Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES May 21,2019 PRESENT: Thomas Fojtik, Michael Ford, Derek Groth,John Hinz,John Kiefer, Andrew Mott, Lori Palmeri, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp, Robert Vajgrt EXCUSED: Ed Bowen STAFF: Darryn Burich, Planning Director; Kelly Nieforth, Economic Development Services Manager;Amy VandenHogen, Assistant City Attorney;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 Chairperson Fojtik called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of May 7, 2019 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Vajgrt) Mr. Fojtik said the applicant for Item V is requesting to move up the item to Item 1 on the agenda due to time constraints. Motion by Propp to move Item V to Item I. Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion passed unanimously. I. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (I) TO INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY(I-PD), GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A BALL DIAMOND LOCATED AT RAINBOW PARK, GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PUNHOQUA STREET AND RAINBOW DRIVE Site Inspections: Report: No commissioners 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), approval for a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan for a portion of Rainbow Park,located at the northeast corner of Punhoqua Street and Rainbow Drive. Plan Commission Minutes 1 May 21,2019 Mr. Lyons presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 225'ball diamond at the northeast corner of Rainbow Drive and Punhoqua Street. The 2013 Rainbow Park Master plan identified this area as a suitable location for an additional ball diamond. The City of Oshkosh Parks Department is now ready to move forward with that plan. Base Standard Modifications (BSM)will be needed for the three twenty foot sections of 24 foot tall backstop fencing and 10' fencing running the length of the infield. Six foot tall fencing would encompass the outfield. The maximum allowed fence height within the Institutional District is 6'. In order to accommodate the higher fence required for a ball diamond, the applicant is proposing to rezone to include a Planned Development Overlay and seek a BSM for fence height. The applicant has stated the ball diamond will not be lit. The applicant is also proposing to construct two dugouts and a small section of bleachers. The applicant has included a proposed scoreboard. The scoreboard is 4'x9' in area. The scoreboard will also include a field sign and a small approximately 4'x5' advertising panel. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. Mr. Fojtik opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Ray Maurer (applicant), said he is Parks Director for the City. He thanked staff for working with him on this item. He addressed the condition prohibiting the lights and requested to remove that condition. He explained there is not enough funding for the lights currently but it is part of the Master Plan which was approved in 2013. He said he would like not to go through this process in the future when adding lights. He said there has been discussion with staff about looking into the zoning code regarding parks being zoned as Institutional. He said there are future projects that the Institutional district prohibits and he would like not to go through the Planned Development process for those projects. Mr. Hinz asked if this was a youth only field. Mr. Maurer confirmed it was youth only. Mr. Hinz said if there was lighting on the field,he wouldn't imagine it going past 9-9:30 pm which is barely after dark in the summer. Mr. Maurer said that would be his intention as well. He explained Spanbauer games typically end around 9-9:30 pm unless there is a make-up game which could go to potentially 10:00 pm. Mr. Hinz stated it is youth only leagues which is different from recreational leagues that could run until 11:00 pm or so at night. Mr. Maurer replied correct. Plan Commission Minutes 2 May 21,2019 Karen Hartley, 1711 Punhoqua Street, said he lives directly across from the ball diamond. She inquired about the fill that was added in the ball diamond because she has not seen anyone out there since. She is concerned about all the standing water in the area and asked if this project would remediate the water issues. She said the fill has sunk down and she feels there are a lot of areas that still need fill in order to make it safe for children. Mr. Maurer replied they have a contractor that is working on this field as well as the Spanbauer field. He said the contractor is scheduled for next week,weather dependent. He explained the site where the fill was added needs to be graded. He stated it is in the budget to bring in more top soil to feather in the fill once the infield has been graded. He said there is a drainage plan. Ms. Hartley said the corner of Veteran Trail and Punhoqua Street is deep in water. Mr. Maurer replied they will have to take a look at that once the contractor is out there. He said they have not talked about it yet but will remediate the issues if needed. Mr. Propp asked Ms. Hartley how she felt about lighting in the ball diamond. Ms. Hartley stated it would directly impact her because she is right across the street. She explained the houses in the area have big bay windows in the front of the house because they were built in the 1950's and that was the style. She said she does not mind the ball diamond but having the lights would impact her greatly. She also has concerns about the traffic because there is no room for traffic with the events that are currently held. She stated she did not see a parking area plan in the request. She stated her front yard is well lit when the pickleball lights are on which is significantly further away than the proposed ball diamond. Mr. Maurer addressed the parking and agreed there is currently limited parking. He said as of now, it will be street parking like it has always been. He said they are looking at ways of adding parking to the north utilizing the Menominee Rainbow Memorial Park Master Plan and Lakeshore Park Master Plan. Alan Repp, 1506 Repp Avenue, said he has lived across Rainbow Park for 76 years out of his 80 years. He said he is well aware of the area and the events. He said he is glad there is no lighting proposed currently but would be against it if there was. He also has concerns about the limited parking. He stated he is not against parks and there are seven parks within six blocks of him. Carla Baier, 1653 Rainbow Drive,recommends not installing lights. She stated she goes to bed early and the lights would greatly impact her since her bedroom is in the front of the home. She inquired about litter/waste in the parks and asked who was responsible for cleaning it up. Mr. Maurer replied since 1999 or 2000,the park system has a take out what you bring in rule which is similar to state parks. He said most people do not do that. He said the park employees clean out the restrooms and check the parks for litter daily. He said they also work with the user groups on cleaning up as well. Plan Commission Minutes 3 May 21,2019 Ms. Baier stated she also has concerns about the limited parking. There were no other public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik 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 Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. Base Standard Modification to allow three twenty foot wide sections of 24'tall backstop fencing and 10'fencing along the ball diamond infield. 2. Field lighting is prohibited. Seconded by Vajgrt. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion about the motion. Mr. Hinz said he has umpired softball for over a decade in the city. He said lights do not come on much before 9:00 pm in the summertime. He explained the light are aimed at the field because it gets dark very quickly in the outfield. He feel the applicant will be coming back to Plan Commission for an amendment because having no lights could cut hours off the games or an entire game for the kids. Ms. Propp said at the moment she would prefer to leave the lighting out and have the applicant come back to Plan Commission. She said this would allow Plan Commission time for more discussion on the impact of the lighting. Mr. Ford asked if staff had evaluated the impact of the lighting. Mr. Lyons replied they had not because they do not know the height of the lighting. He explained that if the condition was removed, the applicant would still have to come back for a Base Standard Modification if the light pole heights were more than 20 feet. Mr. Ford agreed to proceed as is. Motion carried 9-0. II. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW WINDOW AREA REDUCTIONS AND CLOSURES ON THE FRONT FACADE AT 2038 ROOSEVELT AVENUE Plan Commission Minutes 4 May 21,2019 Site Inspections Reports: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow window area reductions and closures on the front facade at 2038 Roosevelt Avenue. Mr. Wiley presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. He explained this item was laid over from the April 16, 2019 meeting. Since that meeting, staff has attempted to contact the applicant multiple times and has only received one response. Since the last Plan Commission review of this variance request,it appears that the applicant has expanded the second floor window from a single to a double window. The applicant also appears to have inserted a second window on the left side of the facade on the ground floor. The applicant appears to have done this work without the required permits. Staff believes it would be beneficial to speak with the applicant at the property. Inspections staff also has asked to participate in a site visit because currently it is unclear what the extent is of the interior work/modifications that have occurred. Inspections would like to verify that the work performed is in compliance with all applicable building codes. Additionally, the applicant should be aware that the work in question requires zoning and inspections approval and building permits. Staff would like to see more of a willingness from the applicant to work towards an acceptable solution. The applicant has not made himself available to discuss ideas with staff. Mr. Wiley said there was further discussion after the staff report was sent out. Staff is now amending the staff report to recommend approval of the variance with conditions. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Fojtik inquired about staff's recommendation. Mr. Burich answered if the applicant is willing to agree to the conditions, staff would be willing to support the variance. Mr. Wiley reiterated what Mr. Burich said. He said staff will still need more information from the applicant. Mr. Burich clarified staff is changing the recommendation due to further conversations after the staff report was written. Mr. Wiley explained the conditions would give staff more information on the variance request and rationale for why the applicant chose to change the front facade. He said it is difficult to understand the reason for the facade changes without communication from the applicant. Mr. Burich said staff is in support of the variance due to the recent changes of the facade being more in line with the code. Plan Commission Minutes 5 May 21,2019 Mr. Hinz said he is a supporter of homeowners. He questioned if Plan Commission would be setting a precedent by allowing this homeowner a variance since the homeowner keeps doing work without permits. Mr. Burich said he understands where Mr. Hinz is coming from. He explained that the issue with not obtaining a permit would be handled through a separate process. He said the original change to the facade staff could not support but with the additional changes, staff can now support the variance. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Brian Hamill (applicant's attorney),210 N. Main Street, presented some pictures of the home and handed them over for Plan Commission to review. He said the front porch will be finished and the dimensions will be given to the city. He said the change to the front facade makes the home look substantially better than it did. He said the conditions being asked will all be met. He said the window dimension will also be submitted to the city. He reiterated that the conditions are acceptable. Ms. Propp stated Plan Commission is not happy because work had been done without initial approval. She stated Plan Commission chose to lay the item over in good faith that the applicant would be willing to work with staff on an alternative solution. She stated all dimensions should be given to the city before any more work is done and all work should be seized until conditions are met. Mr. Hamill replied the applicant needs to provide all the dimensions before making any more changes to the home. There were no other public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the amended staff report. Conditions: 1. Provide staff information (dimensions and descriptions of locations on the fagade) on the sizes of the previous windows. 