permits are obtained prior to the start of placement of the fiber optic cable.
5. The fiber optic cable be modified or removed immediately upon the request of the City.
6. The petitioner/owner secures and submits to the City Clerk a separate insurance policy
which names the City of Oshkosh, and its officers, Council members, agents, employees and
authorized volunteers as additional insured’s with a minimum commercial general liability
coverage of $200,000 per occurrence and $500,000 in general aggregate.
7. It is the responsibility of the petitioner/owner to file in a timely manner a new insurance
certificate with the City Clerk upon expiration of an existing certificate. Failure to do so will
result in the revocation of the privilege in street within ten (10) days of notice.
8. The petitioner/owner execute a hold harmless agreement with the City.
9. The facility is part of and documented with Digger’s Hotline system.
Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 7-0.
II. ACCESS CONTROL VARIANCE TO REDUCE LATERAL CLEARANCE OF A
DRIVEWAY, REDUCE SPACING OF DRIVEWAYS, AND ALLOW A SECOND
DRIVEWAY AT 215 WEST MURDOCK AVENUE
The petitioner is requesting an access control variance to permit the following:
1. Reduced lateral clearance from West Murdock Avenue to 25 feet where code requires a
minimum of 75 feet.
2. Reduced spacing between driveways along West Murdock Avenue to about 38 feet where
code requires a minimum of 125 feet.
3. A second driveway on a commercial parcel with less than 600 feet of frontage.
Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the site
plan and described each of the three variances being requested. He explained that the reduced
lateral clearance, if not granted, would result in a hardship for the property owner as the parking
lot would lack sufficient drive/parking area. He also discussed the reduced separation between
driveways which was necessary to maintain the required 25 feet minimum distance from the
intersection. He reviewed the third access control variance for a second driveway which was
__________________________________
Plan Commission Minutes 3 October 4, 2016
necessary for efficient traffic flow around the facility and potential conflicts with the drive-thru
lanes. He also reviewed the elevations for the proposed structure.
Mr. Thoms commented that this seemed to be a significant change to the access control ordinance
and what the reasoning was behind the differences in what was allowed and what was being
requested and why this much of a variance was necessary.
Mr. Burich discussed the ordinance which was developed by the Traffic Review Board and the
lateral clearance was created to avoid the backing up of traffic from a site into the street. He
further stated that it may be necessary to review the ordinance as the 75 feet of lateral clearance
works for larger sites however it is an issue in the central city area where lot dimensions are less
generous. He displayed on the site plan how traffic will move through the site and that there was
adequate distance between the driveway and right-of-way and that inbound traffic was the
concern.
Mr. Gohde added that even if traffic is backed up it will not block lanes to the parking lot.
Mr. Borsuk questioned if this driveway would possess a right turn only configuration.
Mr. Burich responded that it appeared that way on the site plan but a right or left turn could be
made from that driveway access.
Mr. Gohde added that the right turn only configuration was too difficult to enforce and that there
was not adequate space to construct a median in this area to prevent a left turn. He further stated
that there was a two way left turn lane in the middle of the street that should prevent any issues
from resulting by granting this variance request.
Ed Bowen, 600 Oregon Street, stated that he was present to answer any questions related to this
request and confirmed that the driveway access is a full left or right egress lane.
Motion by Vajgrt to approve an access control variance to reduce lateral clearance of a
driveway, reduce spacing of driveways, and allow a second driveway at 215 West Murdock
Avenue.
Seconded by Propp.
Mr. Borsuk commented on the drive-thru being located in the back of the facility and that he felt
this was an appropriate location for this element of the development.
Ms. Propp stated that she did not recall any issues with traffic at this location when its previous
use was a restaurant.
Motion carried 7-0.
Mr. Bowen arrived at 4:30 pm.
__________________________________
Plan Commission Minutes 4 October 4, 2016
III. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE REDUCTION
OF ONE WINDOW ON THE FRONT ELEVATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 658
BOWEN STREET
The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City’s Residential Design Standards to
permit the reduction of one window located on the front elevation of the single-family home at 658
Bowen Street.
