Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutesPROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF OSHKOSH, WISCONSIN C~ ~I~KC~ ~N REGULAR MEETING held Tuesday, September 11, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall. Mayor Tower presided. PRESENT: Council Members Dennis McHugh, Paul Esslinger, Bryan Bain, Jessica King, Tony Palmeri, Burk Tower and Mayor Frank Tower. ALSO PRESENT: Mark Rohloff, City Manager, Pamela Ubrig, City Clerk, Lynn Lorenson, City Attorney, and David Patek, Director of Public Works. Council Member McHugh read the Invocation. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Eli Fuller and Marshall Conger from Trinity Lutheran School; and, Adam Olszewski and Natalie Oostenbrug from Oshkosh Christian School. Public Hearings Mayor Tower ordered the following Public Hearings: Ordinance 08-328 Official Mapping of Oregon Street, East Side between West 6th Avenue and Fox River There were no appearances and the Public Hearing was CLOSED. FIRST READING; LAID OVER UNDER THE RULES Resolution 08-329 Approve Final Resolution -Utilities: Farmington Avenue, Anderson Street East 400 Feet /East Snell Road, Parkview Court East 300 Feet / Punhoqua Street, Oshkosh Avenue to Graham Avenue MOTION: ADOPT (Esslinger; second, McHugh) CARRIED: Ayes (7) McHugh, Esslinger, Bain, King, Palmeri, Tower, Mayor Tower Consent Agenda The minutes of the August 26th, 2008 meeting were approved as presented. The Report of the City Manager was read. The bills were presented in the amount of $5,328,258.90. 1 The report of the City Clerk was read. Proceedings of the Common Council -September 11, 2008 Resolution 08-330 Dedicate Right-of-Way /Meadow Park Drive Resolution 08-331 Award Bid for Public Works Contract No. 08-14 /Asphalt Paving and Underground Work (REAM, Inc., $256,457.00) Resolution 08-332 Approve Change Orders, Renovations to Central Fire Station No. 15 (Fluor Brothers Construction, $65,375.70) Resolution 08-333 Approve Miscellaneous Licenses MOTION: ADOPT CONSENT AGENDA (Esslinger; second, Bain) CARRIED: Ayes (7) McHugh, Esslinger, Bain, King, Palmeri, Tower, Mayor Tower Action Taken on Ordinances and Resolutions Ordinance 08-334 Official Mapping for Riverwalk Purposes /South Side of the Fox River between South Main Street and Oregon Street MOTION: ADOPT (Esslinger; second, Bain) CARRIED: Ayes (7) McHugh, Esslinger, Bain, King, Palmeri, Tower, Mayor Tower Ordinance 08-335 Repeal Cable TV Advisory Commission FIRST READING; LAID OVER UNDER THE RULES Resolution 08-336 Direct City Manager to Bring Forward Option in Regard to Near East Neighborhood: Option A) Repeal the Conditional Use Permit/PD encompassing the Near East Neighborhood Redevelopment Area (Resolution #06-167) Option B) Eliminate the Language in the Near East Neighborhood Conditional Use Permit\PD Relating to: New Development, Additions and Exterior Remodeling Projects to be Undertaken in a Manner that Reflects the General Historic Architectural Character of the Area; Building Plans Be Reviewed and Approved by the Department of Community Development with Review of Denials by the Plan Commission; General Standards for Development Related to the Primary Entrance Facing a Public Street and Design Reflecting the General Style, Construction Materials and Site Placement of Surrounding Properties or Properties in the Area (Resolution #06-167 Conditions 4, 5(A) And (B)). Option C) Amend the language to Provide Final Review by the Common Council of Denials of Building Plans by the 2 Department of Community Development (Resolution #06- 167 Condition 4) Proceedings of the Common Council -September 11, 2008 MOTION: ADOPT (Esslinger; second, Palmeri) MOTION: DIVIDE RESOLUTION INTO THREE PARTS /OPTIONS A, B AND C (Palmeri; second, Esslinger) WITHDRAWN MOTION: AMEND TO ELIMINATE OPTION AAND B; PROCEED WITH OPTION C (Esslinger; second, Palmeri) WITHDRAWN MOTION: AMEND TO ELIMINATE OPTION AAND B (Esslinger; second, McHugh) CARRIED: Ayes (6) McHugh, Esslinger, King, Palmeri, Tower, Mayor Tower; Noes (1) Bain MOTION: ADOPT 08-336C (Esslinger; second, Palmeri) CARRIED: Ayes (4) McHugh, Esslinger, King, Palmeri; Noes (3) Bain, Tower, Mayor Tower Phil Arnold, 453 Mount Vernon Street, explained that there needed to be funding available along with other resources for the overlay work. Council Member Palmeri questioned if property owners not in agreement with the City should have the ability to come before Council. Mr. Arnold stated that property owners should have the ability to come before Council. Jennifer Sunstrom, Government Affairs Director for the Realtor's Association of Northeast Wisconsin, stated that the association had been following the process of the near east side redevelopment project and were supportive of the initiative goals. She explained the priority of the association was to maintain high quality of life in the community and to be an advocate for safe and affordable housing. She stated that the most effective and practical way to meet that goal was to maintain and reinvest in older existing houses. She stated that they supported the City's