Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES May 7,2019 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Michael Ford,John Hinz, Lori Palmeri, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp, Robert Vajgrt EXCUSED: Thomas Fojtik, Derek Groth, John Kiefer,Andrew Mott STAFF: Darryn Burich, Planning Director;Kelly Nieforth,Economic Development Services Manager;Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager/City Engineer;Mark Lyons, Principal Planner;Jeff Nau, Associate Planner; Brian Slusarek, Assistant Planner; Steven Wiley, Assistant Planner;Mina Kuss, Recording Secretary Vice Chairperson Propp called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of April 16,2019 were approved as presented. (Vajgrt/Hinz) I. COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION NOT SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE ORIGINAL BUILDING AT 2300 ALGOMA BOULEVARD The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City's Design Standards to allow a rear addition constructed of materials not substantially similar to the original building at 2300 Algoma Boulevard. Mr. Wiley presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. There were multiple correction notices and violations in 2018 due to construction of a fence and roof overhang without permits. In early 2019, the petitioner filed an application for a design standards variance for the roof overhang on the structure. The petitioners stated in their application reasons for having the roof overhang on the rear of the building. The overhang allows the dogs to go outside into a sheltered area in inclement weather. Much dog waste is contained under the overhang and disposed of from the area underneath. This prevents the build-up of waste and potential for disease inside the shelter. The applicant also stated that the aesthetics of the new overhang enhance the current building. They stated that with the conclusion of winter, they were planning to add landscaping around it to make it more attractive. The white corrugated steel roofing also matches the wall color so it blends with the existing structure. The applicant stated that the 4x4 treated wood supporting the structure can be painted any color. Chain link fencing with privacy slats surrounds the structure. Ed Bowen arrived at 4:02 pm. Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen, Ms. Palmeri and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Plan Commission Minutes 1 May 7,2019 Staff report accepted as part of the record. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Hinz asked staff to pull up the Google street view so he could get a better perspective. Staff pulled up the Google street view and showed the side view of the site. Ms. Propp asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Carmel Scott (applicant) said she is an employee at New Pawsibilities. She stated she had just spoken to the owner,Jim Deering, that morning and discussed the conditions. She said they have no objections to the condition. She said there is already a volunteer crew and enough funding to abide by the conditions requested. Ms. Propp inquired about the outdoor storage because it looks like there are dog crates stored by the fence. Ms. Scott replied it was temporary. She explained dogs are transported from Kentucky every two weeks. She said after the dogs are transported, the crate will go back into the garage. Ms. Propp asked if the crates would be removed by tomorrow. Ms. Scott replied she hopes so. She said there is a work crew coming this Saturday to take everything out of the garage and storage to do a thorough cleaning. She said the crates may be back outside but typically do not belong there. Ms. Propp said she wanted to ensure it was not outdoor storage because it would not be appropriate. There were no other public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant Motion by Vajgrt to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. Property Owner shall obtain an encroachment agreement with the City since the overhang structure extends into the vacated former right-of-way. Plan Commission Minutes 2 May 7,2019 2. Property Owner/Petitioner shall submit within 6 months of variance approval an appropriate landscaping plan to the Department of Community Development for staff review and approval to screen the chain link fence surrounding the overhang. 3. Petitioner shall submit to the Department of Community Development for staff review within 6 months of variance approval acceptable labeled elevations or detail drawings showing a finished condition for the current wood fascia. This proposal shall involve sheathing the wood fascia of the overhang in a water resistant material and manner. Simply staining or painting this fascia will not suffice. 4. Petitioner shall submit building plans to the Inspection Services Division for review and approval within 6 months of variance approval. 5. Petitioner/Owner shall stain or paint the exterior wood supports of the overhang and ensure that the overhang structure is maintained. 6. Any additional work involving the exterior of the property and deviating from the zoning ordinance shall be filed as a separate request(s)for review by the Department of Community Development and the Plan Commission before work is undertaken. Seconded by Ford. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion about the motion. Ms. Propp commented that the overhang is not visually appealing but it is consistent in color with the building. She said she will be supporting staff s recommendation on this item. Motion carried 7-0. II. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (I) TO INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (I-PD), APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR BUILDING ADDITIONS AT 913 NEBRASKA STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr., Bowen, Mr. Hinz and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Institutional District (I) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD). The applicant also requests approval of a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan to allow for building additions. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The applicant is proposing a two-story school infill addition between the existing school and gymnasium as well as modifications to the east and south entrances. The school addition will have a total footprint of 6,280 sq. ft. and is needed to expand school classrooms along with daycare uses. The east entrance addition will be 646 sq. ft. in area. Plan Commission Minutes 3 May 7,2019 The project also includes new entrance canopies on the east and south sides as well as a 58 sq. ft. bump out at the southeast corner of the building and a new dumpster enclosure with paved access from W. 10th Ave. on the west side of the existing gymnasium. The property does not include a parking lot. On-street and off-site parking areas will continue to be utilized for the site. The proposed building addition between the school and gymnasium will be clad in a cream city brick veneer,which will be consistent with the cream city brick veneer of the existing school. The new entrances along Nebraska St. and W. 10th Ave. will be identified by changing the massing and brick color and include a heavy timber canopy with a pitched roof. The eastern facade along Nebraska St. is being altered by removing the existing vinyl siding at the windows, adding new windows and creating the brick veneer. The applicant feels that these changes will enhance the appearance of the facades. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Palmeri stated in the rezoning narrative the applicant states there would be no addition traffic to the area. She questioned if there was an increase in students,wouldn't there also be an increase in traffic. Mr. Propp suggested holding the question for the applicant. Mr. Bowen stated the classroom elevation windows seem small and was curious if they met code for window openings. Mr. Lyons explained that Institutional land uses do not have design review standards but through the Plan Development, those items could be addressed. Mr. Bowen stated the windows just strike him as being small for relatively large expanses of building. Mr. Burich said there were no standards put in the code for Institutional during the ordinance update. Mr. Bowen said he assumed there be guidelines for Institutional. Mr. Burich replied there can be. Ms. Propp opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Ben Leibl (representing owner) said he serves as the principal at Grace Lutheran School. He said there will be an increase in enrollment for the next school year which would be with or without the request. He said there is a parking lot across Nebraska Street that the families do utilize. He said there is also street parking on W. 101h Avenue. He explained they are limited for availability of parking space but do utilize a City parking lot after hours for parking. He reiterated that there would be an increase in enrollment and usage. Plan Commission Minutes 4 May 7,2019 Ms. Palmeri asked what the anticipated increase is for enrollment. Mr. Leibl replied 30 students,making the total number of students around 160. He stated the plan is for growth throughout the years. Ms. Propp asked if Mr. Leibl had any comments about the windows. Erik Drazowski (applicant), 100 Camelot Drive of Fond du Lac, said he is with Excel Engineering. He said the windows are something the architects are working through. He said they have designed multiple schools and assumes the windows have been deemed acceptable. He would be open to having the architects take another look at the windows. Ms. Propp asked if there are classrooms where the smaller windows are located. Mr. Drazowski confirmed they were classrooms. Jason Kramer, 1160 Laager Lane, said he is the church president and former school board president. He said they received a rendering suggesting less windows due to decreased focus from students. He explained there are a lot of schools now that have smaller windows or windows that are small and higher up which would keep the light coming in but the focus in the classroom. He reiterated there would be an increase in enrollment without the proposed request. He said the 30 students would go in the basement where there are no windows. He said the reason for the request is to provide more area due to growth of Grace Lutheran. Melinda Gosdeck, 119 W. 91h Avenue, asked what type of arborvitae would be used to the north because their garage is located near it. Mr. Drazkowski answered it would be Techny arborvitae. There were no other public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant Motion by Vajgrt to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. Base Standard Modification to reduce the front yard (east) setback from the established building setback (approx. 6') to 2.3'for entrance canopy addition. Plan Commission Minutes 5 May 7,2019 2. Base Standard Modification to reduce the street front yard(south)setback from the established building setback(approx. 22') to 1.32'for a building addition with entrance canopy. 3. Base Standard Modification to allow 63.9% impervious surfaces where code allows a maximum of 60% impervious surfaces. 