Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 September 21, 2021 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES September 21, 2021 PRESENT: Mamadou Coulibaly, Margy Davey, Michael Ford, John Hinz, John Kiefer, Phil Marshall, Justin Mitchell, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp, Meredith Scheuermann EXCUSED: Derek Groth STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Kelly Nieforth, Community Development Director; Steven Ghode, Assistant Director of Public Works; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Jeff Nau, Associate Planner Chairperson Hinz called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. I. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED CREATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 41 SMITH SCHOOL REDEVELOPMENT DESIGNATION OF BOUNDARIES AND APPROVAL OF PROJECT PLAN Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz and Mr. Mitchell reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Prior to taking action on proposed Tax Increment District (TID) No. 41 and the designation of boundaries for said TID, the Plan Commission is to hold a public hearing and take comments concerning proposed creation of TID No. 41. The public hearing is required as part of the formal review process the City must follow in the creation of any tax incremental financing district or amendment thereto. 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 an adaptive reuse of the former building to an affordable apartment building. Per the submitted narrative, 31 two and three bedroom units are planned to be constructed within the building and 44 garage spaces along with additional surface parking. Finding appropriate uses for buildings of this type can be challenging as they outlive their original intended use. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Mitchell asked what is usually included in TIF packages and if the City ever adds a job training element that the developer is not responsible for, but where funds could be used to train unemployed or underemployed individuals in the construction trade. It looks like it’s a normal part of TIF programming that they have specific sections with guidance on how to use it for job training. He is wondering if the City does any of that. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 September 21, 2021 Mr. Lyons replied that they have done job creation with TIFs, but he cannot recall a TIF with a job training element. Mr. Mitchell stated that they often fund the development itself and expect that single development is going to improve the entire neighborhood, omitting all of the neighboring or adjoining properties. It looks like the City can use financing to provide either below market rate loans and even grants to neighboring properties if part of the provision of the project is to improve a neighborhood. He asked if the City has looked at doing something like that because there are many adjoining properties here that could maybe benefit. Mr. Lyons replied that it depends on the nature of the TID and the financing available. They included a lot of projects in the Oshkosh Avenue TID for stabilization of that neighborhood because it was expected to generate enough increment to fund those improvements. In this case they’ll need the full 27 years to pay off the obligations of the project, so there isn’t enough increment to fund those improvements. They can only spend TID dollars for projects within a half mile around the TID, so there are some parameters that go along with the ability to create programs like that, but they have done it in the past. Mr. Mitchell thanked Mr. Lyons for his explanation. Mr. Hinz asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Ms. Monica Doehrmann, 1726 Minnesota Street, asked if her taxes would increase. Mr. Lyons replied that they will not increase. Mr. Tim Hess, 2645 Templeton Place, stated that he is one of the owners until this is completed and he would be happy to answer any questions. A few questions were posed to him ahead of time that he would like to address now. Mr. Hess stated that one question was why they are now going to low income housing when before they were talking about market rate. When they initially bought the building in December 2019, they were hoping to start by the spring of this year, but the pandemic substantially slowed down the historic preservation review process. Last week they got the final approval from the National Park Service for the plans that they have here. They are ready to roll, but the four partners involved had kind of plotted out what they were looking to invest in the next couple years and a different project came up that they were interested in doing. They realized that now that they’ve worked through the process, they could come back and potentially do this as low income. Why they’re doing it is really a question of timing. It doesn’t change much in terms of the plan and it changes virtually nothing inside of the building. Mr. Hess stated that this is going to be low income housing and they’re going to be using low income housing tax credits through WEDA, which comes with a lot more accessibility considerations. They added a publically accessible restroom and 50% of the units are visitable. If __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 September 21, 2021 they were doing new construction it would have to be 100%, but they appreciate it’s a historical building and the Historical Society isn’t going to let them rip open the historic doors there. They are also making sure that the bathrooms have the full radius turning for handicap accessibility. They had to move the islands in the kitchen out a bit further for accessibility. In the grand scheme of things, it’s the exact same project only WEDA is asking them to do more in terms of accessibility and they’re happy to do that. Ms. Propp asked what the units would potentially rent for. Mr. Hess replied that the rent is going to be based off their income. As a 4% deal, they are allowed to do income averaging. The maximum allowable for these projects is 60% of the community median