Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES August 20,2019 PRESENT: Lynnsey Erickson, Thomas Fojtik,Michael Ford,John Hinz,John Kiefer,Justin Mitchell, Lori Palmeri, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp EXCUSED: Derek Groth STAFF: Kelly Nieforth, Economic Development Services Manager; Ray Maurer, Director of Parks;Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager/City Engineer;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 August 6, 2019 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Mitchell) I. EXTRATERRITORIAL LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT THE WEST 1300 BLOCK OF COUNTY ROAD I IN THE TOWN OF NEKIMI Site Inspections: Report: Ms. Erickson and Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Applicant is requesting approval of a land division/certified survey map from one existing 44.69 acre parcel. The size of the new proposed lot is 5.007 Acres. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The purpose of this land division is to create a new lot for a proposed single-family development per the submitted application. Lot 1, 5.007 acres, is proposed to be divided from an existing 44.69 acre parcel (Lot 1, CSM 5445). The size of the lot exceeds the minimum lot size per Winnebago County's Subdivision Ordinance. Lot 1 is bounded by an intermittent navigable stream along the south line of the property and the lot is impacted by Winnebago County's Shoreland Zoning District. The proposed two-lot land division will not alter the existing land use patterns in the area. The addition of a new single family use should not have a negative impact on the surrounding area due to the large lot size requirements. The proposed land division will not hamper the ability for future development of the land. He said staff recommends approval of the extraterritorial land division/CSM in the Town of Nekimi as proposed. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Plan Commission Minutes 1 August 20,2019 Ms. Palmeri questioned if the proposed development would consist of multiple units or one unit. Mr. Nau replied one unit. Mr. Mitchell said about a month and a half ago, there was discussion about farmland loss and the City stated they did not track farmland loss. He asked if there have been any updates since that discussion. Mr. Nau said tracking farmland loss would probably fall under Winnebago County. He said he remembers the discussion and stated the City does not track farmland loss. Mr. Mitchell said the City does not have any programs for preservation despite it being part of the Comprehensive Plan and the city language. He asked if there have been any steps taken for researching farmland preservation programs. Mr. Nau replied no, there have not. Mr. Mitchell asked what steps are needed to request a workshop with either UW Extension or East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (ECWRPC). He said he knows both of those programs have connections to farmland preservation. Mr. Nau suggested Mr. Mitchell make a request to Mr. Lyons when he returns and staff can look into it further. He stated it is a good idea to set something up with East Central to take a broader look at Winnebago County. Mr. Mitchell said that would be great but did not know if other folks had an interest in it. Ms. Nieforth commented staff will make a note of it and inform Mr. Lyons. Ms. Erickson asked if there was any impact on future developments due to the property being in the County's Shoreland Zoning District. Mr. Nau replied there is just additional setback requirements. He explained any development, per Winnebago County's Shoreland Zoning District, is required to have a 75' setback from the ordinary high water mark of the stream. He said that would be the only impact. 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. Plan Commission Minutes 2 August 20,2019 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 Kiefer. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. II. COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE TO ALLOW FACADE ALTERATIONS USING CLASS IV MATERIALS AT 1026 OREGON STREET Site Inspections: Report: Ms. Erickson, Mr. Hinz,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 Commercial Design Standards to allow a facade alteration using Class IV materials at 1026 Oregon 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 applicants are proposing to use metal paneling for the mansard roof and stated that they were not aware of the design standards currently in effect. They stated in their application that the design standard prohibiting the use of Class IV materials does not apply because many surrounding buildings are constructed of different materials. A number of these buildings including the one next door have ribbed steel siding similar to what is proposed for this project. Some of the existing wood shingles are missing,rotted and leaking. The panels proposed are the "Brite Red" color as listed on the material specifications. The red on the proposed panels would match the red band used on Red's Pizza and the red awning three doors to the north. The owner plans to paint the bottom of the building a tan color which the applicants believe would be complementary to the red paneling. He said staff recommends approval of a variance from the City's Commercial Design Standards to allow facade alterations using Class IV materials at 1026 Oregon Street with the conditions and a finding as stated in the staff report. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Hinz said as somebody who has spent over 40 years on the south side of town,he knows the area definitely needs a lot of work. He said his main concern would be setting the precedents that Class IV materials are acceptable and asked if staff had the same concern. Plan Commission Minutes 3 August 20,2019 Mr. Wiley said staff had the same concern. He explained staff was a little less concerned based on the context and type of material that was being replaced. He said there have been similar request in the downtown area which staff had greater concerns due to the historical character and prominence of the area. Mr. Hinz stated the building is different from the surrounding buildings and understands treating it a little different as well. Ms. Palmeri asked Mr. Wiley to show the street view photo. She asked how this request was any different from a metal roof material request. She asked if there were any concerns about removing the material. She said from staff analysis, it was determined the material would be more secure than cedar shakes or wood shakes that were on the building previously. She stated she did not have a problem with the color because the color is used on surrounding buildings. She said in her opinion, the color may be complementary and cohesive to the area. She asked if there was any concern with stability or adhesion of the metal. Mr. Wiley said from staff standpoint, they would want to make sure the manufacturer's specifications are being followed. He stated he would not be as concerned as long as the manufacture's specifications are being followed and the material is attached properly. Mr. Mitchell asked why a sturdier,long-standing metal roof was classified as a Class IV material. He said he understands this is not a typical roof. He asked what determines materials to be a Class IV. Mr. Wiley replied it is more of a product that would be seen on industrial buildings and storage buildings. He said the product is utilitarian in appearance. He said for the residential design standards, they have allowed standing seam metal roofing. He said he does believe they would allow something like this if it were not a mansard but a lower angled roof because the design standards are not as concerned with those types of applications. He said he thinks it was an aesthetics concern when the steering committee came up with the new ordinance and did the rewrite. He said similar concerns came up with the residential applications and that is why they created a standing seam roof ordinance for residential. He said staff can look further into the material classifications. Mr. Mitchell asked if there were any storm management requirements for the property. He explained the property is visible from a main corridor and does not have greenspace. He said the building next door has giant potted plants. He said the property in question does not have any trees. He questioned if there were any requirements for greenspace. He asked if this would be the proper time to request for other improvements to the site. Mr. Wiley explained with design standard requests and stated anything Plan Commission or staff suggest has to be directly related to the request. He said storm water would be triggered when expanding or disturbing impervious areas. Mr. Kiefer questioned why staff was against the red color. Plan Commission Minutes 4 August 20,2019 Mr. Wiley explained the color would be very prominent. He said the applicant does make a valid point that there are uses of the color red in the surrounding area. He said staff thought it would a nice compromise to allow the Class IV material but ask for a subdued color. Mr. Perry stated the material does not bother him. He said it would be an improvement over what is currently there. He questioned if the red was due to a branding issue. He said he would submit that red could be considered part of the signage which would make the signage nonconforming because it would be too big. He said it would be the same as Buffalo Wild Wings being yellow. He said he is not sure if he is in agreement with the color just because other things in the area are red. He stated he is supportive of the staff's recommendations and the metal seam would be an improvement. 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 Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. Metal paneling shall be maintained in a rust free state throughout the duration of the roof's lifespan. 2. Variance is for the mansard roof only and owner/petitioner shall file separate design standards variance requests for any future fagade work where Class IV materials are proposed. 3. Applicant shall revise the proposed color of the metal paneling and submit to Department of Community Development staff for review and approval. 4. Colors of the proposed metal paneling and the remainder of the building shall be complementary to one another. Seconded by Hinz. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp said the request should be approved but she prefers the subdued color. She said she is in support of the staff's recommendation. Plan Commission Minutes 5 August 20,2019 Ms. Palmeri said there was a prior request a few months ago for a larger development on the south side. She said both Plan Commission and Common Council approved it with a rusty color metal cladding, which covered a significant amount of the building. She stated it seems to be subjective. She said if the city is encouraging older buildings to improve their appearance, she feels they should have that option. She said she would be willing to approve it without the color restriction. Mr. Fojtik said he supports what Ms. Palmeri said. He said he applauds the staff because they do believe it is an upgrade from what is currently there. He said in terms of color, there should be further discussions about it but he does not have any issues with the color. He said he is willing to support staff's recommendation. Mr. Hinz asked if there has been any feedback from the petitioner about the color. Mr. Wiley said they did. He explained the petitioner already ordered and purchased the materials from Menards. He stated they can't return it. He said staff feels it is a greater percentage for the building proposed, as far as the red, as compared to the application used on the surrounding buildings. Motion by Ford to amend the conditions to remove condition number#3. Final Conditions: 1. Metal paneling shall be maintained in a rust free state throughout the duration of the roof's lifespan. 