efforts to address blighted properties and correct maintenance violations. She explained that implementation of the plan concerning requirements being place on property owners had been overly aggressive and had diverged from the original intent of the Council. She explained that property owners had contacted the association with concerns regarding stringent maintenance standards applied to homes. She urged the Council to revisit the program and address issues related to required repairs and enforcement. She explained that housing maintenance were necessary however; standards and correction requirements needed to be outlined in a code that was approved by the Council and consistently enforced throughout the City. She stated that the near east side neighborhood was not a historic district but was an older neighborhood that consisted of homes that provided affordable housing. She stated that it was impractical and unfair to impose ascetically subjective criteria and expensive repairs to meet historic architectural character on home owners that struggled to make ends 3 meet. She explained that the Association had done research on communities that had adopted a rehabilitation code or a smart code that reduced regulatory complexity in an effort to spur renovation and maintain existing buildings and homes. She stated that the association Proceedings of the Common Council -September 11, 2008 believed that the standards applied to homes in the near east side neighborhood reduced the flexibility of property owners that tried to make repairs to homes. She explained the first priority of neighborhood revitalization projects were to help home owners make repairs through the most cost effective manner to meet minimum code requirements. She suggested additional educational information be provided regarding options for repairs and materials in keeping with the home design and improve market value. She explained for those individuals that wanted to go beyond codes, there needed to be grants available to cover cost. She stated that the association would like to move the maintenance requirements for the ordinance code to the housing code to allow due process. Council Member Palmeri questioned if the aggression was in the request or the way it had been requested. Ms. Sunstrom stated that windows were replaced due to chipping or decaying wood, tongue and groove porches were replaced rather than replacing pieces of wood. She stated the aggression was with both. She explained property owners would be incompliance if there was a code in place rather than an open ended process. Council Member Tower questioned the number of complaints Ms. Sunstrom had received. Ms. Sunstrom explained that the association was dealing with owners that listed their property in the near east neighborhood and she had collected twenty complaints. She explained property owners felt they had no place or person to go to when they were in disagreement. Council Member Tower questioned if the association had talked with City staff regarding the concerns or if the association had appeared at the workshops. He questioned if the association helped property owners apply for grants. He questioned if the association had ideas as to how the standard should be completed. Ms. Sunstrom stated that she had attended a workshop and had been in contact with Council Members. She suggested to view how block grant funds were used and to prioritize the distribution of them. She explained by gathering a variety of code language from other municipalities would provided administration with examples of traditional language that related to maintenance code standards. Thatcher Peterson, 527 Madison Street, stated that he was on the near east neighborhood committee and was speaking on behalf of the committee. He explained that in the committee's view the first and second options had the same effect and the committee recommended that both options be defeated. He stated that option C was the heart of the redevelopment plan that preserved the general architectural character of the neighborhood. He stated that the committee expressed no recommendation on option C due to respect of the Council being the final judicator of disputes. He stated that the committee recommended having rules, it lowered the risk for property investments due to the fact that all homes would be in compliance and there was less of a chance for homes to lower the value of properties in the neighborhood. He 4 stated that rules needed to be enforced. He explained there had been discrepancies with ADVOCAP and the way they had projected to make changes on homes in the neighborhood. He suggested having the complaints go to the committee. He stated the plan had implemented improvements in the neighborhood. He urged the Council to support the plan or abandon it. Proceedings of the Common Council -September 11, 2008 Louis Luebke, 619 Division Street, stated that she was in favor of ADVOCAP and that some homes had nice appearances but questioned what problems there may be that an inspector would notice. Mike Bonertz, 2929 Harrison Street, Executive