4. Base Standard Modification to reduce side yard setback (west)from 7.5'to 1.26'for dumpster enclosure access drive. 5. Base Standard Modification to allow exterior lighting levels to exceed maximum 0.5 fc at the right-of-way line. Final lighting plans to be approved by the Department of Community Development. 6. Final storm water management plans approved by the Department of Public Works as part of the formal Site Plan Review. Seconded by Hinz. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion about the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-0. III. APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A SECOND ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER SIGN AT 2770 WESTOWNE AVENUE (CULVERS RESTAURANT) Site Inspections Report: Mr. Ford, Mr. Hinz and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan amendment to allow a second Electronic Message Center (EMC) sign at 2770 Westowne Avenue. Mr. Nau presented the item,reviewed the site and surrounding area,land use and zoning classifications in this area. The only change being proposed for the site is an additional Electronic Message Center (EMC). The applicant is not proposing any other changes from what was originally approved in the Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development from November,2001. The site currently contains three ground signs of which two signs have changeable copy cabinets. In March, the applicant proposed to replace the changeable copy cabinets with EMC cabinets and is now requesting a second EMC. The applicant states in the submitted narrative that Culvers wants to modernize their signs from labor-intensive, potentially hazardous daily changes of the manual reader signs to EMCs to take advantage of available technology. The Culvers "Flavor of the Day" could be updated via mobile device instead of manually changing the text each day. With this being a variance-type request, a hardship should be demonstrated as to what is unique to the property warranting the need for a second EMC. The intent original Planned Development for the Plan Commission Minutes 6 May 7,2019 area was to minimize the amount of clutter and distractions along Westowne Avenue, N. Westhaven Street and State Highway 21. Staff feels the base standards for signage in the Suburban Mixed-Use District is adequate for businesses to function and attract the local community and out- of-town visitors to their location Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Bowen questioned if the site was permitted to have two pylons signs due to having frontage on both rights-of-ways. Mr. Nau replied that is correct. He said one ground sign is allowed per right-of-way frontage. Mr. Bowen said he could not recall if surrounding businesses have a sign on each frontage. Mr. Lyons pulled up Google street view and pointed out all the signs in the area. Mr. Bowen stated when it was approved in 2000, it was approved with two signs and no base standard modifications. He said the signs as they currently exist are permitted. Mr. Nau confirmed Mr. Bowen s statement. Mr. Bowen said the EMC signs do look like a reduction compared to the manual signs. He said it looks as the cabinets signs would be going from about 68-69 square feet to 25 square feet. Mr. Hinz suggested that maybe the city code is falling behind on technology. He questioned if the channel cabinet signs were more attractive than the EMC signs. He feels there is opposition in allowing EMC signs. He said he has had experience in this field because he used to be a general manager of a restaurant. He understands the safety aspect of having an EMC. He suggested reviewing the code and focusing on the EMC sign area. He said the small EMCs are not putting out a lot of light plus the subject site is not in a residential area. He reiterated what Mr. Bowen said about the EMC signs being smaller than the channel letter signs. He questioned how many other parcels have both highway frontage and road frontage like this area. He said it is a very exclusive small segment of the city. He said if they would be setting a precedence for the area, there is nothing that is similar to it. Mr. Burich reviewed some of issues with the old sign code relating to allowing too much signage and too many signs in the community. He explained those were the reasons the sign regulations were tightened up during the zoning ordinance update. He said in his opinion, two reader boards on the site are not necessary. He said one sign on any site is sufficient. He said the signs facing Highway 21 serve less of a function for the reader board signs compared to the traffic going down Westowne Avenue due to traffic speed and different mindsets of drivers. He stated his main concern is the signage on Highway 21 because of potential hazards and contributing to the sign clutter. He said he understands the EMC signs are 25 square feet but the code still only allows one EMC sign per site. He said approving the two EMCs would set a precedent for surrounding Plan Commission Minutes 7 May 7,2019 businesses. He said there is sign clutter along Interstate 41 and they have tried their best to contain it. He said he does not want the same issues relating to sign clutter in this area. Mr. Hinz commented the businesses in that area are trying to obtain customers through two different major roadways. Ms. Palmeri pointed out in the staff report the section relating to the applicant not compromising with improvements to the site in order to be allowed a second EMC sign. She asked if it had been a factor and the applicant offered site improvements, if staff would then support the two EMC