Ms. Williams presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and discussed the
request to reduce the existing window on the front elevation of the home by 47%. She reviewed
the ordinance requirements to grant a variance and photos of the existing picture window which
was proposed to be replaced with two windows and discussed the dimensions of the existing and
replacement windows. She further stated that the petitioner desires to make this alteration due to
safety and energy efficient issues and that the improvements would fit with the neighborhood
character better as there are no other homes in the vicinity that possess a picture window. She also
reviewed a photo of how the home would potentially look with the two proposed windows in
place of the existing picture window. The proposed alteration would be consistent with other
homes in the neighborhood, preserve the architectural integrity of the home, and not negatively
affect adjacent properties, the neighborhood character and the curb appeal of the block. She also
reviewed the findings supporting approval of the variance request.
Mr. Borsuk questioned if the picture window was original when the home was constructed.
Ms. Williams responded that she did not know as she could not find any evidence of it in city
records however she felt it was most likely an addition to the home as the original structure was
built in 1884.
Barry Perlman, 664 Bowen Street, stated that this was the only single story home on the block and
that the picture window was most likely part of an addition at some point. He further stated that
replacement of this window with two smaller windows would be more consistent with other
homes in the neighborhood and he supports their request for a variance.
Payton and Erica Cumings, 658 Bowen Street, petitioner for this request were both present for any
questions regarding their request.
Motion by Thoms to approve a residential design standard variance to permit the reduction of
a front window at 658 Bowen Street with the following findings:
1. Enforcement of the standards causes an unnecessary hardship because it would cause loss of
home function.
2. The standards do not apply to this particular project because the proposed window reduction will
not adversely affect the structure’s architectural design, the neighborhood character, or curb
appearance of the block.
Seconded by Vajgrt.
__________________________________
Plan Commission Minutes 5 October 4, 2016
Mr. Hinz commented that this is the type of request that should come through the Commission for
a variance to the design standards as it is appropriate for the intent of the ordinance.
Mr. Bowen stated that it was a good example as the existing picture window on the home is out of
place with the neighborhood character and surrounding homes.
Motion carried 8-0.
IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF A UNIVERSITY INTRAMURAL RECREATION FIELD COMPLEX
LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF PEARL AVENUE FROM WISCONSIN
STREET TO 350 FEET WEST OF OSCEOLA STREET
The petitioner requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development of an
intramural recreation field complex (IRFC) along the north side of Pearl Avenue west of Wisconsin
Street, The complex’s marquee feature incorporates a seasonally deployed 70-foot tall air-
supported dome structure enclosing a multi-use sports field.
Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use
and zoning classifications in this area. He discussed the development of the proposed IRFC which
was proposed to include an air-supported dome structure and support building. He discussed the
use of the complex and hours of operation and stated that the proposed use was consistent with
the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the University’s Master Plan, He reviewed the site plan and
discussed the north field’s striping. fencing, and use of the field which would be for soccer and the
base standard modification for reduced setbacks from Osceola Street and Pearl Avenue for
placement of the field. He also reviewed the south field which would be striped for soccer,
softball, football, and lacrosse and discussed the fencing and monopole light system to be utilized.
He also discussed the air-supported dome which would be 70-feet tall when deployed which
would be during the winter months from November through March. The placement of the dome
structure will also require a base standard modification for reduced setback along Pearl Avenue.
He discussed the support building located on the south field and reviewed the plans for the
structure which will also require a base standard modification for a reduced setback on Osceola
Street. He also reviewed the loss of parking spaces that would result from this development,
access to the site, pedestrian access points, and the driveway entrance off of Osceola Street for the
support building. He reviewed photos of renderings of the dome and building from various
vantage points and stated that lighting plans were not included but could potentially create light
spillover which may exceed code requirements. This aspect of the development will be reviewed
at the site plan review level and the development may have to come back to the Commission for an
amendment if excessive lighting would be found to exceed the limits of the ordinance. He
displayed the location of the lighting poles and stated that concerns with the potential effects
would be for the residential properties to the south and east of this site. He also reviewed
renderings of lighting systems utilizing past and current technology. He discussed the signage for
the site which was also not included but staff was recommending a base standard modification to
allow signage for the development as if it were in a C-1 Neighborhood Business Zoning District
__________________________________
Plan Commission Minutes 6 October 4, 2016
which has been utilized in the past for other University projects. He discussed the blank canvas of
the dome which would not be allowed to contain any signage or advertising with approval by the
Common Council and landscaping plans have also not yet been submitted but would be reviewed
and approved at the site plan review level. Storm water management plans were being reviewed
by the Department of Public Works and will need to meet code requirements and if ground water
is encountered during installation, it may need to be addressed with a contingency plan to
accommodate it. He also discussed the support structure and building materials to be used which
would be compatible with adjacent structures and the refuse enclosure which would also be
required to be consistent with the building materials. He reviewed the conditions recommended
for this request.