2. Variance is for the mansard roof only and owner/petitioner shall file separate design standards variance requests for any future fagade work where Class IV materials are proposed. 3. Colors of the proposed metal paneling and the remainder of the building shall be complementary to one another. Seconded by Palmeri. Mr. Ford said he made the motion because he is in agreement to have some color and vibrancy. He said the fourth condition will give protection for future color changes. Mr. Mitchell asked who submitted the application. Mr. Wiley answered Lett Siding and Trim,which is the contractor. Mr. Mitchell noted that a contractor of siding,roofing or trim stated they were not aware of zoning. He stated they have been operating in Oshkosh and did not realize there were building and zoning requirements. He said that is not the City's fault but thought it was worth noting. He said the applicant states they have been working in the city for 40 years. Plan Commission Minutes 6 August 20,2019 Ms. Palmeri and Mr. Fojtik commented it is a newer zoning ordinance and design standards variance. Mr. Mitchell added building requirements and getting permits should not be new. Ms. Propp said she is going to support the amendment because the applicant already purchased the materials. She noted she is sorry that they went ahead and bought the materials prior to being approved. Motion carried 8-1 (Nay:Perry). III. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM SUBURBAN MIXED USE (SMU) DISTRICT TO SUBURBAN MIXED USE-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (SMU-PD) DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 237 N. WASHBURN STREET Site Inspections: Report: 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 Suburban Mixed Use (SMU) District to Suburban Mixed Use- Planned Development (SMU-PD) District for the property located at 237 N. Washburn 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 petitioner is requesting this zone change to allow for the combination of the subject parcel and a portion of the adjacent parcel to the west. The property to the west was recently rezoned to SMU-PD and a Planned Development approved for a senior living community on that parcel. Currently the property at 237 N. Washburn Street is used by Franklin Equipment for commercial and equipment rental and storage. The owner intends to combine the adjoining parking area. No physical site alterations are proposed for the subject property at this time. The Planned Development overlay is necessary for a"clean up" of the property lines for the site at 237 N. Washburn Street to include the rear parking area. The Planned Development will also provide the ability to accommodate future needs for the site. He said staff recommends approval of the zone change from Suburban Mixed Use (SMU) District to Suburban Mixed Use-Planned Development (SMU-PD) District as requested. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Palmeri asked if there were any plans for changing the use. Mr. Wiley said he believes they just want access to the paved area. He explained the paved area is nonconforming because the way it is divided. He said the property to the west does not have a use for the paved area. Plan Commission Minutes 7 August 20,2019 Ms. Nieforth commented it is more about circulation of the site and to have access around the building. Mr. Fojtik opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Russel Reff(applicant), 217 Ceape Avenue, stated he is here on behalf of Shoreland Development. He said Chris Pommerening, whose family owns the property,is also present. He explained his client has an easement that runs from north Witzel Avenue to the edge of the paved property. He said they have had that for many years and have used the easement. He stated the easement ended short of the paved piece of property. He said Art Pommerening paved that area many years ago assuming it was part of the easement. He said they have an adverse possession claim to that parcel and that is one of the reasons the paved area is being deeded to them. He said in addition to that, they had an easement that essentially goes from Witzel Avenue through part of the Wertsch property and then goes east to the back of the Fleet Farm property. He said they are eliminating that easement on the Wertsch property so they will be able to develop it better and also exchange it for the piece of land in the back. He said the paved area has been used for many years and they did not realize the issue until the proposal of the senior living facility. He explained there was discussion with staff and rezoning was staff's recommendation. He commented it is a win-win for all parties. 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 Perry to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Mitchell. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF AN OUTDOOR PATIO AREA AT 24 E. GRUENWALD AVENUE Site Inspections: Report: Ms. Erickson, Mr. Ford,Mr. Mitchell and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Plan Commission Minutes 8 August 20,2019 The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for expansion of an existing outdoor commercial entertainment use. 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 petitioner is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to expand the existing patio area on the west side of the building to increase the available space for customer use and also have additional area for a grill pad. According to the site plan, the proposed patio area addition will be roughly 225 sq. ft. in area and the grill pad addition will be 120 sq. ft. in area. With the additional concrete patio and grill pad area, the site will have a total impervious surface ratio of about 34.3%,remaining well under the maximum impervious surface ratio of 50%. The proposed patio expansion use should not be detrimental to the surrounding area as the additional patio/grill pad areas are relatively small in size and do not extend toward the neighboring residential uses. The Department of Public Works reviewed the proposal did not note any concerns. He said staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit to expand an existing outdoor commercial entertainment use at 24 E Gruenwald Avenue as proposed with the findings as stated in the staff report. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Propp said during her site inspection,it looks as if the work had been already completed and landscaped. She commented it looked very nice but asked if the work had been completed. Mr. Slusarek replied he heard they already did it but said they shouldn't be doing work without a permit. He explained typically when work is done without a permit, there will be a late fee charge. Ms. Palmeri commented she wished it was one of the places she had visited for a site inspection. She said there have been a number of calls about outdoor establishments over the years. She understands they are exciting and fun but is concerned with the noise, especially in the residential areas. She said it could be detrimental to some of the residence. She questioned if there was going to be any noise or acoustical mitigation to minimize the noise. She stated since the work has already been completed,it may be a different story. Mr. Mitchell commented there is a wall of arborvitae trees along both the north and west side of the lot. He guessed there were 20-30 of them and mentioned they are still small. He said his concern was smoke going into the residential areas but stated at least there will be a barrier once the arborvitae mature. Mr. Fojtik asked for confirmation that they would still have to follow the City ordinances. Mr. Slusarek confirmed. Mr. Fojtik opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant Plan Commission Minutes 9 August 20,2019 There were no 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 Erickson to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Ford. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp asked if there would be verification that the work had already been completed. Mr. Slusarek replied staff can check into it. He said once the CUP has been approved, it will go to Site Plan Review and staff will review the plans at that point. Ms. Palmeri stated improvements are encouraged but the city does not want to encourage people to do work without a permit. She said it puts Plan Commission in an awkward position. She cautioned that Plan Commission still has an option to deny the request even if the work had been completed. Mr. Hinz commented it has happened in the past, where people have completed work before being approved, and it is not something that goes over well with Plan Commission. Motion carried 9-0. V. LAND DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF RATH LANE AND N. KOELLER STREET Site Inspections: Report: Mr. Hinz, Mr. Fojtik, Ms. Palermi and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City requests a land disposition of Outlot 2 at the northeast corner of Rath Lane and N. Koeller Street which currently is 0.307 acres but will increase in size to a 0.545 acre outlot if/when Rath Lane is vacated. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. From a commercial development aspect, Outlot 2 is undevelopable due to the irregular shape and setback restrictions so therefore cannot be sold on its own. The private property owner to the south has requested that the existing Rath Lane cul-de-sac Plan Commission Minutes 10 August 20,2019 be vacated as the cul-de-sac only serves his properties and if it were vacated,he would be able to expand his developable footprint. By law, part of the vacated street will be returned to the private property owner and the other portion will be returned to the city. Should Council approve the request to vacate a portion of Rath Lane, the private developer requested that the city dispose of the 0.545 acre outlot. The developer would like to combine the additional acreage to his site and develop it in exchange for dedicating right of way on N. Koeller Street to the city. Ms. Nieforth added the Advisory Park Board reviewed and recommended approval of the disposition of this property at its August 12, 2019 meeting. She said there was an analysis completed to determine the land disposition as the better alternative. Mr. Nau said staff recommends approval of the land disposition of Outlot 2 at the northeast corner of Rath Lane and N. Koeller Street which currently is 0.307 acres but will increase in size to a 0.545 acre parcel if/when Rath Lane is vacated as proposed with the conditions as stated in the staff report. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Ms. Palmeri pointed out in the staff report that it states the lot is undevelopable due to the shape and restrictions. She questioned how the applicant would expand the developable footprint if they were to own it. Ms. Nieforth answered the developable footprint would expand once all the lots have been combined. Mr. Mitchell said this may be the fourth time this intersection has been on the Plan Commission agenda since he has been on the board. He stated it feels like the area has been piecemealed and not planned out. He questioned if there was a broader plan he should know about to help guide Plan Commission decisions. Ms. Nieforth explained the reason for multiple request is that certain steps have to be made before others can start. She said there are also time requirements for notices and public hearings. She said as far as a plan,Mr. Nau showed three different concepts for the park. She said they did work with a park consultant and Mr. Maurer about disposing of the land in case they needed it in the future. She explained disposing of Outlot 1 last year somewhat set a standard that the City did not need the land. She said they did an analysis on Outlot 1 as well. She said it is a small piece of