2. Provide staff information (dimensions and descriptions of locations on the fagade) on the sizes of the current windows. 3. Justify rationale for lesser window size based on floor plan and functional layout of the bathroom to be reviewed and approved by planning staff. Plan Commission Minutes 6 May 21,2019 4. Submit to staff acceptable, dimensioned plans for the proposed finished porch landing in relation to the front fagade. Seconded by Vajgrt. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion about the motion. Mr. Fojtik said the process was not ideal but an alternative solution was found and agreed upon. Mr. Perry asked if there was a timeframe to complete the work. Mr. Burich stated one year after the original issuance of the permit. Motion carried 9-0. III. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW WINDOW AREA REDUCTIONS ON THE FRONT FACADE AT 653 GRAND STREET Site Inspections Reports: Ms. Palmeri and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the City's Residential Design Standards to allow window area reductions on the front facade at 653 Grand Street. Mr. Wiley 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 requesting a design standards variance for work that was inconsistent with the original permit issued which was issued in March of 2018. Staff is not clear on what the previous window sizes were before the work was completed. The petitioners stated in their application that the house had Plexiglas windows when they bought it. They believed they needed to update the windows and winter was coming so they had to reduce the size of the upstairs windows on the front facade to install new windows quickly. According to the applicant, the Inspections Division approved all of the windows on the house except for the front window reductions, which planning has worked on addressing. The applicants stated that the reduction in the front windows was small. Other houses in the neighborhood have similar sized windows. By shrinking the windows in question the applicants believed that they made the second story safer as children could fall out the windows before. It appears that the windows maintained a similar width as before,but the window heights were reduced. After evaluating the petitioner's application and completed work, staff is of the opinion that the Plan Commission should deny the variance. The work was done in a manner inconsistent with the original permit and in staff's opinion the applicant does not provide enough justification for the Plan Commission to grant the variance. The permit clearly stated that the window openings would remain at their same sizes and locations. The reduced front windows compromise the architectural integrity of the house. Mr. Wiley explained if Plan Commission recommended approval of the variance, there Plan Commission Minutes 7 May 21,2019 are recommended conditions from staff. Mr. Burich stated staff is still recommending denial because they have not seen any rationale for reducing the size of the windows. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry asked if laying over the item is an option. Mr. Burich replied it depends on the applicant and if they are willing to work with staff. He said so far, the applicant has not shown any proposals that staff could support. Ms. Palmeri pointed out that the size of the neighbor's side window is comparable to the applicant's front window. Mr. Burich explained the front facade is the more dominant facade and cannot be compared to the other facades. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik 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. Seconded by Ford. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion about the motion. Mr. Hinz asked if staff is still recommending denial. Mr. Burich confirmed. Ms. Propp stated this is an example of why design standards are needed. She said she will be voting for staff's recommendation. Ms. Palmeri asked if the applicant had intentions so side the home or replace the shutters and make them appropriate sizes. Plan Commission Minutes 8 May 21,2019 Mr. Wiley said he does not recall the applicant stating those intentions but would want to make sure they do make those changes before staff would recommend approval. Mr. Burich said it is hard for staff to support such a drastic reduction in the windows on the front facade. Ms. Palmeri questioned if there were concerns about the side windows being reduced. Mr. Burich replied the concern is not with the side windows being reduced but with the way the windows were boarded up. He also pointed out that the shutters were not altered to match the new window size. He said if the windows were historically that size, then it could be something staff could support but the issues would still exist that the windows are out of symmetry. He said there is the option of laying it over to discuss other options with the applicant but the applicant is not currently present. Motion carried 9-0. IV. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR VEHICLE SALES AT 1911 WEST SNELL ROAD Site Inspections: Report: Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan amendment for vehicle sales at 1911 W. Snell Road. Mr. Lyons presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. On December 4, 2018 Plan Commission recommended approval of the request with conditions. After additional discussions with the applicant and staff the Common Council referred the request back to Plan Commission at the December 11, 2018 Common Council meeting. Plan Commission discussed several proposed modifications to the original plan at a March 5, 2019 workshop. Plan Commission recommended approval of previous SIP amendment at the March 19th, 2019 meeting. The applicant continued to express concern after that meeting. Staff conducted a follow up meeting with the applicant to discuss those concern and is now proposing some minor changes to the previous SIP amendment. The proposed development consists of an existing approximately 13,900 sq. ft. auto/truck repair shop and towing service. The applicant is no longer proposing to add the 50' X 50'building addition that was part of the prior request. The applicant is also requesting to add auto/truck sales as a permitted use. The applicant is proposing to expand that area by approximately 39,000 sq. ft., nearly doubling the existing outdoor storage area. The applicant has provided a revised site plan. One of the primary concerns is related to the subject site has been the lack of organization of storage and the haphazard appearance of its storage areas. The applicant has shown a history seeking approvals for a planned development amendments and then never following through Plan Commission Minutes 9 May 21,2019 with the conditions of the approval. This is evident by fact the site was not brought into compliance with either the 2006 or 2008 planned development amendments. Due to the concerns, staff is suggesting multiple conditions. Mr. Lyons said there have further discussion with the applicant after the staff report was written. He said there have been updated conditions in which the applicant has agreed to. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Fojtik asked if the modified conditions had been reviewed with the applicant. Mr. Lyons replied they have been working with the applicant for several weeks. He said the applicant is in agreement with the modified conditions. Mr. Fojtik asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik 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 staff report as the findings and recommendations of the Commission, with the following modifications to the conditions: Condition Modifications: 1. The second sentence in Condition 5 shall be modified to read as follows:No inoperable vehicle shall be stored in spaces 115-132 for a period of time exceeding 7 days. 2. Condition 6 shall be modified to read as follows: The spaces identified with an X on the SW corner of the site plan with staff comments shall be limited to temporary vehicle storage of operable shop and customer vehicles. The spaces identified with an X on the SE corner of the site plan with staff comments shall be striped, code complaint parking spaces, and limited to parking for operable shop and customer vehicles. Semi-trailers shall not be stored or parked on the X'd areas in either the SW or SE corner. 3. The second sentence of Condition 19 shall be deleted. 4. Condition 21 shall be modified to read as follows: The enclosed outdoor storage area shall not function as a salvage yard and shall not store vehicles, semi-trailers, or boats of any type that are being sold or used for parts or scrap. The enclosed storage area shall be maintained in an organized fashion which shall include the maintenance of at least one 18'foot drive aisle that runs the length north/south of the enclosed outdoor storage area. All weeds and brush shall be removed from the enclosed storage area, all grass and vegetation shall be Plan Commission Minutes 10 May 21,2019 trimmed, and no item within the enclosed storage area shall be stacked to exceed the 8'height of the fence." Final Conditions: 1. Piling post with cable shall be installed 5'from the west property line. Applicant shall provide detail and specifications for the proposed post/cable. In addition, to mitigate setback reduction, thirty (30) Techny Arborvitae trees,4'minimum height at time of planting, shall be installed on the west property line and shall be evenly spaced 10'on center. When such installation of the piling post and trees occur, there will be a Base Standard Modification reduction in the required side yard on the west property line from 10 feet as previously approved in 2006 to 5 feet. 2. All expanded outdoor storage per the site submitted by the Applicant on February 21, 2019 (hereinafter "Site Plan")shall be fully enclosed with an 8 foot high code complaint metal fence. There will be a Base Standard Modification for the expanded outdoor storage area to be enclosed to allow an 8 foot high metal fence to match the existing outdoor storage fence. Applicant shall provide a fencing detail and specifications for the proposed fence. The site plan with staff comments is included on page 6 of this Staff Report and is incorporated herein by reference. 3. The east and south property lines shall be fenced per Site Plan. There will be a Base Standard Modification to allow an 8 foot 6 inch high solid wood fence in the front yard setback along east property line and a Base Standard Modification to allow a 4'foot high chain link fence within the front yard along the east and south property lines. 4. Base Standard Modification to reduce the required customer/employee parking and shop vehicles from 47 to 28 stalls. 5. On the Site Plan, spaces 1-8 shall be used for employee and customer parking, spaces 9-47 shall be limited to vehicles sales, spaces 48-68 shall be limited to shop vehicles, spaces 69-114 shall be limited to semi-trailer storage, spaces 115-132 shall be limited to temporary vehicle storage. No inoperable vehicle shall be stored in spaces 115-132 for a period of time exceeding 7 days. 6. The spaces identified with an X on the SW corner of the site plan with staff comments shall be limited to temporary vehicle storage of operable shop and customer vehicles. The spaces identified with an X on the SE corner of the site plan with staff comments shall be striped, code complaint parking spaces, and limited to parking for operable shop and customer vehicles. Semi-trailers shall not be stored or parked on the X'd areas in either the SW or SE corner. 7. Site is limited to 38 vehicle sales spaces and those spaces are identified on Site Plan and labeled as spaces 9-47. 8. Towing-related fleet vehicles are limited in parking location to under the existing metal canopy (marked spaces 51-68), in spaces 48-50 on the Site Plan, or in the enclosed storage areas as per the 2006 approval. 9. After final approval, applicant shall provide a fully dimensioned and scaled site plan for approval by the Department of Community Development. 