Mr. Thoms inquired about the condition related to the signage that designates it as no taller than
15 feet and questioned how staff came to this determination and if it should be clarified that it
would be for a monument style sign.
Mr. Nau responded that the height restriction was for ground signage only and has been used on
other developments approved for the University but could add wording to this condition to clarify
that the height was for monument type signage.
Mr. Bowen questioned if anyone has seen any pictures or models of examples of this dome
structure as he had concerns that the structure would be seven stories high and the dome would be
deployed six months of the year and would like to see real world applications of this nature as far
as appearance.
Mr. Thoms commented that he has seen them in other communities and they are not the most
appealing looking structures.
Mr. Borsuk stated that he has seen this type of structure in the Twin Cities and this dome would be
utilized in winter months.
Mr. Thoms inquired if the dome could have colors incorporated into it rather than all white as
proposed.
Mr. Bowen commented that the lighting details of past and current lighting systems were helpful
however more renderings of how the dome would look would have been helpful also.
Mr. Hinz questioned if anyone has seen a dome structure with advertising or other writing on the
fabric.
Mr. Thoms responded that he has not seen any other domes with these features however some
type of color enhancements could be added.
Mr. Borsuk reiterated that he had not seen anything on a dome either and the petitioner would
have to come back for Plan Commission review and Common Council approval for any changes to
the submitted plan.
__________________________________
Plan Commission Minutes 7 October 4, 2016
Mr. Hinz suggested that the use of lasers could be utilized to add a more interesting aspect to the
blank dome.
The Commission reviewed examples of various dome structures found on the internet in other
communities.
Andrew Leavitt, Chancellor for the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, 800 Algoma Boulevard,
stated that this development would support growth in their sports program and was financially
supported by funding from students. He also discussed the use of the complex for various
University groups and its availability for rental use to the community and other possible users and
that this development was supported by the Convention and Visitors Bureau as an asset to the
community.
Mr. Thoms inquired if it was possible to have the dome structure colored rather than just the white
fabric proposed.
John Kneer, Rettler Corporation, 3317 Business Park Drive, Stevens Point, who is the architect for
this development, stated that he has been involved with this project since 2013 and that it is similar
to the dome structure in Minnesota however they have made improvements to the design. He
further stated that the fabric was not proposed to be colored as it draws more attention to the
structure and increases the costs and that the white color would fit into the winter landscape better
when it will be deployed. He continued to discuss how a colored dome would be more prominent
than the white dome and that it was not as tall as the Gruenhagen Hall structure and that the goal
and objective is for the dome to blend into the environment.
Ms. Propp commented on the ribbed features depicted on some of the renderings of other dome
structures which she felt was more pleasing than just the plain fabric surface.
Mr. Kneer responded that the proposed dome would have ribbed features however it is not shown
on the submitted renderings.
Mr. Hinz questioned how large of snow storms the dome structure would be able to endure.
Mr. Kneer discussed the heating and inflation systems utilized to support the dome when
deployed and that both of these systems would have backup systems to support the dome if the
original systems would fail. He further discussed issues related to the support of the dome and
stated that the structure would be constructed to withstand the climate in our community.
Mr. Bowen inquired if the lighting standards are anticipated to be as high as the top of the dome.
Mr. Kneer displayed views of the structure and that the dome will be hidden by the Gruenhagan
Hall structure and discussed the internal lighting system for the dome as well as the LED exterior
lighting utilized when the dome is not deployed. He also discussed the storage areas for systems
__________________________________
Plan Commission Minutes 8 October 4, 2016
to be utilized and that there would not be an outdoor refuse enclosure for the facility as any refuse
from the site would be stored inside the support building.