land,irregular-shaped and consist of wetlands which make it hard to develop. Mr. Mitchell asked if there is a plan the City has in mind for the area,if they could share it so it does not feel like the area is being piecemealed together. Ms. Nieforth reiterated there is a sequence to be followed before other things can start. She said for example, once Plan Commission and Common Council approve the land disposition, the petitioner will then have to file for a CSM to combine the lots. Mr. Mitchell said it would be nice to see the City's vision for the area to help Plan Commission make informed decisions. He said when they were doing the vacation,he did not know the City was already planning on disposing the land afterwards. He stated it would be nice to have a Plan Commission Minutes 11 August 20,2019 comprehensive vision of the area and he would greatly appreciate if it were shared with Plan Commission. Mr. Nau commented there is still one more piece to the puzzle and it is the dedication of the east side of N. Koeller Street to widen N. Koeller Street. Mr. Fojtik inquired if there was already something approved for that area. Mr. Nau responded it was the official mapping which preserves/protect the land. He said unfortunately there are several steps sometimes. Ms. Propp questioned how people were going to access the property once the entirety of Rath Lane is vacated. Ms. Nieforth explained when the DOT reconstructed the 21 interchange, they put an access restriction on N. Koeller Street. She said the applicant would need to have access off of Rath Lane which the City is working with them on. She stated if Rath Lane was vacated or only a portion was vacated, there would have to be access provided to the private developer. Ms. Propp asked if the access would be at Rath Lane. She also asked if the vacated portion at the end of Rath Lane would go to the developer. Ms. Nieforth confirmed it would. Ms. Propp said she made a comment during the vacation that she did not want the property disposed of because it could be utilized for parking. She said she appreciates that staff made an attempt to see what kind of parking would be allowed at the property. She commented on the parking lot image and said the setbacks are excessive but did not know if there were wetlands underneath. Ms. Nieforth said there are wetlands that do infringe on the parcel. She said the setbacks are what is stated in the code. Ms. Propp said there are mechanisms and Base Standard Modifications to decrease the setbacks. She said the problem with the potential parking, as Ms. Nieforth stated, is getting access to it. Ms. Nieforth commented we need to make sure we have access for petitioner. She said there are some resections from the DOT on N. Koeller Street. She said it is a Planned Development and Plan Commission will work through some of the kinks with the developer when they submit a plan. She forewarned Plan Commission that the access is something the city would have to provide for during this project. Mr. Fojtik questioned who the City would helping to accommodate access for. Ms. Nieforth replied the petitioner. Plan Commission Minutes 12 August 20,2019 Ms. Palmeri said Council stated the remaining acreage after the Oshkosh Corporation development was to remain part of Lakeshore Park. She said she knows they have disposed of another outlot. She stated it feels like we have been scope creeping. She said she understands some of the challenges but with the vacation it seems doable to allow access off of Rath Lane since the vacation is taking place without having to dispose of the half acre land. She asked if that was correct. Ms. Nieforth replied Ms. Palmeri is correct in the sense that the city would get a part of the vacated area. She said in terms of excess land, this is the only other piece staff was not able to work around. She said staff tried the hardest to follow the property lines and make it work but due to wetlands and environmental concerns, they could not make it work. Mr. Mitchell inquired if the lot had already been disposed of in all three conceptual plans of the park. He said he wants to make sure the land is not disposed of before the park space plan is complete. Ms. Nieforth explained they worked with a consultant and the Parks department to inform them that there was land. She said as far as the flow of the park and where they were encouraging people to park,everything was north of Koeller Street. She said they did not want to have people crossing a busy street. She said it was probably not worth it to put a small parking space on the south side of Koeller Street. She pointed out the multiple parking lots in the park conceptual plans and said they did try utilizing existing areas for parking areas. Mr. Ford asked if there has been any discussion about what would go in the developable area once the lots have been combined. Ms. Nieforth replied the developer is looking at multiple uses which would come back to Plan Commission because it is zoned with a Planned Development Overlay. Mr. Ford asked if the petitioner could demolish the vacated area. Ms. Nieforth replied they could if Council decides to vacate Rath Lane. Mr. Ford asked if the City could have done the same thing or if there were restrictions. He asked as part of the cost-benefit analysis, did the City take into account combing the land with the vacated area. Ms. Nieforth showed the conceptual plan of parking the City would be allowed to build based on restrictions and setbacks. Mr. Ford asked if they considered other uses besides parking. Plan Commission Minutes 13 August 20,2019 Ms. Nieforth said they did look at other uses but as far as what the park needed, parking was the main driver for what they could potentially use it for. She said they did not need the land for storm water or anything else that would serve the park. Mr. Mitchell inquired about the wetlands and the impact it would make on developments. Ms. Nieforth said if the land disposition and vacation are approved, the area would most likely be used for the storm water quality and greenspace requirement. Ms. Palmeri asked if there was someone here that could answer that question. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments. Will Steiner (applicant), 3232 Shorewood Drive, said he is representing the owner, Prime Space LLC. He explained they have owned the houses to the south for a few months. He said it has been a long process that has multiple steps. He said they are equally as frustrated. He explained because they do not know the layout of the land,they have not been able to develop good concept plans. He stated they do not have much to show for concept plans because it is difficult not knowing the boundaries or access points. He said they are open to all types of uses. Ms. Palermi asked if the land were swapped, would Mr. Steiner plan to do impervious development in that northern half acre or would he commit to maintaining it as green infrastructure or storm water. Mr. Steiner explained a portion of it is undevelopable due to the 30 feet setback and the northeast portion is wetlands which has to be mitigated. He said the overall site will need greenspace. He said the land is the least valuable part because it is the furthest from the intersection. He said it is most likely where much of the greenspace requirement would be met. He commented the plans would need to be approved by Plan Commission when there is a plan. There were no other public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed public comments. Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. City approves the street vacation request for a portion of Rath Lane; 2. The proposed outlot will be combined with the privately-owned lots in a future Certified Survey Map for a new lot configuration and removal of the outlot status; 3. The zoning designation of proposed Outlot 2 shall be changed from Institutional (I) to Corporate Business Park with a Planned Development Overlay (CBP-PD); 4. City approves the right of way dedication on N. Koeller Street. Plan Commission Minutes 14 August 20,2019 Seconded by Kiefer. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Perry stated he continues to be disappointed in the effort to try and redevelop that land. He said he feels there are plenty of opportunities for the City to maintain those lots to utilize for the good of the community. He said the land could be used not only for park space but a specialized garden, for people with specialized disabilities or non-profits to utilize through the Community Development Block Grant program. He said this is a wasted opportunity to dispose of the lot when there are plenty of opportunities that could be available with some proper planning for the future and betterment of the city as a whole. Ms. Propp said she is frustrated as well with nibbling away at the park. She stated there is less and less park left. She said she does recognize that difficulties in developing the parking area. She said the lot is not as useful as she hoped it would be. Mr. Ford said he understand that problems arise and that it is inevitable during a process like this. He said if we dispose of land it is something we cannot take back. He said Plan Commission does not feel like a deliberative body involved in planning but have become an affirmative body that just signs off on plans once the decisions have already been made. He said just to keep in mind that may be where some of the frustration is coming from. Mr. Mitchell inquired about the land swap and what would happen if the land was not disposed. He asked if the City would pay for the acquisition. Ms. Nieforth replied that is correct. Mr. Mitchell asked if it were comparable land space. Ms. Nieforth answered it is a little bit less. She explained the land that is being dedicated is much more valuable than the land that is being disposed. She said staff would work the assessors or do an appraisal to figure out what the value would be for the land that needs to be acquired. Ms. Palmeri said she is guessing that the increment that could potentially be added here because the nature of the restrictions would be pretty minimal. She stated just because we can does not mean we should. She stated she is going to lean on the preservation side. Motion carried 5-4 (Ayes:Fojtik, Ford, Hinz, Kiefer and Propp. Nays:Erickson, Palmeri, Perry and Mitchell). PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Update on 1911 W. Snell Road Plan Commission Minutes 15 August 20,2019 Mr. Slusarek explained that he will be giving the update because Mr. Lyons is not present. He said on July 181h,Mr. Rangeloff did submit a new site plan. The site plan was not in compliance with all the Planned Development conditions. The conditions were passed to Mr. Rangeloff. He did meet with Mr. Rangeloff last Thursday to discuss what he needs to do to bring to site plan into compliance. He said staff did request for Mr. Rangeloff to submit those changes by early this week but nothing has come in yet. He said some of the changes that still had to be made were a fully dimensioned site plan, cleaning up for setbacks, drive width, a detailed landscaping plan, drive aisle in the enclosed area and other items that will being the plan up to compliance with the Planned Development approval. He said after that, Mr. Rangeloff will need to get a permit for the fencing, landscaping and striping. Mr. Perry stated he drives by two times a day and it is getting fuller and fuller. He said it is getting worse from last time Plan Commission discussed it. He said this is based on his opinion. Mr. Hinz commented Mr. Perry is not the only that has noticed that it has gotten fuller. Ms. Slusarek said he will talk to Mr. Lyons and the City Attorney as far as time frames. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:12 pm. (Kiefer/Hinz) Respectfully submitted, Kelly Nieforth Economic Development Services Manager Plan Commission Minutes 16 August 20,2019