signs. Mr. Nau replied they would probably still not support it unless it was extremely exceptional. He explained that section was in the staff report because there is usually a trade-off when it comes to requesting BSM's to sites. Ms. Palmeri said she appreciates that the applicant pointed out picture graphic overcomes language barriers for tourists, international, learning disabilities and education discrepancies. Ms. Palmeri asked if there was only one EMC sign allowed, if the applicant preferred,would they be allowed to swap out the signs from Highway 21 to the Westowne Avenue. Mr. Nau replied there has already been one EMC approved for the site on the Westowne Avenue side. He said the applicant is requesting two EMC signs with the Highway 21 sign being a static sign stating the flavor of the day. Ms. Propp inquired about the height of the signs. She understands that the area of the EMC is less but the images shown make the EMC area look larger than the ultimate sign height. Mr. Nau said he reviewed the old building permits for the site and said one sign is 25 feet. He said Culvers had to obtain an easement from the DOT because they were encroaching onto their rights. He explained that the DOT limited the sign to 25 feet tall with a 25 feet setback from the highway's right-of-way. He said the other sign is around 23 feet high. Ms. Propp confirmed that DOT regulations would not permit the sign to go any higher whether it is an EMC or channel sign. Mr. Nau confirmed and said Culvers is within an easement with the DOT. Mr. Vajgrt asked for clarification that the requested EMC is going to be a static message stating only the flavor of the day. Mr. Nau and Mr. Burich confirmed it would be a static message. Mr. Vajgrt stated he does not understand where the additional distraction would be coming from in replacing the existing sign with an EMC. He said the EMC would be smaller in area and only changed once a day. Plan Commission Minutes 8 May 7,2019 Mr. Nau said the additional EMC could create a precedent for surrounding businesses. Mr. Burich stated it is staff's concern about the sign clutter and gave the example of excessive signage in Wisconsin Dells. Ms. Propp asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Dan Lichtenwald (representing Culver's/applicant), said he is owner of that Culver's location. He said he wasn't sure of what else he could add because a lot of it has already been discussed. He did want to add that the site is unique to the area given the fact there are two existing signs. He said they want to take advantage of current technology and upgrade the property to get away from the changeable copy board. He said they want to go to a sign that is more visually appealing and up to date. He stated they would be very sensitive to not having the Highway 21 sign to be anything more than just a static sign. He said they are not changing or adding signage but rather upgrading the signage. He said if the second EMC front Highway 21 is not approved,he would likely remove the changeable copy piece due to safety concerns. He stated that Culvers is unique to the neighborhood. He feels allowing the second EMC would not set a precedent because EMCs are very expensive. Ms. Propp asked about the approved EMC sign on Westowne Avenue and if it would be a scrolling sign and not static. Mr. Lichtenwald replied yes and it would not be static. Mr. Burich commented that EMCs cannot be scrolling or flashing. Mr. Lyons stated the code does not permit scrolling, flashing,blinking or any similar type of feature on EMCs. He said the code states one change every 10 seconds is the most the code allows. He said six changes a minute and it cannot have animation. Ms. Propp asked if Mr. Lichtenwald still anticipated some type of change to the sign. Mr. Lichtenwald replied he would on the Westowne Avenue sign. Mark Wessell (applicant), said he is the CEO of Springfield Sign& Neon. He highlighted sections of the staff report. He agrees with the purpose of the Planned Development in encouraging commercial development business. He said the property has two pylon signs and each has a manual changeable message board. He said there are comments stating there are no hardships presented except for convenience of technology. He said there is an acknowledgment from the staff stating there is a need to attract local and out of town businesses. He said for a business to sustain itself, it needs to attract existing and new customers. He said the second EMC request is only going to be a static sign which negates all the technological features of an EMC. He believes the statement about the applicant not providing any additional landscaping or enhancements is far from the truth. He said they do feel they have offered in good faith this request. He noticed there Plan Commission Minutes 9 May 7,2019 seems to be a fear for setting a precedents of additional signage at surrounding properties. He commented that the site is in excellent condition for being 20 years old. He said the site is maintained and landscaped and does not see any additional landscaping needed that would be prominent. He stated the property if unique because it is fronted on two sides with highway which is not usual. He said when the two signs were previously approved, the city must have seen a need for two signs with message boards. He said the signs are being reduced from 65 square feet to 25 square feet, which is a 60%reduction in area. He feels that is enough of a compromise for the second EMC. He explained that graphics on an EMC can overcome language barriers. He also mentioned the hazards of changing out the current board. There were no other public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Mr. Lichtenwald said Culver's has been a real good community partner with Oshkosh. He said they will continue that good relationship whether the second EMC is approved or not. He said the other Culvers in Oshkosh and the one in Fond du Lac have already been approved for this upgrade. He stated they are willing to invest$130,000 in these properties to keep them fresh and updated. He said all they ask is a little understanding that this property is unique. He feels the neighboring businesses do not change their signage as much as Culvers does since Culvers changes their signage every day. Motion by Perry to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Bowen. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion about the motion. Plan Commission and staff discussed what the ayes and nays would mean when voting on the item. Mr. Ford stated it is not Plan Commission's duty to decide if Culvers is a good corporate citizen. He urges Plan Commission to take that off the table when evaluating the proposed request. He said he agrees with staff in terms of clutter being a problem and creating a precedents for other businesses. He said a hardship needs to be demonstrated. He feels having a location with the advantage of having two advertising points is not a hardship. He said there will be one EMC regardless because the code permits it. He said he is intending to support staff on this item. Mr. Perry stated he is really conflicted by this item. He said he supports overcoming language barriers because of his experience and career. He said he is supposed to make his decision based on rules, codes and laws,not based on his emotions. He will support staff's recommendation even though he may not personally like it. Plan Commission Minutes 10 May 7,2019 Ms. Palmeri reviewed the intent of the original Planned Development which was to reduce clutter and distractions in the area. She said the 60%reduction in the signage would be reducing the amount of clutter in volume. She said she is also conflicted because of the uniqueness, safety concerns and overcoming language barriers. She commented she is challenged on this request. Mr. Hinz stated he is also conflicted on this item. He wished the applicant would have brought up the hardship of having a flavor of the day because it is unique to Culvers. He explained that people will stop depending on the flavor of the day. He believes the city is behind technologically because all the signs will start changing to EMCs. He said this is the first EMC where the only requested message is a static sign and no graphics. He said he will probably vote to deny the request but not because he wants to. He said his obligation is to the code and believes the code needs to be reviewed. Mr. Bowen stated he is not conflicted. He said in form and function, the sign is essentially doing the same thing as it currently is. He said the request works within our code but the only differentiation is that the code allows one EMC. He said the code does not usually contemplate a site with these types of frontages and rights-of-ways adjacent to it. He believes that is enough of a hardship for the applicant. He said he is sensitive to the slippery slope comment but it may only apply to six parcels of land in the city, which are all probably located in the area they are talking about. He said he will support the dual EMC signs because it is essentially identical in form and function and the reduction in size is a compromise. Ms. Propp said they are all conflicted. She said she does have emotion and has a soft spot for Culvers. She does want a sign located on the side of Highway 21. She stated she is conflicted. She explains that she does not see a hardship. She appreciates what they are trying to do but she is going to support staff. Mr. Perry commented he is not convinced that the sign will remain static because of comments about the technology of EMCs. He said he is showing there is an inconsistency of what is being said. Motion denied 3-4 (Ayes:Ford, Perry, Propp. Nay:Bowen, Hinz, Palmeri, Vajgrt). Staff and Plan Commission discussed how to make a new motion including findings and conditions. Motion by Bowen to recommend approval of the Planned Development amendment to the Common Council with the following conditions and findings: Condition: 1. The EMC sign shall be a static sign that changes no more than once every 24 hours. Findings: Plan Commission Minutes 11 May 7,2019 1. The proposed Planned Development project is consistent with the overall purpose and intent of this Chapter. 2. The proposed Planned Development project would maintain the desired relationships between land uses, land use densities and intensities, and land use impacts in the environs of the subject site. Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion to amend by Palmeri to include additional findings that sign clutter is minimized due to the reduction in size of the existing manual reader board and the hardship of the property is having two street frontages. Final condition and findings as follows: Condition: 1. The EMC sign shall be a static sign that changes no more than once every 24 hours. Findings: 1. The proposed Planned Development project is consistent with the overall purpose and intent of this Chapter. 2. The proposed Planned Development project would maintain the desired relationships between land uses, land use densities and intensities, and land use impacts in the environs of the subject site. 3. Sign clutter is minimized due to the reduction in size of the existing manual reader board. 