Mr. Thoms questioned what would be anticipated for light spillover from the site.
Mr. Kneer replied that there should be very little light spillover from the site and if there would be
any it may be into the parking lot adjacent to the site. He gave further explanation of the LED
technology that is currently utilized compared to older lighting systems and how this newer
technology is more focused with cut off glare and intense shielding and has had good support in
other communities. He reviewed displays of lighting technologies and how the newer systems do
not have the spillover effect of older systems.
Mr. Burich questioned if properties across the river will be negatively affected by this development
in regard to the lighting.
Mr. Kneer described the glare issues which would be eliminated by the improvements of new
technology that address such concerns and that it would not be like the lighting in Titan Stadium.
Mr. Hinz inquired if the lighting would penetrate the dome when internally lit.
Mr. Kneer replied that it will not appear as a glowing structure and that there is a lot of fabric that
will absorb the lighting and it will show some lighting through the dome when internally lit but it
will not be that bright.
Mr. Thoms stated that they will be creating impervious surface with the development of the dome
and field and questioned if there were any water retention areas created to address storm water
management.
Mr. Kneer responded that each field has impervious surface and explained how penetration would
occur at a high rate and described the surfaces and pitching of sub grade as well as having a stone
trench system to handle storm water runoff. He gave a more detailed description of how the storm
water will be addressed under the playing fields which would allow the water to infiltrate
appropriately.
Mr. Thoms questioned if the water would channel through troughs.
Mr. Kneer reviewed the drainage system and how it will function and that it was designed to meet
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources standards.
Mr. Thoms then questioned if TSS removal would be addressed with this system.
Mr. Kneer replied that they would be adding roof structure and turf and that no TSS load would
be added and that the system will clean water as well and will go through a treatment system and
filtration and the site should have mainly clean water runoff only.
__________________________________
Plan Commission Minutes 9 October 4, 2016
Motion by Vajgrt to approve a conditional use permit/planned development for development of a
University intramural recreation field complex located along the north side of Pearl Avenue from
Wisconsin Street to 350 feet west of Osceola Street with the following revised conditions:
1) Base standard modification to allow a 20-foot front yard setback from Osceola Street and 19-foot
front (street side) setback for construction of the north athletic field.
2) Base standard modification to allow a 14-foot front yard setback from Pearl Avenue for construction
of the south athletic field/dome structure.
3) Base standard modification to allow a 70-foot tall (dome) structure in the R-5 district.
4) Parking facilities for bicycles are incorporated in the site design.
5) Base standard modification to allow an 18-foot front yard setback from Osceola Street for
construction of the IRFC support building.
6) Base standard modification to regulate building and ground signage for the property as if it were in a
C-1: Neighborhood Business Zoning District with the added conditions that ground/monument
signage be no taller than 15 feet and be architecturally compatible with the building, as approved by
the Department of Community Development.
7) No signage, text or advertising be placed on the dome structure without review by the Plan
Commission and approval by the Common Council.
8) Landscaping around all mechanicals and surrounding the loading/service areas be designed to act as
year-round screens, as approved by the Department of Community Development.
9) Appropriate and safe vision at vehicular intersections and driveways is maintained, approved by the
Department of Public Works.
10) Grading, erosion control and storm water management plans be reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works.
Seconded by Propp.
Ms. Propp commented that she has been very happy in the past with the University’s signage for
previous projects.
Motion carried 7-0-1. (Fojtik abstained)
Mr, Borsuk questioned when the University’s Master Plan was last updated.
Mr. Nau responded that it was updated ten years ago.
Mr. Borsuk suggested that a workshop could be held in the future to discuss this item.
V. ADOPTION OF UPDATE TO CITY OF OSHKOSH ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER
30 AND ZONING MAP
In 2013 the City of Oshkosh along with its contracted planning consultant for this task, Vandewalle
& Associates. commenced the process to update the City’s 1997 Zoning Ordinance, After 3 years
and dozens of individual, working group, and Plan Commission workshops and the creation of six
draft zoning ordinances staff is now requesting adoption of Draft #6 City of Oshkosh Zoning
__________________________________
Plan Commission Minutes 10 October 4, 2016
Ordinance and draft City of Oshkosh Zoning Map. Staff is requesting the effective date of the
Zoning Ordinance be January 1, 2017.
The Zoning Ordinance encompasses 11 articles of Chapter 30 making up the City’s core land-
use/zoning regulations:
Article I: Introductions and Definitions
Article II: Establishment of Zoning District (all base zoning districts)
Article III: Land Use Regulations (requirements specific to land use)
Article IV: Bulk Regulations (setback and height regulations)
Article V: Nonconforming Situations (uses. lots and structures that don’t meet code)
Article VI: Overlay Zoning Districts (districts superimposed over certain areas)
Article VII: Performance Standards (access, parking, fencing, etc.)
Article VIII: Exterior Building Design Standards (minimum architectural standards)
Article IX: Landscaping Requirements
Article X: Signage
Article XI: Administration and Procedures
Current chapters of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the Official Map, Subdivisions, and
Historic Preservation were not part of the update task and will be brought through and included
with the new Zoning Ordinance in their current form with no changes other than numbering to be
consistent with the new Zoning Ordinance. Floodplain, Airport, and Traditional Neighborhood
Development District regulations have been included in the draft Zoning Ordinance as overlay
districts with their current Zoning Ordinance language and no changes being made.
Mr. Burich discussed the amount of time invested on this project and that Mike Slavney and Jackie
Mich from Vandewalle & Associates were present to make a presentation on the proposed zoning
ordinance. He discussed the number of meetings and time involved in the review and preparation
of the new zoning ordinance and the large number of people involved with the process besides
city staff and the consultants from Vandewalle & Associates.
Mike Slavney, Vandewalle & Associates, stated that there was more opportunity for public
involvement than with most zoning ordinance updates and staff was heavily involved as well. He
reviewed the agenda for their presentation today and discussed the involvement of the Plan
Commission, various working groups, and employees that were all involved in the development
of the new Zoning Ordinance. He discussed the purpose of the ordinance which was to protect
properties, neighborhood stabilization, and address nonconforming situations, mixed land use and
to simplify development as well as other elements. He discussed the Comprehensive Plan update
and how the new Zoning Ordinance effects the implementation of this update. He continued to
discuss items such as the impact on homes and how the new ordinance will allow for more
flexibility and greater protection from more intense uses on residential properties. The updated
ordinance also regulates elements such as improvements and makes lots and homes conforming
and discussed how it impacts businesses in the community. He also discussed how it helps make
buildings and lots conforming as well as landscaping and site design requirements. He reviewed
an outline of the code and discussed existing zoning districts which some districts are missing
__________________________________
Plan Commission Minutes 11 October 4, 2016
from the current standards and reviewed new zoning districts which will bridge the gaps that are
missing in the current ordinance.
Jackie Mich, Vandewalle & Associates, reviewed the 11 zoning districts and reviewed which
districts have multiple districts for each classification. She reviewed the mixed use districts and
explained each district and its purpose and that these districts would be replacing the standard
commercial districts.
Mr. Thoms questioned if residential uses would be allowed in all mixed use districts.
Ms. Mich responded that it would be allowed in most of them and further discussed the riverfront
mixed use district as well as industrial districts and special districts created for rural and
institutional uses. She reviewed the overlay districts of which one is the UTO-University
Transition Overlay which did not exist in the previous ordinance as well as the Campus,
Lakeshore, Riverfront, and Planned Development Overlay Districts. She also discussed sections
that would carryover from the current zoning districts and the nonconforming situations, lots,
structures and sites that the updated ordinance will help to address.
Mr. Thoms inquired if this would resolve the issue to rezone properties due to their current use as
has been requested in the past.
Mr. Slavney indicated that this will come into play more with requests and the most direct impact
for the need for variance requests but the new ordinance will encourage reinvestment in
properties.
Mr. Thoms again inquired if it will resolve the issue of financing difficulties due to the zoning
classification not matching the current use of the property.
