Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem IIPLAN COMMISSION NOVEMBER 15, 2016 ITEM II: UPDATE TO CITY OF OSHKOSH ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 30 AND ZONING MAP (MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES) GENERAL DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND On October 4, 2016, the City of Oshkosh Plan Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a new draft zoning map coinciding with the update/rewrite of the 1997 Zoning Ordinance. Since that time staff has identified additional mapping and/or ordinance language changes based on feedback it has heard from the public or in the course of additional staff reviews prior to adoption. Staff recommended that Council direct the changes back to the Plan Commission for review prior to final adoption of the Ordinance and Map. Eight modifications are being recommended to the draft map. Staff has also developed several alternatives for the boundaries of the University Transition Overlay district based on concerns being raised by the Historic Drive Neighborhood Association. Staff has also identified miscellaneous changes to the text of the zoning ordinance relative to permitted and conditional uses in the SR-5 and SR-9 zones which are currently areas that are being recommended to be down zoned from two family to single family. Those areas contain a number of legal conforming two family uses that staff would like to keep as conforming. Also included are changes to the review processes that would have ended some of the CUP and PD reviews at the Plan Commission rather than moving on to the Common Council. ANALYSIS A - Poberezny Road & W. Ripple Avenue: This 80 acre area was changed from SMU-PD Suburban Mixed Use with Planned Development Overlay to UI-PD Urban Industrial with Planned Development Overlay to mirror the existing M-1 Light Industrial District with Planned Development Overlay and to be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. B - Algoma Boulevard & Wisconsin Street Area: This 11.37 acre area was changed from TR-10 Two Flat Residential – 10 to MR-36 Multi- Family Residential – 36 to better reflect the existing residential land uses and mirror the current R-5 Multiple Dwelling District. C - New Water Tower Site: This 0.77 acre area was changed from UMU- PD Urban Mixed Use with Planned Development Overlay to Institutional with Planned Development Overlay due to a recent land division for construction of the new water tower within the Marion Road/Pearl Avenue Redevelopment Area. The Institutional Zone District is intended for properties used for governmental buildings and structures as well as other exempt entities. D - North Main Street Storm Sewer Basin Area: This 0.46 acre area was changed from MR-20 Multi-Family Residential - 20 to Institutional due to a recent land division for construction of a storm sewer connection between recently constructed City storm water detention basins. The Institutional Zone District is intended for properties used for governmental buildings and structures as well as other exempt entities. E - UWO Parking Lot – Scott Avenue: This 0.61 acre site was changed from C Campus to I Institutional District. This area was missed during mapping review as the C District was removed from the final version of the proposed ordinance text. The area is used for a parking lot for the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh and the Institutional Zoning is the most appropriate district as it matches the rest of the university campus area. The Institutional Zone District is intended for properties used for governmental buildings and structures as well as other exempt entities. F - Vacated Knapp Street – EAA This 0.60 acre site was changed from C Campus to I Institutional District. This area was missed during mapping review as the C District was removed from the final version of the proposed ordinance text. The undeveloped land is part of vacated Knapp Street and is now owned by the Experimental Aircraft Association. The Institutional Zone District is intended for properties used for governmental buildings and structures as well as other exempt entities. G - 225 Idaho Street: This 0.54 acre site was changed from NMU Neighborhood Mixed Use to SR-5 Single Family Residential – 5. This request was made by the property owner who approached the City to rezone the property from its current C-2 General Commercial Zone District. The property contains a single family home, a prohibited use in the C-2 District. The formerly proposed NMU District would have allowed the single family use by-right, however, the property is currently on the market and the owner had fears that a potential buyer would have difficulty securing financing with the NMU designation. H – Buckstaff Site – 1212 S. Main Street This 8.05 site was changed from HI Heavy Industrial to UMU Urban Mixed Use. I – E. Packer Avenue & Harrison Street This 6.35 acre site was changed from HI Heavy Industrial to UI Urban Industrial which better suits the smaller parcel sizes and less-intensive uses. Zoning Ordinance Text Changes Changes to Permitted Uses in SR-5 and SR-9 Zoning District The SR-5 and SR-9 zoning districts are generally replacing the R-2 zoning district in central city neighborhoods. These areas while predominantly being in single family usage do contain large numbers of two family dwellings. Two family dwellings on lots of record with 60 feet or more in width and 7,200 square feet in area are currently conforming uses in the R-2 zoning district. Two family uses on lots of record with less than 60 feet of lot width and 7,200 square feet are nonconforming uses. As a nonconforming use if that use is destroyed or removed, the lot then can only be used for a single family use. Of concern is moving a number of currently “conforming” two family uses to that of “nonconforming” status, Staff feels it is still in the best interests of the community and for the stability of the single family neighborhood to implement the zone change but wants to balance that by not creating a number of new nonconforming uses. As such staff is proposing to add as a permitted use in the SR-5 and SR-9 zoning districts existing two family uses on existing lots of record with 60 or more feet in width and 7,200 square feet of lot area. In order to deal with the existing nonconforming uses, staff is requesting to permit those through conditional use permit and thus each situation could be reviewed on a case by case basis to determine whether the use is reasonable for the site. Suggested Zone Change SR-5 30-38 (B) (9) & SR-9 30-39 (B) (9) Add the following language under Principal Uses Permitted by Right. (9) Existing conforming two family uses on existing lots of record with 60 feet or more of lot width and 7,200 square feet of lot area. Add the following language under Principal Uses Permitted as Conditional Use. SR-5 30-38 (C) (10) & SR-9 (C)(10) (10) Existing conforming two family uses on lots of record with less than 60 feet of width or 7,200 square feet. With respect to limiting some items to just Plan Commission review and ending items at the Council Adjust Figure 30-360 on page 488 3rd row down on chart labeled “Conditional Use Permit” and remove “A” (A=Final Action) from Plan Commission authority and remove “Appeal Only” under Common Council and place “RE” (Review and Evaluate) and “A” Final Action 8th row down under “Group and Large Development” remove “A” from and remove “A” (A=Final Action) from Plan Commission authority and remove “Appeal Only” under Common Council and place “RE” (Review and Evaluate) and “A” Final Action, Pages 500-502 30-382 (H) Review and Action by the Plan Commission Change the paragraph to remove final action from Plan Commission purview to read 30-382 (H) (2) The Plan Commission may take final action (by resolution) on the application at the time of its initial meeting or may continue the proceedings. The Plan Commission may recommend approve the conditional use with modifications and/or conditions or may recommend denial deny of the proposed conditional use. Said final action shall be followed by a written report which may include a formal finding of facts developed and approved by the Plan Commission concerning the request. Said report shall be forwarded to the Common Council for its review and action on the proposed conditional use. 30-382 (H) (3) If the Plan Commission wishes to approve recommend significant changes in the proposed conditional use……, 30-382 (I) Limited Effect of Approval. A ruling by the Plan Commission Common Council finding a particular land use……, Also move this section to 30-382 (6) and label as 30-382 (6)(3) Eliminate Sections 30-382 (J) and (K) 30-382(6)(1) Within 60 days after the filing of the appeal the Common Council shall make its findings and take final action (by resolution). Page 514 Figure 30-386 Process for Special Area Design Review Add a no, 7, Additional row titled “Review and Action by Common Council” along with No Maybe Yes Page 516 30-386(3) Project Review End of first sentence add …,Plan Commission and Common Council. The Plan Commission shall serve as the final discretionary review body review and recommend on aesthetics. building design…… Page 519 Figure 30-387 Procedure for Planned Development Review 5th box down change “City” to Common Council Review 6th box down under Specific Implementation Plan add Plan Commission and Common Council Review Page 526 30 (6) Criteria for Approval: In its review and action recommendation to the Common Council for a Planned Development District…… University Transition Overlay (UTO) District Staff has developed 8 different UTO boundary alternatives based on concerns that have been raised by the Historic Jackson Drive Neighborhood Association (JDNA) over the boundaries of the proposed overlay extending to Jackson Street on the east and New York Avenue on the north. Some in the JDNA are concerned that that the current boundaries will impact the status of the Irving Church Historic District, The short answer is that it shouldn’t. the UTO is simply a density bonus that permits up to 5 unrelated individuals in a dwelling unit. The current UTO boundary was drawn recognizing that the neighborhood has become majority rental and trying to continue to encourage that use in the UTO area and attempting to discourage the movement of student oriented rentals into the more owner occupied neighborhoods to the north and east by reducing unrelated individuals to 3 permitted by right elsewhere. The current UTO boundaries contain about 90% rental population. However, there are pockets of owner occupied in the current UTO boundaries. There is also a national historic district (Irving Church) near the south. Of the 9 alternatives staff has developed Option 5 would be the option staff recommends aside from the current UTO boundary proposal. Option 5 backs the boundary off of Jackson Street and New York Avenue and retains some of the more owner occupied parts of the neighborhood. The one concern staff has with any of the alternatives is the transition that is left between the UTO, which could allow up to 5 residents and the abutting areas where 3 will be permitted by right. Four individuals could be permitted through the Ordinance’s new Roommate Living Arrangement provisions, Alternatively. a new overlay zone could also be developed to address the concern. Staff is requesting Plan Commission recommend a UTO boundary alternative or to recommend the boundaries as currently proposed. RECOMMENDATIONS/CONDITIONS Staff is recommending approval of the Zoning Ordinance and Map revisions as discussed.