Director of ADVOCAP, stated that ADVOCAP was the reason the resolution was before Council. He stated that ADVOCAP supported the realtors association and had many of the same ideas. He explained that ADVOCAP owned four properties in the near east neighborhood. He stated that when work was done through ADVOCAP it generally had been done beyond the requirements. He stated that they had come before the Plan Commission regarding the porch plans and had been turned down. He stated that in the neighborhood there was 1 /3 that had green treated lumber. He explained that within one block ADVOCAP was allowed to use green treated wood on a porch. He explained that another property was in substantial rehab and they wanted to make it safe and affordable for the tenants that had disabilities. He stated that people in the neighborhood did not have the funds available to make changes. He explained what ADVOCAP represented and what their involvement was with the community. Council Member Esslinger questioned how many houses Mr. Bonertz was in charge of. Mr. Bonertz stated that there were about 60 or 70 buildings. Council Member Esslinger questioned where ADVOCAP received their funding. Mr. Bonertz stated that ADVOCAP was a private, not for profit corporation, a community action agency that was governed by a board of directors made up of low income people, government representatives and members of the community. He stated that most of the funding was government funding, competitive grants and some foundations. He explained the mission of ADVOCAP. He questioned if the near east neighborhood plan allowed for residents that were handicapped. He urged Council to take affordability into consideration when dealing with residents. Council Member Palmeri questioned if the resolution did not change, would repairs be completed on the house and the porch would remain in its current state. Mr. Bonertz stated that the siding and roofing would be completed and the porch would remain as is. Council Member Palmeri questioned how ADVOCAP responded to residents requests when there was no strong arm of government involved. Mr. Bonertz stated that it depended upon the situation. He explained if it was an issue that was easily resolvable they worked with the neighbors requests. 5 Council Member Tower questioned if anyone had offered an alternative to the issue. Mr. Bonertz stated that there was no alternative offered. Proceedings of the Common Council -September 11, 2008 Lou Sheer, Affordable Housing Director for ADVOCAP, stated that the type of materials used for rental properties was different then if the property was owner occupied. She explained renters were those with disabilities and some disabilities were not visible, therefore they need materials to last. She stated that the City had been accommodating and had offered suggestions that she felt were subjective. Todd Sohr, 530 Grand Street, stated that the steering committee should not have dominion over residents. He stated that ordinances should be mandatory throughout the entire City. Joanne Peterson, 527 Madison Street, stated that she had concerns regarding the plan. She stated that she thought it was a pilot program and that residents needed to work together. She stated that the standards for that area should be enforced throughout the entire City. Pam Thorp, 533 Mount Vernon Street, stated that the neighborhood was starting to improve, there was a sense of a neighborhood now and a sense of pride among the residents. She stated that for the plan to work there needed to be structure and she would like to see the project continue with clearer guidelines. She explained that money was a concern and encouraged an extension for the time allowed as long as there was an effort made. She explained that material type was important to avoid unsightly properties. She encouraged the City to continue with the plan. Jim Evans, 324 Fulton Avenue, stated that he was a member of the steering committee and the project helped to restore what the area had lost throughout the years. He stated that the codes needed to be uniform throughout the City. Matt Mikkelsen, 906 Winnebago Avenue, stated that he was a landlord of properties in the near east neighborhood. He stated that financially he was concerned about the improvements to be made as he was not able to afford them. He urged the Council not to revisit the plan not to remove it. He explained that housing codes were to enforce safety not to dictate the appearance of homes. Deputy Mayor Bain stated that he would like to hear why Council Member Esslinger brought the resolution forward. Council Member Esslinger stated that he would not support option A. He stated that the plan had reduced crime and cleaned up the neighborhood. He explained that he respected the Plan Commission however he thought final decisions were to be made by Council. Deputy Mayor Bain stated that he had concerns with the ordinance language and funding to complete the repairs. He stated that options A and B had given up on the conditional use permit and option C was a duplication of what was existing. He stated that he was concerned 6 with the Council making decisions when the Plan Commission made their own decisions. He explained that other boards made their final decisions and did not come before the Council to review their decision. He explained the Council was not there tomicro-manage. He suggested an appointed mayor task force to examine legitimate concerns and address them. He also suggested that the steering committee meetings be noticed and have clear timelines along with a plan. Proceedings of the Common Council -September 11, 2008 Council Member King stated that her concerns were with the funding for repairs due to the situation the economy was in and the struggles residents had. She explained that the future housing would reduce over the next four years and grant monies were depleting. She stated that this was not the time to be subjective regarding architectural standards. She questioned if the committee had received the enforcement check list, if they were made to feel empowered and comfortable to come forth at meetings. Mr. Kinney, Director of Community Development, explained that the committee was made up of individuals that wanted to be involved and that many had seen the check list. Council Member McHugh questioned Mr. Kinney's document regarding one and two family housing structures that did not need to be approved as long as architectural structure was applied. Mr. Kinney explained that approval was not needed for garages and fences. He explained that to downzone the neighborhood a plan development overlay provisions was to be applied. He stated that a development overlay was not implemented without a conditional use permit with a set of conditions. He explained that as long as the base standards had been made for the R2 district, property owners were to apply for a permit and when approved they did not need to get a conditional use permit. Council Member McHugh stated he was unsure about the number three in the plan from May 2006. Mr. Kinney stated that number three explained the development activity and there was a condition that stated there was a review to determine if the improvement was in compliance with the historic architectural character of the building. Council Member McHugh questioned if the City was trying to maintain or create a historic district. He questioned if new homes were allowed to build in that area and what guidelines were to be followed. Susan Kepplinger, Principal Planner, stated that there was a new home built on Merritt Avenue and it fit in with the neighborhood, it was 100% handicap accessible and had no green treated wood. She stated that there had been approval for a new home to build on Grand Street with no changes. She explained that there had been over 50 permits approved without changes made to them. She explained that there was consistency throughout the neighborhood and showed examples of porch columns and rails of homes. Council Member McHugh questioned if the new home on Merritt Avenue had the same 7 structure as the photos showed. Ms. Kepplinger stated that the style of house was based on a different architectural structure. Council Member McHugh stated that he felt the City was imposing issues that were not held up by ordinances. He questioned the green treated lumber being used in other areas of the City and not being allowed in the near east neighborhood. Proceedings of the Common Council -September 11, 2008 Ms. Kepplinger stated that the checklist went to the property owners and that it referred to housing, zoning and building codes and applied to all areas in the City. She explained there were no items on the checklist that were not code based. She stated that the issue was not the code; it was a design guideline that was imposed by the conditional use permit. Mr. Kinney stated that the intent was not to create a historical district; the intent was to retain character not to create it. Council Member Tower explained that the plan was work in progress, improvements needed to be made and the concept was good. He stated that the Council had a couple of workshops and he wished residents would have attended those as it would have been helpful. He stated that he would support the creation of a task force and specific concerns to be indentified. He stated he would not support the options in the resolutions. Council Member Palmeri questioned if the near east neighborhood would become a historical district if the criteria was met. Mr. Kinney stated there were qualifications that homes would need to meet. Ms. Kepplinger stated that a historical district could not be created. She explained it was determined by the nature of resources, the state historical society and the national park service. She explained in the near east neighborhood they tried to have repairs made while staying within the structure guidelines of the homes. Council Member Palmeri questioned why the City was enforcing historic architectural standards. He stated that if a neighborhood was in a historical district the City could delay inappropriate development from taken place. He stated that the standards were more rigorous in the near east neighborhood than neighborhoods defined as historic. He stated that when property owners were rejected by the Plan Commission they had no place to appeal. He explained that option C was needed and appeals should be brought before Council. Ms. Kepplinger stated that the City was not enforcing historic architectural standards. She explained that the City was trying to keep the spirit of the structure when repairs were made. She showed a photo that had a traditional porch that was pieced together with different materials and how unsightly it looked. She stated that if properties were on the historic registry, the City could not regulate any alteration to the building. She explained the City could regulate alterations to historic property when the property had been landmarked. She stated that there was only one property in the City that was landmarked and hundreds of properties that were on the national register and the City had no ability to regulate those. She explained 8 that the City had five or six historic districts that were listed on the national register of historic places however; they had not been locally landmarked and that the areas were in great shape. Mr. Kinney stated that the Plan Commission had rules and regulations for subdivisions. He explained that subdivision regulations gave the Plan Commission the ability to approve certified survey maps and land divisions. Council Member Palmeri questioned if those would come before the Council. Proceedings of the Common Council -September 11, 2008 Mr. Kinney explained that land divisions and certified survey maps did not come before the Council. He stated that subdivisions came before Council. Council Member Palmeri stated that he would want to look at land divisions and certified survey maps if a party felt they had been treated badly by the Plan Commission. He stated there had to be an appeal process. Council Member Esslinger stated that he felt the same as Council Member Palmeri. He questioned why there was a City Council if such items were to be passed off to City boards. He stated that Council was elected to make decisions. He stated that he was not in support of option A or B. Council Member King stated there was a role for individuals in the neighborhood to be involved regardless of what side they agreed with. She stated there was a need for formal positions on the steering committee to promote democracy. She stated that she would like a home remodeler be included in the committee as well as a loan officer and proportionate of low income individuals. She stated that community grant dollars should go to other neighborhoods as well as the near east neighborhood. She stated that tenants of homes did not have the skills or ability to maintain properties. She explained another concern was the number of foreclosures in this area. She stated that it was more expensive to rehab an existing property then it was to build new. She stated that she would like to see a mayor appointed steering committee that had identities invested in and move forward. She stated that community policing had done a great job in the neighborhood. Council Member McHugh questioned the property that had multiple types of materials used on the porch would remain. Ms. Kepplinger stated that it was safe, sanitary and functional so it would remain due to it was existing prior to implementing the plan. Deputy Mayor Bain stated that he wanted to clarify that the Council was the one that had decided that the Plan Commission was to review, not the staff. He stated that decisions made by Traffic Review Board did not come before Council with an appeal, as with the Board of Appeals. He stated that providing a specific focus for a task force for membership, purpose, time line and details of what it would look into was opposite than just saying it would be looked into. He questioned how option C pertained to definitions of ordinance and guidelines, affordable housing in the economy, funding and support available for near east residents and 9 reasonable application of the guidelines in the ordinance. He explained that the issues were being avoided. Council Member Esslinger stated that Mr. Bain was correct that six members voted two years ago for the plan and at that time he had hoped it would not degrade into telling home owners what kind of posts they would use. He explained that the situation had reached that point and that was why he brought the resolution forward. He explained that all items voted down by the Traffic Review Board were included in Council packets and Council was aware of what happened at the meetings and individuals come before Council. Proceedings of the Common Council -September 11, 2008 Council Member Tower stated that he was supportive of the steering committee with the idea of changing implementations and suggestions. Mayor Tower stated that he would not support options A or B. He stated he was not prepared to follow through with option C, he would like to see a task force or a steering committee to see what went well with the plan and what had not. He explained that he would not support the resolution. He stated he would work with staff to come up with a plan to work with individuals. Council Member Esslinger stated that ADVOCAP was in a limbo, he urged Council to pass option C and have ADVOCAP come before Council to explain their plan for the situation. Ms. Lorenson explained that the change would not be made if the resolution was passed. She stated that the resolution was to decide which option on how to move forward and the change that was made would need to be brought to Council for a vote. Council Member Esslinger explained he had not wanted the resolution drawn up to delay implementing an option and was disappointed. He questioned Mr. Bonertz from ADVOCAP if he understood what the intention was. Mr. Bonertz stated that he understood the intent. He also stated that the ruling of the Plan Commission had been accepted by ADVOCAP. Council Member Palmeri stated that citizens had the right to approach elected officials when they were convinced that what they were doing was appropriate. Deputy Mayor Bain questioned what would stop a Council Memberfrom proposing a resolution to allow what had been denied at the Plan Commission. Ms. Lorenson stated that there was nothing to stop such an action that she could think of however; she did not research that. Citizen Statements Mary Jane Drexler, 1525 Maricopa Drive, questioned why the City would request additional funding to the Lakeshore Golf Course when it lost money annually, golf numbers were down and golf courses were overbuilt in the area. She stated that there was a covenant passed in 10 the Westhaven area restricting retention ponds and urged the City to purchase various pieces of land that was for sale. She provided information provided from an EAA visitor regarding his views on the retention pond area and solutions to the problem. Lois Luebke, 619 Division Street, questioned if there was a current directory available. She urged Council to request Sysco Foods to move into the Oshkosh area. She questioned if the development plans for the Convention Centre were available for public view. She questioned what the progress was with the Pioneer Inn property. Proceedings of the Common Council -September 11, 2008 Steve Barney, 1260 Elmwood Avenue, stated that it was the one year anniversary since the City signed the US Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement. He suggested a report to be prepared by the City Manager regarding the City's progress since the agreement was passed, including a list of existing and proposed major projects that would reduce emissions. He explained there were options the City could implement that had been included in the agreement. He explained that one option was to encourage residents to walk or bike more. He stated that on October 11t" the University would hold the global climate change community summit. Council Member Esslinger expressed his admiration for Mr. Barney regarding issues thatwere important to him. Loren Rangeloff, 1701 Fountain Avenue, stated that he had spent $20,000 on drawings for his site that the Planning Department had rejected and he could not move forward. He explained that the south side of Oshkosh near the airport had problems with flooding and suggested to put a retention pond in that area. Council Member King questioned how many sets of drawings had been submitted. Mr. Rangeloff stated that four sets of drawing had been submitted. Council Member Palmeri questioned if something new was required for each submitted drawing. Mr. Rangeloff stated that there seemed to be new requirements each time and stated his frustration. Council Member Palmeri requested Mr. Rangeloff to provide an explanation with proof that new requests were required for each set of drawings. Council Member McHugh explained the area by the airport was considered for retention ponds. Council Member announcements, Statements and Discussion Council Member McHugh had urged Council in the past to waive permit fees for emergency 11 work and that was turned down. He explained the department had denied the request to waive permits due to residents not effected by the flood may abuse the waiving of permit fees. Council Member Bain announced that Oshkosh Community Dragon Boat Race and Festival was to be held on September 20t" and that it was a community event that benefited several entities. He encouraged Council to attend. Mayor Tower suggested the nuisance ordinance workshop scheduled for September 23rd be moved to October 14t" and Leach Amphitheatre workshop be scheduled for September 23rd He urged Council members to bring their calendars to the next meeting to schedule dates for budget workshops. Proceedings of the Common Council -September 11, 2008 City Manager announcements, Statements and Discussion Mr. Rohloff stated that the second wave of surveys had gone out and there had been 400 responses overall and public safety and infrastructure were of the most important. MOTION: ADJOURN (Esslinger; second, McHugh) CARRIED: VOICE VOTE The meeting adjourned at 9:19 p.m. PAMELA R. UBRIG CITY CLERK 12