Mr. Slavney responded that the updating of the zoning map will help with this issue as the new
map attempted to match the zoning district as closely as possible to the current uses.
Mr. Burich added that we will still run into the issue from time to time due to financing issues due
primarily to Freddie Mae and Fanny Mac and their inability to understand how zoning works. He
stated it is not as much of an issue with locally financed mortgages.
Mr. Slavney discussed making nonconforming structures legal structures which would enable
them to be rebuilt if destroyed.
Mr. Burich discussed previous situations when these circumstances applied.
Ms. Mich reviewed tables contained in the ordinance relative to procedures and discussed the
exterior building design standards including materials, screening and other elements which would
apply to residential multi-family, commercial and industrial uses.
__________________________________
Plan Commission Minutes 12 October 4, 2016
Mr. Burich discussed the design standards that previously were only for the Highway 41 corridor
which would now be implemented city wide.
Ms. Mich continued with discussion on design standards for central mixed uses and the riverfront
overlay.
Mr. Thoms questioned how flexible these standards would be in the riverfront overlay and if it will
be similar to a planned development overlay.
Mr. Burich discussed the standards for the riverfront mixed use district and areas zoned with a
planned development overlay which will be required to come through Plan Commission for
review and approval.
Mr. Thoms then questioned if there was space allowed for development of green space in the
riverfront area.
Mr. Slavney indicated that this was addressed in the overlay district.
Mr. Thoms inquired if we built in area for green space within the development or will it have to be
addressed in the review of a planned development.
Mr. Burich responded that the ordinance will allow for development to extend up to the build line
specified and any other elements relating to green space will have to be addressed in the approval
of a planned development. He continued with discussion on riverwalk situations and how it is
addressed in other communities with development along this corridor.
Mr. Vajgrt left at 6:05 pm.
Ms. Mich continued discussion on design standards and review for renovation design and project
review in the Central Mixed Use and Riverfront Overlay districts as well as the signage section of
the ordinance and displayed samples of new sign types for permanent and temporary business
use. She also reviewed samples of miscellaneous and yard signs as well as nonconforming signs
which will be allowed to remain unless altered, moved, or reconstructed. She also reviewed the
landscaping requirements which will be a point based system which does not apply to single and
two-family residential uses. She reviewed the proposed zoning map and discussed key map
changes which were made to match the current uses in various areas of the city.
Mr. Burich compared the two different zoning maps of the current map and the proposed map and
discussed some of the changes mainly in the central city area and reiterated that every effort was
made to match the updated zoning map with the existing uses.
Mr, Nau displayed the interactive map that is available on the City’s website and how it functions
as it can display the current and future zoning designation for all areas of the city. He also
discussed the University Transition Overlay area which is meant to preserve the areas around this
zone.
__________________________________
Plan Commission Minutes 13 October 4, 2016
Ms. Mich then discussed the next steps in the process which if approved by the Plan Commission
would then proceed to the Common Council for the first reading on October 25th and the second
reading for action and adoption on November 8th with the new ordinance taking effect on January
1, 2017. She also discussed the open house held and the comments received which were mainly
supportive other than they were recommending a change to signage height in the Suburban Mixed
Use district to 35 feet for properties within 300 feet of the centerline of Highway 41 and 30 feet for
all other properties in the SMU district. She also discussed additional changes recommended by
staff and Vandewalle & Associates which were included in the memo.
Mr. Thoms commented that the Commission would be having requests for a variance to the
signage requirement to allow signs as high as the other existing signs in this corridor.
Mr. Bowen inquired if the entire property would need to be within 300 feet of the centerline as he
felt this issue needed to be clarified.
Mr. Slavney replied that in other communities it is where the sign is located and not the entire
parcel.
Mr. Bowen commented that signage is critical to getting new developments approved.
Mr. Burich stated that the excessive height of signs needs to be kept along the Highway 41 corridor
to protect neighborhoods from signage that would negatively impact residential uses and that the
sign section of the ordinance is compliant with the recent Supreme Court decision.
Motion by Nollenberger to adopt the update to the City of Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance Chapter 30
including the changes noted in the Vandewalle & Associates memo.
Seconded by Thoms.
Ms. Propp clarified that this vote was for the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance only and not the
zoning map.
Mr. Bowen questioned within the Riverfront Overlay District how the riverwalk ten foot easement
mentioned earlier would work and if it was included in the yellow area previously displayed in
the examples discussed.
Ms. Mich explained that the yellow area displayed in the examples was the “build to zone”.
Mr. Bowen discussed his confusion with how an easement can be created over property within the
zoning ordinance.
Mr. Slavney explained that a zoning code cannot be adopted that creates an easement and the city
can request granting an easement during zoning review of a development.
Mr. Thoms suggested that the area intended for riverwalk purposes could be officially mapped.
__________________________________
Plan Commission Minutes 14 October 4, 2016
Ms. Mich clarified that the easement area was meant to allow pedestrians to get to the riverwalk
from the sidewalk similar to a pedestrian connection.
Mr. Thoms stated that the easement area was meant to allow access to the riverwalk by requiring
an easement on the site of development to that point.
Mr. Slavney commented that the riverwalk could be officially mapped and the setback discussed
in the examples would create a path for the area with no structures.
Mr. Thoms suggested that the riverwalk area should be officially mapped beforehand.
Mr. Burich responded that this issue has been discussed and that some of the locations have
already been officially mapped and that the city was waiting for the completion of the Imagine
Oshkosh plan before moving forward.
Motion carried 7-0.
Motion by Nollenberger to approve the adoption of the zoning map.
Seconded by Bowen.
Ms. Propp stated that she was concerned with the boundaries of the University Transition Overlay
and would like to have the boundary moved south from New York Avenue to Vine Street and then
up to Cherry Street. She also would like to move the line west from Jackson Street to Wright Street
moving in this zone from the recommended boundaries on the map.
Mr. Burich displayed the two maps of current home ownership properties in this area and home
ownership properties in this area in 2000 and explained that the rationale for the proposed
boundaries was based on the fact that 90% of the homes in this area are rental properties currently.
These boundaries reflect the increased density of rental units west of Jackson Street and the
existing land use however there are still some owner occupied parcels on New York Avenue and it
has also been suggested that the boundary for the UTO could be extended as far east as Main
Street.
Mr. Thoms questioned if this zoning district has the amount of housing to support college housing
needs with the expanded use of the university.
Mr. Fojtik commented that the university is not growing in student numbers however the reach of
housing needs appears to be extending further out into the city from the campus area.
Mr. Hinz stated that the establishment of these boundaries was for the purpose of keeping the
rental housing uses from spreading further away from the campus.
Mr. Burich commented that the land use pattern already established supports the UTO district up
to Jackson Street as the majority of homes in this area are already student rental housing units.
__________________________________
Plan Commission Minutes 15 October 4, 2016
Ms. Propp stated that from looking at New York Avenue which still possesses some owner
occupied parcels, she would still like to see the boundary pulled back to Vine Street.
Mr. Hinz commented that this alteration would not include the north side of Vine Street which
appears to be heavily rental uses.
Mr. Bowen stated that by changing the boundaries the district would not agree with the current
uses of the properties.
Mr. Burich commented that this established boundary was trying not to promote the spread of
campus rental housing to other areas of the city that are more predominately owner occupied
housing currently.
Mr. Thoms discussed if the current use in this area was anticipated to change as he felt that west of
Jackson Street would not change back to owner occupied housing.
Mr. Burich stated that he did not feel that the housing stock in this area would revert to owner
occupied and the boundaries were easier to implement if placed down the centerline of the street.
Mr. Thoms commented that some zoning designations were found to be inconsistent when
previously reviewing the map and questioned if the entire map had been reviewed for this
purpose and any other inconsistencies corrected.
Mr. Burich responded that he felt that all areas were adequately reviewed and addressed any
issues with current uses matching the assigned zoning classification.
Motion by Propp to amend the zoning map to adjust the UTO boundary to pull the line down from
New York Avenue to Vine Street and run it up Cherry Street between Elmwood Avenue.
Seconded by Thoms. Motion denied 4-3.
Motion carried for adoption of the zoning map 7-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:40 pm. (Thoms/Hinz)
Respectfully submitted,
Darryn Burich
Director of Planning Services