10. Parking lot (specifically, spaces 1-68 and spaces 115-132) shall be striped in accordance with the approved Site Plan. Plan Commission Minutes 11 May 21,2019 11. No parking shall be permitted outside of the legally established and striped spaces as approved as part of the Site Plan 12. All vehicles in parking spaces shall be in operable condition for safe and legal performance on public right-of-way. 13. All semi-tractors and semi-trailers shall be stored within the 24 spaces along the west property line (marked spaces 69-92) and 22 spaces along the south property line (marked spaces 93-114) and shall be stored in compliance with the approved final site plan. 14. Site/Business is maintained and operated per the submitted plan. There shall be no expansion of or change of uses on-site without further approval through the Planned Development process. 15. Outside storage of parts,fluids, tires, inoperable/unlicensed vehicles and other automotive service related items shall be prohibited in all areas other than the approved enclosed storage area. No outdoor storage shall be permitted outside of the approved enclosed storage area or approved semi-trailer storage spaces. 16. Driveway and parking area shall be brought up to city standards for hard surfacing per section 30-175(S), examples are concrete or asphalt. 17. Applicant shall provide storm water management once 20,000 sq.ft. of total disturbed area is reached. 18. Final revised landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development. 19. Outdoor storage area plan and narrative shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to building permit issuance. 20. Permitted uses shall be limited to; auto & truck repair, auto service, towing, auto parts sales and auto sales. For purposes of clarification, auto salvage is not a permitted use and vehicles shall not be dismantled and sold for parts on the property. 21. The enclosed outdoor storage area shall not function as a salvage yard and shall not store vehicles, semi-trailers, or boats of any type that are being sold or used for parts or scrap. The enclosed storage area shall be maintained in an organized fashion which shall include the maintenance of at least one 18'foot drive aisle that runs the length north/south of the enclosed outdoor storage area. All weeds and brush shall be removed from the enclosed storage area, all grass and vegetation shall be trimmed, and no item within the enclosed storage area shall be stacked to exceed the 8'height of the fence." 22. Applicant shall remove the empty scale sign structure located along the east property line and shown on the Site Plan, or alternatively,Applicant shall install signage in the empty scale sign structure. 23. All conditions and required site modifications that are made as part of this Specific Implementation Plan amendment shall be completed by the Applicant within 180 days of the approval of the Specific Implementation Plan. Seconded by Hinz. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion about the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Plan Commission Minutes 12 May 21,2019 Motion carried 9-0. V. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SIGNAGE MODIFICATIONS FOR OSHKOSH CORPORATION LOCATED AT 1917 FOUR WHEEL DRIVE Site Inspections: Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a Specific Implementation Plan amendment for signage modifications for a monument sign, directional signs, and wall signs for Oshkosh Corporation Headquarters located at 1917 Four Wheel Drive. 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 approved Specific Implementation Plan (SIP)for the development did not include finalized signage plans. As such, a condition was placed on the SIP approval that final signage plans be brought back through Plan Commission and Common Council for approval as a Planned Development amendment. The applicant is now moving forward with the final signage plan. There are no other changes to the site besides the signage and landscaping around the monument sign. The applicant is now proposing a monument sign, directional signs and wall signs for the site. According to the applicant, the overall design intent of the proposed signage is to extend the architectural theme and finishes throughout the site and provide necessary information for visitors and regular users. Base Standard Modifications will be needed for the monument sign height and the directional sign area. The applicant is proposing a wall sign on both the north and south elevations. Both signs will include an illuminated (LED) logo and lettering. The proposed wall signage will meet base code standards for on-building signage. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Palmeri asked if private property signs was considered a directional signage. Mr. Slusarek explained it is considered an on-site warning sign which code allows as needed. Mr. Lyons explained the difference between the private property signs and the directional signs according to the code. Ms. Palmeri asked where the private property signs would be located. Mr. Lyons said the applicant can verify that information. Plan Commission Minutes 13 May 21,2019 David Paino (applicant), 700 Commerce Drive #455 of Oak Brook, explained the signs would be located at the north trail connection and the others further south. He said the locations were chosen because there is not a visual distinction between the properties. Mr. Fojtik asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. David Paino (applicant), 700 Commerce Drive #455 of Oak Brook, said he was available to answer any questions. Ms. Palmeri inquired about the size of the private property signs by the Riverwalk. Mr. Paino replied the signs would be on private property. He said those signs would be smaller and sized for pedestrian traffic. There were no other public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik 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. Base Standard Modification to allow an 11 ft. tall monument sign inhere code allows a maximum height of 10 ft. 2. Base Standard Modification to allow 18 sq.ft. directional signs where code allows a maximum area of 8 sq.ft. Seconded by Palmeri. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion about the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. Ms. Propp left at 5:15 pm. VI. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPROVAL FOR RESTAURANT/INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT VENUE LOCATED AT 2105 S.WELLER STREET Plan Commission Minutes 14 May 21,2019 Site Inspections: Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan to allow for construction of a restaurant/indoor entertainment venue located at 2105 S. Koeller Street. Mr. Lyons 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 to construct a 34,423 sq. ft. building, which would include a restaurant, tavern and entertainment area. The applicant identifies an additional 30,000 sq. ft. for potential expansion. Standard hours of operation would be 6 am to 2 am daily with certain aspects of the business having shorter hours of operation. The applicant anticipates approximately 50 full-time and 50 part-time employees. As part of the development the applicant is requesting several Base Standard Modifications (BSM) relating to site design/access drives, landscaping, signage,lighting and building facades. The site also includes a 19,449 sq. ft. vacant retail space. The applicant is not proposing any changes to that space. The applicant does not meet building exterior requirements. Staff understands the applicant's desire to construct a themed entertainment venue,however, as proposed the development is substantially deficient in meeting the code requirements. Staff also understands the difficulty of achieving a themed architectural style while adhering to the strict requirements of the ordinance. With that in mind, staff is recommending the applicant be required to replace the proposed split faced block (Class II) with a Class I material, such as stone or stone veneer. The applicant states stone/rock was used in making of a mine shaft. Staff believes this change would not interfere with intended mineshaft theme and would aid in bridging the gap between the required materials and proposed theme. Mr. Lyons stated the applicant did revise the original plans due to concerns from the workshop. He said the applicant did submit a photometric plan though the staff report states differently. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Mott inquired about the wildlife mitigation plan. Mr. Lyons replied they've had discussions with the USDA for what is a typical wildlife mitigation plan. He said the two common ones are bird wires and bird balls. He said USDA did send specifications to staff which was forwarded to the applicant. The wildlife mitigation plan is to prevent wildlife from entering the pond within close proximity to the airport. Mr. Fojtik asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Steve Klessig(applicant), 711 Lois Drive of Sun Prairie, said he has been a registered architect with Keller Inc. in Kaukauna for the last 31 years. He said he had met most of Plan Commission at the workshop a couple weeks prior. He thought the workshop was a very productive endeavor and Plan Commission Minutes 15 May 21,2019 was able to talk about the themed architecture. He said he was excited to see that Plan Commission shared his passion for this project. He stated he was surprised that all the masonry block was changed to stone in the staff report by staff recommendation. He said he has the utmost respect for city staff and would like to keep working collaboratively with them. He said he wants to explain his justification for using masonry block. He said both products are listed under masonry and he is used to seeing them as equals. He said the products are not equal in staff's eyes and he respects that. He presented a fly through presentation of the site and pictures of buildings with masonry block. He said stone is more expensive. He said to replace the masonry block with stone, it would cost$150,000 more which is not in the budget. He said they do no plan on using cheap materials for the site. Mr. Vajgrt left at 5:40 pm. Erik Drazowski (applicant), 100 Camelot Drive of Fond du Lac, said he is with Excel Engineering who worked on the site plans. He addressed condition#13. He says the yard landscaping does not meet code and was a miscalculation because the retail facility was not included in the calculation. He said the yard landscaping points are deficient by around 300 points. He said the paved area points are about 300 points over the requirement. He requests utilizing the excess of paved landscaping points to make up for the deficient yard landscaping points to meet the requirements. Mr. Lyons commented the exact code provisions state that yard landscaping points must be separate from building foundation, parking and all other landscape points. He explained if Plan Commission is agreeing to Mr. Drazowski s request, they would have to add a Base Standard Modification to the conditions. He said he understands what Mr. Drazowski is requesting. There were no other public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant Mr. Perry questioned what the requirement was for street facing sides. Mr. Lyons replied it is 50% and in this case,it would be all the sides. Mr. Perry stated that is unusual. Mr. Lyons said most buildings have three sides that come into play which would have to meet that requirement. Mr. Perry confirmed that it is not that unusual. Mr. Lyons confirmed it was not unusual under the current code provision. Plan Commission Minutes 16 May 21,2019 Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Ford. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion about the motion. Mr. Hinz asked what staff's recommendation was for changing condition#13. Mr. Lyons said it is a reasonable request. Motion by Mr. Hinz to amend condition#13 to state: 1. Base standard modification to reduce the required yard landscaping from 1,080 to 709 points. Final Conditions: 1. Base standard modification for pavement setback reduction along W. 20th Avenue from the required 25'to the existing 17.75' 2. Base standard modification to allow light pole within the required front yard setback along the north property line. 3. Base standard modification to increase the maximum parking stall spaces without a landscaping island from 20 spaces to 22 spaces as indicated on the site plan. 4. Base standard modification to increase the maximum allowed parking to 830 spaces. 5. Base standard modification to allow a dumpster enclosure within the front yard as indicated on the site plan. 6. Base standard modification to allow a loading space within the front yard as indicated on the site plan. 7. Base standard modification to increase the maximum fixture mounting height from 20'to 23'. 8. Base standard modification to increase the maximum allowed EMC from 100 sq.ft. to 150 sq.ft. 9. Development shall be limited to three signs as outlined within the SIP request. 1 —192 sq. ft. pylon sign including 150 sq.ft. EMC along Interstate 41 and two 15 sq.ft. monuments signs. There shall be no wall signage permitted. 10. The final storm water management plan to utilize the Right of Way shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and provide substantial public benefit. Additionally, the developer must enter into an agreement with the City to allow for the installation within the Right of Way and potential need to remove the facilities should public use of said Right of Way be needed. 11. Developer shall provide a wildlife mitigation plan for the wct storm water pond for review and approval by the Department of Community Development. Plan Commission Minutes 17 May 21,2019 12. Base standard modification to reduce the required Building Foundation landscaping requirement of 50% of the required points along the main entrance to providing 33% of the required points along the main entrance. 13. Base standard modification to reduce the required yard landscaping from 1,080 to 709 points. 14. Base standard modification to allow 14 landscaping islands (as identified on the approved landscaping plan) to use low deciduous trees instead of the code required shade or tall deciduous. 15. Final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development. 16. All split face block shall be replaced with stone, stone veneer or a similar Class I material. 17. Curved corrugated metal siding and Curved corrugated rusty metal siding as outlined in the Building Fagade section of the report shall be permitted in conformance with the provided and approved building exteriors. 18. Final building exteriors shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development. 19. Refuse enclosure shall be clad in the same materials as the primary structure. 20. Code compliant photometric plan shall be provided. Mr. Fojtik asked what the opinion of Plan Commission was on the split face block versus the stone since he was not at the workshop. Mr. Perry said he is having more of a difficult time with this decision than he did with the landscaping. He said he wants to be cognizant of the desired design and the current state of the property. He said he believes strongly that the city needs a restaurant that is different from the typical restaurants. He said he is torn that it is significantly under the 50%requirement versus the need and uniqueness of this project. Mr. Hinz said looking at the material, they both looked equal. He thought it was a very acceptable facsimile that most people would not be able to tell the different unless they were an architect or had background in architecture. He said he knows there are standards but he would like to have a destination location in Oshkosh. Mr. Burich said the standards are applied to all buildings. He said any commercial building going through the process has to meet the minimum 50%. He said the Corporate Business Park requires 75%. He reviewed previous projects that were held to that 75% standard such as Casey's and Hoopman's hotel proposal along Oshkosh Avenue. He said he does not want to set a precedent for other developments with such a drastic reduction. Mr. Lyons explained there are many Base Standard Modification being requested of which have good reasoning. He said from a land use standpoint, theme architecture is not enough justification to grant a Base Standard Modification. He said the standards apply to all buildings. He stated he struggled to find a way to make this work and replacing the split block with stone was the best option. He said changing the product should not deter from the theme the applicant is trying to Plan Commission Minutes 18 May 21,2019 achieve but it does come closer to code requirements. He said he believes it is an acceptable tradeoff. Mr. Burich explained the intent of the design standards when the ordinance was recodified as of 2017. Mr. Hinz questioned why both products were considered masonry and why it was acceptable in other cities. Mr. Lyons replied there are municipalities with much stronger requirements than Oshkosh and others less so as it is a community decision. Mr. Mott said he is going to support staff's decision. He said when he thinks of a mineshaft,he does not think of block. He thinks of stone and sheet metal. He agrees there are rules and Plan Commission should be consistent with them. Mr. Ford said he agrees. He said it is justifiable to ask for stone. Bob Poch (applicant), N216 Hwy. 55 South of Kaukauna, asked if cultured stone was acceptable. Mr. Lyons replied it was. Motion carried 8-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARING: TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh Department of Community Development requests review and approval of amendments to the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Slusarek discussed the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as presented in the staff report. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Fojtik questioned the reason for the amendments. Mr. Lyons said some of the items are changes due to the new code not aligning correctly. He said a couple of them are changing because state law language changed. He said a majority of them are clean up items due to the intent and verbiage not matching up correctly. Ms. Palmeri asked for clarification on signage. She asked if the code verbiage would address if the sign was hand lettered or spray painted. Plan Commission Minutes 19 May 21,2019 Mr. Lyons explained in certain districts, a quality of sign is required. He said the intent of the verbiage is to have a quality requirement for the signs. Mr. Slusarek said the verbiage states the sign has to be manufactured to a professional standpoint. Mr. Ford asked if the 180 day yard sign would cover all signs. Mr. Lyons replied it should cover all the signs. Ms. Palmeri said she just read something about yard signs but it may be related to content. Mr. Lyons said the Reed case is content related. Mr. Fojtik opened up the public hearing. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed the public hearing. Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Palmeri. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion about the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 8-0. VIII. REVIEW 2019 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Staff report accepted as part of the record. Staff requests review and acceptance of the 2019 Annual Action Plan for the Community Development Block Grant Program. The purpose of this review is for the Plan Commission to make a determination of consistency that the proposed programs and activities in the 2019 Annual Action Plan are consistent with the City's 2005-2025 Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Update 2040, official maps, or other planned activities of the City. Ms. Brandt presented the item and explained the objectives of the program. Annually, the City prepares and submits to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an Plan Commission Minutes 20 May 21,2019 Action Plan to demonstrate how estimated federal CDBG funds will be spent. The 2019 Program Year begins May 1, 2019 and will end April 30, 2020. The 2019 allocation is$835,154. As proposed, the 2019 allocation and carry over funds from the 2018 program year, over 70% of CDBG funds will benefit low to moderate income (LMI) persons during the program year. Public Service applications (via the Consortium) are currently being accepted by the City and will be reviewed by a committee consisting of representatives from Oshkosh Area United Way, Oshkosh Area Community Foundation, and the City of Oshkosh. Staff is recommending that the City allocate $117,000 for public service activities/programs. Staff is recommending that the City allocate $335,154 for the Housing Improvement Program. Remaining funding is recommended to be distributed to the Central City Redevelopment ($300,000) and to the Administration& Fair Housing($83,000). Prior to Council consideration, the Action Plan is reviewed by the Plan Commission for consistency with the City's 2005-2025 Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Update 2040, official maps, and other planned activities of the City. Ms. Palmeri left at 6:00 pm. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed public comments. Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Hinz. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion about the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 5-0-2 (Abstain:Fojtik and Perry). IX. RELEASE AND ACCEPTANCE OF VARIOUS EASEMENTS WITHIN THE MORGAN DISTRICT GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF W. 6TH AVENUE,FROM IOWA STREET TO NEBRASKA STREET Site Inspections Reports: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Plan Commission Minutes 21 May 21,2019 The City is seeking approval of the granting of 13 various easements and the dedication of street right-of-way related to the development of the Southwest Industrial Park Expansion Area. Mr. Burich presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the reason for the easement. On October 23,2018, the Common Council approved a Conditional Use Permit and Specific Implementation Plan for a multi-family development located at the northwest corner of W. 6th Avenue and Oregon Street, commonly referred to as the Morgan District. Part of the site preparation involves the release of City-held easements and the City's acceptance of easements from the property owner for proposed City access and infrastructure placement. This request also includes lands east of Oregon Street, owned by Morgan District, LLC and Riverfront Development II, LLC and Riverfront Development III, LLC. The lands owned by Morgan District, LLC is a conglomerate of several blocks within the City's Original Third Ward. The City vacated numerous street segments in the area throughout the 20th Century with the land being dispersed to adjacent properties. Upon the vacations or discontinuances, the City retained rights to access and maintain City infrastructure within the vacated areas. The City is proposing to release these rights to allow for Morgan Development's project to proceed unimpeded. Mr. Nau reviewed each easement. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Perry. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion about the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-0. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Plan Commission Minutes 22 May 21,2019 Closing Comments Mr. Burich acknowledged Ms. Kuss on achieving her Business Management degree. He said this is his last Plan Commission meeting. He said it has been a pleasure serving with Plan Commission for the last 20 years. He said he will be going to Pinehurst, North Carolina. He stated he is proud of what staff and Plan Commission have been able to accomplish in the last 20 years. He highlighted major projects over the last 20 years. He thanked Plan Commission for all the years of serving. He said there are good things to come and he is leaving a great staff. He said this is one of the best Plan Commission groups he has served with. He said he appreciates all that Plan Commission has done for him. Mr. Fojtik said Mr. Burich's passion has rubbed off and that his staff is excellent. He said he has noticed a lot of boards and commission have trouble finding members but that is not the case for this commission. He said a lot of exciting things have come about because of Mr. Burich's leadership. He stated it is astounding to see what has happened in the last 20-30 years. He said this place is not the same as it was because of the help of Mr. Burich's. He thanked Mr. Burich. He also thanked Mr. Burich for being patient with all the Plan Commission members and applicants. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:11 pm. (Hinz/Ford) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services Plan Commission Minutes 23 May 21,2019