4. The hardship of the property is having two street frontages Seconded by Hinz. Mr. Perry stated with the motion,he is no longer conflicted. He said the signs would be static and there would be no opportunity to overcome language barriers. He said therefore,he would still be against the second EMC sign. Motion approved 4-3 (Ayes:Bowen, Hinz, Palmeri, Vajgrt. Nay:Ford, Perry, Propp). IV. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENTS LOCATED AT MARION ROAD REDEVELOPMENT SITES H, I &J, GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS THE INTERSECTION OF MARION ROAD AND JACKSON STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen, Mr. Ford and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Plan Commission Minutes 12 May 7,2019 The applicant requests approval of a General Development Plan to allow for multi-use developments located at redevelopment sites H. I &J, generally described as Marion Road and Jackson Street. Mr. Lyons presented the item, reviewed the site and surrounding area, land use and zoning classifications in this area. The applicant is proposing a three site mixed used development in the Marion Road redevelopment area. The applicant proposal includes a mixture of residential, commercial and office uses. The parcels are described as Parcels J,H and I as found in the Marion Road Pearl Avenue Redevelopment Plan. The applicant has identified several potential Base Standard Modifications (BSM) that will be required for the development. Each individual site will be required to obtain independent Specific Implementation Plan approval to move forward. Site J is approximately 2.62 acres and is proposed to consist of three buildings and associated surface parking. Site H is approximately 1.78 acres in size and is proposed to consist of parking lot and a 2-story mixed use building. Site I is 1.41 acres in size and is proposed to consist of nine two-story town home units and a surface parking lot. Storm water management, landscaping,elevations, lighting and signage will be reviewed later as part of the SIP and Site Plan Review processes. Ms. Propp opened technical questions to staff. Ms. Palmeri inquired about Site I and the nine walk-up residential units. She said there are references to walk-out and walk-up and would like to better understand each. She was unsure if there would be elevator access for the walk-up units. Mr. Lyons explained that for Site J, the first-floor units would walk-out from to patio towards the river. He said the first-floor units would have direct access to the river. Ms. Palmeri asked if it would be 0 depth. Mr. Lyons replied he would refer that question to the applicant. He said the intent is there would be direct access to the river. Ms. Palmeri questioned what walk-up meant for the upper floors and if it meant literally walking up to the unit with no elevator. Ms. Propp commented that the question should be saved for the applicant to answer. Ms. Palmeri questioned accessibility for Site H and I. Mr. Perry inquired about the existing property to the west. He asked about the building and the number of floors. Mr. Burich said he believes the Anthem property is four stories. Mr. Lyons brought up Google street view and said the building looked to be around four and a half stories tall. Plan Commission Minutes 13 May 7,2019 Mr. Perry asked if the mall across the street was torn down and rebuilt,if it would be allowed to be six stories. Mr. Lyons said he thinks what Mr. Perry is trying to reference is the CMU standards. He said that the standard only applies to adjoining buildings. He explained the height is in conformance with what the code allows. Mr. Perry confirmed the standards would not apply if there was a new development built across the street on Jackson. Mr. Lyons said the standards would not come into play. He said the new development would have to meet the standards for their zoning district. Ms. Propp inquired about the Oregon Street bridge. She said there was a lot of work put into the proposed reconstruction of the bridge which was pulled by the state. Mr. Lyons commented that they have delayed making the decision. Mr. Burich added that they have not made a decision. Ms. Propp could not remember what bridge the city recommended. Mr. Hinz said they recommended the most expensive option which was the$36 million dollar drawbridge. Ms. Propp asked if the plan would accommodate the bridge reconstruction. Mr. Burich pointed out the large amount of dedicated right-of-way as part of this project for the reconstruction in case the bridge had to be realigned. Mr. Gierach confirmed the large area of right-of-way was dedicated because they were not sure how the bridge would be reconstructed. He believes the development has been made aware of the potential for bridges and reconfiguration. Ms. Propp asked if the proposed request would be started before the state is willing to fund the bridge. Mr. Gierach replied as far as he knows, the applicant would like to start on construction,likely before the state is willing to fund the bridge. Ms. Propp said she just wants to ensure that the developer understands and is made aware of potential changes to the bridge. Mr. Gierach confirmed the developer has been made aware of it. Plan Commission Minutes 14 May 7,2019 Mr. Lyons pointed out the large right-of-way again and said the hope is it would be enough to cover any potential change to the bridge. Ms. Propp said a previous concern was that the bridge would cut off the view for nearby buildings. Ms. Palmeri inquired about accessibility of the buildings. She asked if the apartments were a universal design in terms of handicap accessibility, wider hallways,wider doors,roll-in showers and so on. Mr. Lyons said he would defer that to the applicant. He explained this is only the concept plan/ GDP approval and the details will be addressed during the SIP process. Ms. Palmeri said she presumes based on the number of people that the square footage would have been calculated in. Mr. Burich commented the applicant, at a minimum, would have to meet requirements for handicap and accessibility. Ms. Propp asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Dan Drendal (applicant),305 E. Court Avenue of Des Moines, said he is with Slingshot Architecture and working with Merge Urban Development,who is there client and partner. He said their process is to engage first to their stakeholders and asked for feedback. He appreciates staff's input in shaping the General Development Plan. He said anytime they go into a community they look for mixed-use,urban development and increasing the amount of people living downtown. He said they also look at public places on the site so people are encouraged to walk through the site, around the site and increase walkability in general. He believes they would be able to come up with some great urban streetscape solutions that work within the existing fabric. He addressed accessibility and elevator access and explained that all upper levels would have elevator access and meet code. He further explained any multi-family building over eight units needs to meet FHA. He said they also track and map all accessible routes in every unit and go beyond what is asked of building code reviews. Mr. Palmeri asked if there would be first floor bathrooms. Mr. Drendal replied they will and will ensure accessibility is covered throughout. He said they are definitely passionate about that and achieving it in the right way. He mentioned the bridge was brought up very early in the project by the city. He said one strategy that is really going to help with that is the pedestrian space/courtyard space in-between the buildings, on the interior of the site, which will lend flexibility. He explained some of the buildings are fronted to both positions to accommodate for any potential bridge reconstruction design. He stated this development team is investing in opportunity zones which means they will be invest in the area for at least 10 years. He reviewed some of the site strategies such as the kayak launch,landscaping, storm water Plan Commission Minutes 15 May 7,2019 management plans, street frontages and parking. He said they are always striving to prioritize a pedestrian bicycle focus and deprioritize the car. He said the tenants they are looking for are people who want to be a part of the urban city lifestyle. He said they will still provide enough parking spaces. He said usually the residential parking is less populated during the day which allows more parking for the commercial uses. He said they are very excited about the project. Ms. Propp asked what type of tenants are they proposing to market to. Mr. Drendal replied specifically for housing tenants, they see a wide range of users. He said there are usually a lot of younger professionals who really prioritize to live alone without roommates. He said there are also a lot of baby boomers. Ms. Propp asked if there are larger units as well. Mr. Drendal replied they do. He explained all the walk-up units will be sized well. He said at Site J, the units that look out to the river will be some of the larger units. Ms. Propp asked if these were market rate. Mr. Drendal responded that they are. He said they do study it against mean incomes and are willing to bring that data back during the SIP process if requested. There were no other public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant Motion by Vajgrt to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: I. No Base Standard Modifications shall be granted as part of the General Development Plan (GDP)approval. Rather approval, conditional approval, or denial of each BSM will be undertaken as Specific Implementation Plans for each project are brought forward for review in the future Seconded by Hinz. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion about the motion. Ms. Propp said this is a welcomed development in many ways. She said there has been no activity to that site for years. She said it is an interesting development and she appreciates the different styles of housing. She said she like that the parking is interior and not out on the street. Plan Commission Minutes 16 May 7,2019 Ms. Palmeri said she really appreciates the thought that went into making it open for the pedestrian walkway to increase walkability. Ms. Propp agrees. Motion carricd 7-0. Mr. Bowcn left at 6:02 pm. V. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED CREATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 36 MERGE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; DESIGNATION OF BOUNDARIES AND APPROVAL OF PROJECT PLAN Site Inspections Report: Mr. Ford and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Tax Incremental District No. 36 (the "TID" or "District")is a proposed 5.82 acre blighted area district located in the vicinity of the Jackson Street/Marion Road/Pearl Avenue intersections. The proposed district is comprised of three parcels owned by the City's Redevelopment Authority. Proposed TID No. 36 would overlap TIDs No. 13 (Marion Road) and TID No. 21 (Fox River Corridor) with any increased valuation occurring after January 1, 2019 being captured by the new district. Mr. Burich presented the item and discussed the purpose of the proposed TID creation. The City is projecting that new land and improvements value of approximately$26 million will result from redevelopment activity within the District. The developer is proposing a mixture of residential, commercial and office uses. The parcels are described as Parcels J, H and I as found in the Marion Road Pearl Avenue Redevelopment Plan. Site J is approximately 2.62 acres and is proposed to consist of three buildings and associated surface parking. Site H is approximately 1.78 acres in size and is proposed to consist of parking lot and a 2-story mixed use building. Site I is 1.41 acres in size and is proposed to consist of nine two-story town home units and a surface parking lot. The developer is anticipating being able to fully develop the district by sometime in 2022 starting with the$22 million Site J on the river. The District is being created as a blighted area district as defined in Wis. Stat. 66.1105(2)(ae). Specifically, the District consists of land upon which buildings or structures have been demolished and which because of obsolete platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or of site improvements, or otherwise, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the community. In this particular case, all of the parcels involved contain either some levels of environmental contamination or poor structural soils due to the historic industrial uses of the area increasing development costs. The proposed Plan is in general conformance with the City of Oshkosh's Comprehensive Plan identifying the area as appropriate for Center City mixed use development. The development is also consistent with the Marion Road/Pearl Avenue Redevelopment Guidelines 2003 identifying the area as appropriate for a Plan Commission Minutes 17 May 7,2019 mixed-use development pattern with strong urban streetwall fabric which the associated Planned Development is proposing. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Propp inquired about the Plan Commission's function. Mr. Burich stated the Plan Commissions role is to look at the project plan and decide if it is consistent with the Comprehensive and local plans. He said they have relied heavily on Common Council to make the decisions about the cash flow portion. He said it is all part of the plan but would prefer Plan Commission to focus on consistency with other plans. Ms. Palmeri questioned if Anthem would consider having a building that is one story taller as a problem in terms of views. Mr. Burich said he has not heard anything from Anthem. Ms. Palmeri questioned the rent rate of the upper floors and if the project would devalue Anthem's rates. Mr. Burich said he wouldn't think so. He said Anthem will have an impacted view but will still have good views of the river. He said only one side is impacted. Ms. Propp opened up the public hearing. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed the public hearing. Motion by Vajgrt to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Ford. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion about the motion. Ms. Propp inquired about the TIF districts overlapping. Mr. Burich explained the new value would go to the new TIF#36 and the old value would be frozen/maintained. Motion carried 6-0. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Plan Commission Minutes 18 May 7,2019 Subdivision Regulations Mr. Burich reported on the Subdivision Regulations. He said they have started the process of updating the subdivision regulations. He said they have formed an internal review group and are working with East Central. He explained the subdivision regulations are from the early 90's and have not been updated to meet the new statutory changes. He said there is one model picked out which is the Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commissions model which will be tailored to the city's needs. Air Zone Overlay District Update Mr. Burich gave an update on the Air Zone Overlay District. He said they have consulted with Mead and Hunt to do an update an analysis of the county's air zone. He said they have done all the mapping and they are ready to start recommendations to update the code. Identify Members to Serve on Ad Hoc Advisory Groups for Subdivision Regulations and Air Zone Mr. Burich discussed identifying members to serve on Ad Hoc Advisory Group for Subdivision and Air Zone. He said there are two different groups and are looking for one to two members for each group. He said there would be four to five meetings at most. He said if anyone is interested, to contact him. Mr. Ford volunteered to be on the Subdivision Regulation group. Ms. Propp volunteered for be on the Air Zone group. Mr. Burich said he would e-mail the other Plan Commission members to ask them. Laekshore Master Plan Process Mr. Burich gave an update on the Lakeshore Master Plan process as request by Ms. Propp. Ms. Propp said she just wanted to make sure Plan Commission was aware of the plan. She stated she did attend the Park's Advisory board the night before and it was an excellent meeting. She explained that the input will be on the second Monday meetings. She said the Plan Commission does not have an official role until the end of the process. She said if Plan Commission members want to be active in the process, they have to attend the meetings as individuals. Mr. Burich said their role as a Plan Commission is to determine if the park if consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other local plans. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:25 pm. (Vajgrt/Hinz) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services Plan Commission Minutes 19 May 7,2019