income. They are targeting for an average of somewhere between 50% and 60%, but they anticipate maybe some at 40%. For someone at 40% of the median income, a one bedroom is $528, a two bedroom is $636, and a three bedroom would be $739. It ensures that someone coming in with maximum amount is spending 30% of their income on housing, so the actual limit could be a little more. They would be paying utilities too, so they factor that out of the rent. For someone coming it at 60% on the higher end, a one bedroom is $775, a two bedroom is $993, and a three bedroom is $1,083. Ms. Propp thanked Mr. Hess for his explanation, adding that those of them who have been working with lower income folks know that $775 is still a massive rent. Mr. Mitchell asked if they are doing the full building as qualified income units or if they are segregating part of the building. Mr. Hess replied that all 31 units are qualified income units. Mr. Mitchell asked if there is a program they are partnering with to close the gap between the income-based rent and market rate rent. Mr. Hess replied that he isn’t the expert on that portion of this. Mr. Mitchell asked if there are other programs they are partnering with as part of this development. Mr. Hess replied that right now everything is through WEDA. They’re providing the exceptional financing. Normally with the bank its 80% loan to value and WEDA is providing 130% loan to value. They are also looking at using federal Home Program dollars from the Department of Administration. Additional programming on the back end side of the project is not his expertise with this. Mr. Mitchell asked if they would accept a housing choice voucher award from the Housing Authority from an applicant. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 September 21, 2021 Mr. Hess replied that his understanding is that they have to accept the voucher. They’re meeting all the standards and checking that it’s up to standard, so he can’t fathom why they wouldn’t. Mr. Mitchell replied that this is wonderful news. He is happy to see this because there is a major gap in the community. As they’re aware, the a lot of projects don’t serve folks at an affordable rent rate and sometimes there may be some opposition to the notion of affordable housing, but these are folks often work service jobs and are an important part of the community who need an affordable place to live. He commends them for this. Ms. Davey stated that many of them in this group realize how important affordable housing is in Oshkosh. She is thrilled that they are able to bring 31 affordable units between timing and financing. She thinks it is fantastic and greatly needed. Ms. Sue Volkman, 1752 Oregon Street, asked if they are planning to acquire property other than the school building. Mr. Lyons replied that no other acquisitions are anticipated as part of this project. Ms. Volkman stated that not too long ago they had sidewalks put in there, which is also listed for proposed project improvements. She asked if that was something that they’re still considering. Mr. Lyons replied that he cannot recall anything for that in the project plan. Ms. Nieforth replied that it would just be through the school and it would not be for private owners outside of the district. Ms. Volkman asked if there are grants or loans available to improve something around their properties. Mr. Lyons replied that it was discussed earlier, but there is no additional programming proposed. Mr. Hinz closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Mitchell to approve the Project Plan and recommending the boundaries to the Council and adopting the staff report as the findings. Seconded by Ford. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Hinz stated that he lives in this neighborhood and his family attended this school, so it is great to see that it is going to be rehabilitated and remain in the neighborhood and do good things for __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 September 21, 2021 people. He knows he says this a lot, but it is great seeing local developers putting back into Oshkosh, especially with historical buildings like this. He thanked the development team for their work on this. Motion carried 9-0. II. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A PERSONAL STORAGE FACILITY AT 1222 W SOUTH PARK AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey, Mr. Hinz, Ms. Propp, and Mr. Perry reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a personal storage facility at 1222 W South Park Avenue. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The applicant is proposing to construct three personal storage facility buildings totaling 33,990 sq. ft. of building area for 110 storage units. Personal storage facility land uses require a conditional use permit in the HI district. The proposed plans were discussed at Plan Commission workshops on June 1, 2021 and July 20, 2021. Plan Commission was not supportive of the original plans at the 6/1/21 meeting as the plan included storage buildings fronting W South Park Avenue. Plan Commission voiced support for the revised plans discussed at the 7/20/21 meeting as the revised plans included a future commercial development fronting W South Park Ave. with the storage facility located toward the rear of the site. Staff is supportive of the proposed personal storage facility, provided the lot area fronting W South Park Ave. is reserved for future commercial development to provide for consistency with the South Park Corridor Land Use Plan. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Propp asked if the driveway from South Park will be on the same site as the current driveway. Mr. Lyons replied that it includes a combined access for the existing buildings as well as the future commercial development. Ms. Propp asked if the trees to the left of the driveway will remain for now. Mr. Lyons replied that they discussed leaving as much of the vegetation on the front side of the site as possible while the parking lot and storage building improvements are made. They will have to look at landscaping and what modifications are needed when a tenant is found for the site. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 September 21, 2021 Ms. Propp asked if the fencing in the front yard on the east side would have to be reduced from six feet to four feet to meet code. Mr. Slusarek replied that the front setback area needs to be reduced to four feet and 50% visibility. Once it meets setback, then it goes up to six feet and solid. Mr. Coulibaly asked about the buildings on the left. Mr. Lyons replied that the front building is only a single story structure, but he cannot recall about the buildings to the rear of the site behind the homes. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any signage along South Park Avenue to let people know about this. Mr. Lyons replied that he doesn’t believe any signage was included in the submittal. Anything proposed will need to be code compliant. For this district, they are looking at 100 square feet of total sign area. For these districts the total allowed signage is based on the square footage of a lot, so they would have to be code compliant as part of a conditional use permit. They cannot make any modifications to allow signage. Mr. Hinz asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mr. Jesse Hall Keller, general contractor for the project, stated that as far as the building heights, it’s probably a 12 to 14 foot tall structure. The current buildings are not very tall. They’re only single story, but they’re manufacturing. For the landscaping upfront, it’s a struggle between ripping it out and doing what’s on the plan or leaving what’s there and obstructing the site. He will leave the direction up to them and do as they’d like. There was no signage planned in this submittal. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Hinz asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Mr. Keller stated that they were advised that coverage for the buildings is 15% on all sides, but the space between the doors and the open metal panel didn’t equal 15%. They thought it would be a good compromise to put the ends of the building where there’s no doors and do 100% coverage to try and offset the fact that they couldn’t get 15% because of the space being covered up in the doors. There’s just not enough metal panel there, so they did 100% on the ends to try and meet the requirements. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Coulibaly. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 September 21, 2021 Mr. Mitchell asked if future development would be feasible with the impervious surface or if they would be exceeding the impervious surface requirements by adding another building. Mr. Lyons replied that it is one of the elements they discussed to make sure there was sufficient room. Their HI district has a maximum allowed impervious surface ratio of 70%, so they need to make sure that 30% green space is preserved as future development comes forward. Mr. Ford asked if the applicant will need to return if they want signage. Mr. Lyons replied that as a conditional use permit, as long as the signage was code compliant, they would not have to come back. Mr. Hinz stated that this is one of the situations where the workshop really helped. It was something that most of the members didn’t like and now they’ve found something that works for most of them. It’s great to see this working because they’re trying to make things better for developers and make it a little easier for them. Motion carried 9-0. III. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR CANOPY ADDITIONS AT 3855 S WASHBURN STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner requests an amendment to the Specific Implementation Plan approval for canopy additions at 3855 S Washburn St. 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 subject parcel is zoned Suburban Mixed Use with a Planned Development Overlay (SMU-PD). The parcel is approximately 32.46 acres (1,414,119 sq. ft.) in area. Currently the parcel is a vacant lot and is located at the northwest corner of S. Washburn Street and W. Ripple Road. Interstate 41 runs north-south just to the east of S. Washburn Street and the subject site. The current Oshkosh city limit runs along the western edge of the subject parcel. The surrounding area consists of mixed commercial, institutional, and industrial uses. The 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends Interstate Commercial use for the subject area. On May 11, 2021, the Common Council approved a General Development Plan (GDP) and Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) for a commercial development (Camping World). The previously approved GDP/SIP for the site was for a commercial development (Camping World). No changes __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 September 21, 2021 are being proposed to the approved use of the site. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. There were no technical questions on this item. Mr. Hinz asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mr. Chris Walters, DBS Group, stated that they have been working with Camping World and the City for the better part of a year on this project. The modifications to the SIP were motivated by timing and finalizing their construction documents for this project. He appreciates their consideration. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Hinz closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Coulibaly to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Propp. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. Mr. Lyons stated that two months ago when they had to return to in-person meetings they needed to move their October 19th meeting due to a room conflict. At that time they decided to move it to October 20th. Now that they are back to virtual, he would like for them to decide if they would like to return to their regular October 19th meeting. He asked them to raise their hands if they would like to keep it on October 19th. All commissioners raised their hand. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:02 pm. (Propp/Kiefer) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager