Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2000 PRESENT: Melanie Bloechl, Steven Gehling, Donald Krueger, Achim Reschenberg, James Smith, and David Borsuk, Chairman EXCUSED: Lee Bettes, Lurton Blassingame, Donald Pressley, and John Ruppenthal STAFF: Jackson Kinney, Director of Community Development, John Bluemke, Principal Planner and Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Borsuk. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of the November 21, 2000 Plan Commission meeting were approved as mailed. Krueger/Reschenberg. Unanimous. I: CONSENT AGENDA A: Land Division: 895 Coolidge Avenue William Frueh, petitioner for James and Susan Steiner, owners, requests the Plan Commission to review and approve a two lot land division for property generally located at 895 Coolidge Avenue. The general area is characterized by residential land uses, and the property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District. B: Extraterritorial Land Division: Northwest Corner of Sand Pit Road and STH 21 Reinhard Roehlig, petitioner for Tom Hughes, owner, requests the Plan Commission to review and approve an extraterritorial land division for property generally located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Sand Pit Road and STH 21 in the Town of Omro. Per the Winnebago County Zoning map the property is zoned B-3 Community Business District and A-1 Agricultural. The property is vacant. There was no discussion on the Consent Agenda. Motion by Bloechl for approval of the Consent Agenda subject to the removal of the concrete slab on the west side of proposed Lot 2 for Item A. Seconded by Krueger. Motion carried 6-0. Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 December 5, 2000 THTH II: LAND ACQUISITION: 2405 DOTY STREET, 117 24 AVENUE, & 123 24 AVENUE The City Administration requests the Plan Commission to review and approve the acquisition of th parcels of land from the properties at 2405 Doty Street and 117 and 123 24 Avenue. The general area is characterized by commercial and residential land uses. Mr. Smith noted a 6’ jog would remain on the south side of 24th Avenue, still preventing a consistent area of street and sidewalk area. Mr. Bluemke stated that the Public Works Department has indicated this is all the land they need. Mr. Smith questioned if new sidewalks would be constructed. Mr. Bluemke stated the reconstruction would include the street and sidewalk. Mrs. Bloechl questioned if the property owner’s would be credited for the sidewalk’s they have already paid for. Mr. Bluemke stated they would need to check with the Department of Public Works. Mr. Reschenberg also noted a jog on the northeast corner of Doty and 24th Avenue, and questioned if any land would need to be acquired in that area. Mr. Bluemke stated there was no need to acquire land in that location per the Department of Public Works. Motion by Bloechl for approval of the acquisition of parcels of land from the properties at 2405 Doty Street and 117 and 123 24th Avenue. Seconded by Krueger. Motion carried 6-0. III: TO AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS AND ONE PERMANENT EASEMENT: STREET RECONSTRUCTION HIGHWAY 45, ALGOMA BOULEVARD FROM JACKSON STREET TO DIVISION STREET AND HIGH AVENUE FROM JACKSON STREET MARKET STREET City of Oshkosh, petitioner, requests Plan Commission review and approval of the acquisition of numerous temporary construction easements and one permanent easement, as well as acquiring an easement from Winnebago County. These acquisitions are necessary to complete reconstruction of Algoma Boulevard from Jackson Street to Division Street and of High Avenue from Jackson Street to Market Street. Mr. Smith questioned why the acquisition of easements on Algoma Boulevard didn’t continue to Market Street, as was the case with High Avenue. Mr. Kinney stated that Algoma Boulevard had already been reconstructed past Division Street. Motion by Bloechl for approval to obtain the necessary easements and right of way for Street reconstruction of Highway 45, Algoma Boulevard from Jackson Street to Division Street and High Avenue from Jackson Street to Market Street. Seconded by Smith. Motion carried 6-0. IV:STREET VACATION: RADFORD PLACE The Department of Community Development is asking the Plan Commission to recommend approval of the vacation of Radford Place, east of Wisconsin Street. The neighborhood is commercial in character, and is a part of the Marion Road/Pearl Avenue Redevelopment Project Area, and it is zoned C-3PD Central Commercial District with a Planned Development Overlay. Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 December 5, 2000 Mr. Gehling questioned if any utilities would have to be rerouted. Mr. Bluemke stated the utilities wouldn’t need to be rerouted at this time and if it became necessary they would be located on City property. Mrs. Bloechl asked if this were the area that had an irregular boundary. Mr. Kinney stated Dawes Street was the with an irregular boundary, and this vacation was needed to square off the three acres site being developed at this time by D & F Investments. Access to the parcel was also discussed as a result of this vacation. Motion by Krueger for approval of the vacation of Radford Place, east of Wisconsin Street. Seconded by Bloechl. Motion carried 6-0. V: PARTIAL STREET VACATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF WAUKAU AVENUE AND POBEREZNY ROAD The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) is asking Plan Commission’s consideration in vacating a small portion of Waukau Avenue, which is generally located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Waukau Avenue and Poberezny Road. The neighborhood is institutional in character and it is zoned C-2 General Commercial District. Attorney Mike Golden, representing EAA, stated he was available for questions. Motion by Krueger for approval of the partial vacation of Waukau Avenue, which is generally located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Waukau Avenue and Poberezny Road. Seconded by Reschenberg. Motion carried 6-0. VI: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE 1226 OSHKOSH AVENUE Elaine Fritz, petitioner on behalf of Ameritech, and Rodney Schroeder, owner, requests the Plan Commission to review and approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an Ameritech telecommunications building on the property commonly known as 1226 Oshkosh Avenue. The area can be described as commercial in character and is zoned C-2 General Commercial District. Mr. Bluemke handed out a revision of the Staff Report which included a condition, upon approval, that Ameritech would remove the public utility structure at their cost should the City, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, redevelop the area on the north side of Oshkosh Avenue between Rainbow Drive and Fox Street. John Boyce, 340 Hawk Street, stated he owns two properties west of the site and stated there are existing problems with parking for the bar and the retail store at 1236 Oshkosh Avenue. He stated he owns the retail store at 1236 Oshkosh Avenue and consistently has cars ticketed and towed to make room for customer parking. He stated they are trying to market the block, not cause bigger problems. He stated all the parking is located behind the buildings and doesn’t see how a utility structure would fit. He urged the Commission not to approve the Conditional Use Permit for and Ameritech Telecommunications building at 1226 Oshkosh Avenue. Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 December 5, 2000 Elaine Fritz, Ameritech representative, stated the entire structure would be placed on a grass area behind the building. She stated workers would only be there on rare occasions and couldn’t see where parking would be an issue. She stated once the building is in operation personnel would only be there on the average of once a month. She also stated if the building were moved farther back it may cause a safety concern for the alley. Mrs. Bloechl stated there was a couple empty buildings on the block and questioned if Ameritech had looked into them. Ms. Fritz stated she didn’t believe they were looked into because the proposed site was the closest and least costly. Mr. Gehling asked if a modification were considered for the property, or if a parking evaluation had been done regarding the number of parking spaces required for this use. Mr. Bluemke stated a modification hadn’t been considered and this building would be constructed on grass where it wouldn’t be taking up parking space. He stated any parking associated with the utility building would be short term and the building wouldn’t be very visible with the landscaping required per the Ordinance. Discussion followed regarding the number of these type of buildings being constructed recently due to the new technology. Mr. Gehling asked who owned the property, and how another use for the property could be considered with the building constructed in the middle of the site. Mr. Bluemke reported that Rodney Schroeder owned the property, and noted how the City would handle any relocation issues if the area were to be redeveloped. Mr. Krueger asked if this proposal would need a variance or a drainage plan. Mr. Bluemke stated neither a variance or drainage plan would be needed in this case. Motion by Krueger for approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the public utility structure be found consistent with Standards set forth in Section 30-11 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance, and the request be approved with the condition that all applicable state and local building permits be obtained prior to any work commencing. Seconded by Smith. Motion carried 5-1. Nay: Bloechl. VII: REZONING 905-1001 BAY SHORE DRIVE; CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT/FINAL DEVELPOMENT PLAN 905 BAY SHORE DRIVE Schneider-Mueller General Partnership, owner, requests the Plan Commission to review and approve the rezoning of 905-1001 Bay Shore Drive from R-1 Single Family Residence District to R-3 PD Multiple Dwelling District with a Planned Development Overlay. The general area surrounding the proposed rezoning is characterized by single and multiple family residential land uses. The area proposed for rezoning contains three lots. One lot contains an existing two family dwelling. The second lot is occupied by an existing 14 unit multiple family structure. The third lot is the site of the former Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Office and storage building/boathouse. Plan Commission Minutes Page 5 December 5, 2000 Attorney Russ Reff, 217 Ceape Avenue, representing Schneider-Mueller General Partnership, stated he understood that the Commission and the neighbors had some concerns regarding the last site plan, however, he stated the owners had gone door-to-door to discuss the proposal with the neighbors to work out a plan everyone would be happy with. He stated many reasons why the plan was better than the last plan proposed for this site which included applying a Planned Development Overlay to the R-3 zoning classification, which would result in the neighbors being notified if any changes were to be made in the development plan. Attorney Reff stated the owners also considered the age of the neighborhood, and noted that the owners had agreed to restrict the housing complex to age 55 and older. He stated they are planning to charge between $600. and $900. for rent to attract credible neighbors. Attorney Reff continued by pointing out the different zoning classifications in the area, and the non-conforming uses in the R-1, Single Family Residence District. He stated the only use that made sense for this site was a Multiple Dwelling District with a low population density. He stated this plan would have more green space, a more unobstructed view of the river and more undeveloped waterfront property than if the lot were subdivided into R-1 lots and the maximum number of houses were constructed. He stated his clients felt that the senior designation for the complex would minimize any disturbances in the neighborhood and actually enhance the neighborhood. Attorney Reff stated his clients had allowed the DNR land to be sold to the neighbors to provide more of a buffer for the apartment building, and stated they will work with the Planning Staff to create a landscape plan that will compliment the neighborhood. He stated the traffic and on-street parking would be less and the police related activity would be kept under control with the neighborhood watch program. He stated squad cars are visible in the area at the request of the neighborhood to control problems with the Bowen Street boat dock, therefore the police use the parking lot to write reports while they monitor the area, and they aren’t there for necessarily for tenant related problems in the existing apartments. Attorney Reff also stated the development plan was compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, which at this time doesn’t extend east of Bowen Street along the riverfront. He stated the owners have put over $100,000 into the site to improve the buildings, and to maintain the property. He stated they would be making a substantial investment to attract quality tenants to a first class site. In summary Attorney Reff stated the property is in need of redevelopment, his clients are proposing an attractive addition to the neighborhood, the improvements will add substantially to the tax base, and this type of housing is needed in the community. He stated it would also be an investment into the downtown redevelopment movement and provide housing for people who work in the area. Mr. Smith questioned if any consideration had been given to having the other buildings on the property to become age restricted to 55 and older. Attorney Reff stated it hadn’t been discussed. Mrs. Bloechl asked if any federal funding would be used in this project since it was proposed to be an age restricted development, and if so, would that apply for a certain length of time only and become non-restricted at some point. Attorney Reff stated they hadn’t looked into any federal funding at this time. Mr. Reschenberg questioned if the owners had any plans for the addition of more apartment units in the future. Attorney Reff stated they didn’t have any intention at this time, and wouldn’t be able to move forward with any plans without further review by the Plan Commission and Common Council. Plan Commission Minutes Page 6 December 5, 2000 Ben Ganther, 6030 County Road A, owner of property at the corners of Bowen, Bay Shore and Mill Streets offered his support for the development. Mr. Reschenberg asked why Mr. Ganther hadn’t developed his properties any further. Mr. Ganther stated he hasn’t been able to sell two of the three properties, as it seems the demand isn’t there for waterfront condos. Bill Holicky, 1015 Bay Shore Drive, owner of 907-1007 Bay Shore Drive, stated there were many for rent signs in the neighborhood and wondered why anyone would want to develop any more property in the area. He stated according to the Comprehensive Plan an effort should be made to stabilize predominantly owner occupied single family neighborhoods in the Bay Shore and Bowen Street area. Mr. Holicky also noted the boat dock in the middle of the property, and how it is included in the development plan. He questioned if it would be used for storage or be used commercially. He asked why the Planned Development was not applied to this area. He also expressed concern for the safety of the children in the area with the addition of 20 more apartment units. He encouraged the Plan Commission to deny this proposal. Chairman Borsuk stated the entire parcel would have a Planned Development Overlay. Mr. Bluemke stated that there are two issues, one a rezoning, and the other a Conditional Use Permit/Final Development Plan for 905 Bay Shore, and any changes made to the plan would have to be reviewed again by the Plan Commission and the Common Council. Mark Radl, 14 Bowen Street, stated the 4’ high trees located as a buffer are already dead, as they were only watered for one week, and that probably many of them wouldn’t be able to survive the winter. He stated he has lived there for 26 years and doesn’t agree there will be less traffic in the area. He stated when the DNR was in business people only stopped in when they had questions, and they weren’t open on the weekends. He stated vehicle lights would have an affect on their living conditions. He also stated the new owners didn’t take good care of the landscaping as at least 2 calls were made to the City to have the grass mowed. He also stated no raking had been done in the fall, and if this were a sign of things to come he wasn’t impressed. Mr. Radl explained how contracts for the sale of DNR land to the adjacent property owners finally came to be without the approval of the new owners. He stated they were only addressing the issue of the DNR building before, now they had to consider the rezoning of the 14 unit complex and the duplex, and he believed the rezoning and addition of more apartments would bring property values down in the neighborhood. He questioned why the DNR building couldn’t be torn down to be developed into single family housing. He stated the burden should be placed on the developers to prove this rezoning will benefit the surrounding property owners and improve the quality of life. Cindy McKay, 824 Bay Shore Drive, stated she lives directly across the street, and never thought the DNR would leave the neighborhood otherwise they would have never moved there. She stated they have been both renters and landlords. She stated she disagrees with the statement of less traffic in the area as a result of this development as reported in the Staff Report. She stated with this proposal there would be traffic seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. She stated she works at an elementary school, and is home in the summer and never has seen any parking problems or traffic problems as a result of the DNR business. Plan Commission Minutes Page 7 December 5, 2000 Ms. McKay stated she was never contacted by the property owners, and only received a flyer in the mailbox. She also stated there is no guarantee for 55 and older tenants. She questioned what would happen when the building was sold. She stated the developers don’t live there and see the trash and hear the noise. She stated the existing apartments are an eyesore to the neighborhood. Vickie Moen, 901 Harney, stated she doesn’t feel that the multiple zoning districts on Bay Shore is in their neighborhood. She stated there is already enough traffic from the children and fisherman who use the Bowen Street dock. She stated proposed tenants would need a car since the bus line is quite a ways from their neighborhood on Ceape Street. She stated Attorney Reff mentioned there was already 3 parties interested in living there and she would like to know who they were. Victoria Alders, 924 Bay Shore stated she wanted to inform Mr. Ganther that she has not been able to contact him through the phone number listed on the sign, and perhaps that’s why he is having no luck selling the units. She stated she moved to the neighborhood because of the single family homes and also believes that their small view of the lake would be obstructed by an apartment complex, therefore is opposed to the rezoning. Sally Lindo, 2 Bowen Street, stated she also opposes the rezoning. She stated she fears her personal security will be compromised and her property value will decline. Jane Dougherty, 11 Caniff Court, stated she opposed the rezoning because of the increase of traffic it will bring to the area. She stated the DNR was open Monday – Friday, during normal business hours and traffic will increase with the addition of 20 apartment units and the visitor’s they will bring. She stated she doesn’t want the instability apartment dwellers will bring to the neighborhood, and doesn’t want the historical features of the neighborhood destroyed. Bradley Disch, 1770 Cliffview Drive, stated he is the owner of property at 30 Bowen Street, where his parents have lived for over 30 years. He stated he hasn’t noticed the $100,000 of improvements made to the Bay Shore property. He stated he had contacted the residents there and at least 2 tenants were unhappy with the conditions and were only able to get things taken care of by calling the City’s Building Inspectors. He stated proper permits were rarely taken out and there was no guarantee of not adding any more apartments or the facility to remain age restricted. Alfred Jacobson, 916 Bay Shore Drive, stated he was old enough to qualify living there and he would bring with him two vehicles, a boat, and have relatives visit on occasion. He stated he could see parking problems as a result of this development. He stated he moved to the neighborhood because it seemed to be a nice older, residential neighborhood. He stated he researched the zoning and the neighborhood before he moved in and didn’t want to see the character of neighborhood change. Bob Reidl, stated he has lived at Bay Shore Apartments for a year and a half and has had no problems with the landlords and enjoys living there. Matthew Hipsch, charter member of the Lake Shore Club, 1107 Bay Shore Drive, stated 28 out of 30 members present at their meeting opposed the zoning change and they felt it was not in the best interest of the neighborhood. Plan Commission Minutes Page 8 December 5, 2000 Sherry Fritschka, 828 Bay Shore Drive, stated she lives across the street from the open lot. She stated she has worked a p.m. shift for the last nine years, therefore she is home during the day and has never seen a traffic or noise problem in relationship to the DNR business. She fears with a multiple zoning district in the neighborhood the traffic will be non-stop. She also fears more apartments will be built in the future. Ms. Fritschka stated she feels the developer is interested in how much money can be made and not concerned about what’s in the best interest of the neighborhood. She also questioned if this would be a safer environment for the children or the senior citizens in the neighborhood. Ms. Fritschka stated she was uncertain about the character of the developer’s, and noted after she checked with her neighbors, it seemed the Lindo’s were the only neighbors the developers had talked with. She also noted she checked with the Police Department regarding the existing apartment tenants, and found there to be 6 incidents since March. She fears there will be more vandalism and theft in the area and opposes the rezoning. Ms. Fritschka stated she also had letters from several other neighbors who couldn’t be at the meeting, which include Joan Barrett, 9 Frankfort Street, Doris & Steven Hergert, 905 Harney Street, Mr. & Mrs. Harold Riedi, 922 Bay Shore Drive, and Mark Luedtke, 900 Bay Shore Drive. She urged the Commission to vote against the rezoning on behalf of her and these neighbors. Clara Konkle, 714 Bowen Street, commended the developers for their plan, however she stated they should have checked into the zoning in the neighborhood first, or found an appropriately zoned area for their project. She stated Mr. Schneider walked past her as she was hanging Christmas lights and never stopped to talk, and waited until she went inside to place a flyer in her mailbox. She also stated perhaps the developers should have checked with the proper City departments or committees to find a more logical place for their project. Roger Stecker, 38 Bowen, stated he was opposed to the rezoning. Carl Siebert, 1115 Bay Shore Drive, stated she is opposed to the rezoning. She stated there are older, stately, historical homes in the neighborhood and fears property values would decline. Steve Cummings, 1124 Bay Shore Drive, stated he has lived in the neighborhood for 27 years, and questioned the main reason for the rezoning, as listed in the staff report, was to add to the tax base. He also disagreed with the reduction of traffic as a result of this development. He questioned the present zoning make-up of the neighborhood, and stated the majority of the area is single family residential, and wondered how the construction of a 14 unit apartment ever was approved. Mr. Cummings stated his mother is a tenant at the 14 unit apartment building, and went on to list the piles of garbage visible year ‘round, the screens that haven’t been washed for 10 years, the ice in the parking lot, which is a big concern for senior citizens, and the poor overall maintenance of the building. He stated the air conditioning unit does not work and the railing on his mother’s balcony, that was damaged by the weather in May, was not repaired until the fall. He stated it would be a big mistake to allow a rezoning and urged the Commission to keep the property for single family use. Bernita Miller, 24 Bowen Street, stated she was opposed to the rezoning. Matt Hibsch, 1123 Bay Shore Drive, stated he was opposed to the rezoning. He stated the dumpster situation of the existing apartment complex is awful, and would only be worse with more people. Judy Patty, 1000 Bay Shore Drive, stated there are plenty of multi-family units in the neighborhood, and stated more apartments would make the neighborhood more dangerous and take away from the space and the safe environment in which the children have to play in. She also asked if there was a limit to the number of times the developers could bring back a proposal for this property. Plan Commission Minutes Page 9 December 5, 2000 Chairman Borsuk stated there was no limit to the number of proposals that could come before the Plan Commission for this property. Sherry Fritshka stated she had another letter from another property owner on Bay Shore Drive who is also opposed to the rezoning. She also stated the existing apartments have all ages living there now, and questioned how they can be assured the tenants will be restricted to age 55 and older. Norm Mueller, 437 Hazel Street, developer, stated the existing apartment building didn’t have any restrictions as to the ages of the tenants, or have a planned development overlay applied to the zoning. Discussion followed regarding the land deal between the DNR, the developers, and the adjacent property owners. Mr. Smith questioned if the owners were intending to sell boat storage. Mr. Bluemke stated they were not allowed to sell storage space, and that it would only be used for the tenants and the owners. Mrs. Bloechl questioned if the property was not already on the tax rolls. Mr. Bluemke stated it was on the tax rolls. Mrs. Bloechl went on to question if the development is located in the right area, if this proposal is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, and if constructing apartment complexes on the waterfront is actually revitalizing the downtown. Mr. Gehling stated that if the DNR building were not located there, single family homes could be constructed and there would be no guarantee that the noise and traffic from that construction wouldn’t have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. He stated the main issue is the zoning classification. Mr. Gehling also stated that the Comprehensive Plan was not clear on the issue, and having a Planned Development Overlay applied to the property would result in more revenue for the City. He stated he would support this proposal because of the additional buffer in place, and the age restriction for 55 and older residents. He stated he couldn’t predict what effect the noise and traffic would have on the area. Mr. Krueger stated he felt this was the best use for this property. Mr. Reschenberg disagreed, he asked why they couldn’t tear down the building and put up single family dwellings. He stated he is concerned about the number of apartments that will eventually be constructed in the area, and the fact that the developers didn’t earnestly make an effort to talk to the residents also concerned him. Mr. Smith stated it was difficult to determine if putting a commercial use in an R-1 zoning district was the best use of the property. He stated if the developers came back with a proposal to convert the existing apartments into age restricted apartments of 55 and older also he would support it. Chairman Borsuk agreed it boiled down to a zoning issue. He stated because of the existing structure, he feels this is the best use for the property. He also stated the condition for landscaping should mitigate some of the neighbors concerns, and encouraged the owners to use the time between the Plan Commission and the Common Council meeting to talk with the neighbors. Plan Commission Minutes Page 10 December 5, 2000 Motion by Smith for approval of the rezoning from R-1 Single Family Residence District to R-3PD, Multiple Dwelling District with a Planned Development Overlay; and approval of the Conditional Use Permit/Final Development Plan for 905 Bay Shore Drive with the condition that the landscape plan be submitted to and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to submitting for any building permits. Seconded by Krueger. Motion denied 3-3. Nays: Bloechl, Reschenberg, and Smith. VIII: PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CREATION OF TAX INCREMENTAL FINANCING DISTRICT #15 PARK PLAZA/COMMERCE STREET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: DESIGNATION OF BOUNDARIES AND APPROVAL OF PROJECT PLAN Prior to taking action on Tax Incremental District (TID) #15 and the designation of boundaries for said Tax Incremental Financing District, the Plan Commission is to hold a public hearing and take comments concerning the proposed creation of the TID. This public hearing is required as part of the formal process the city must follow in the creation of a TID. Mr. Kinney introduced the item stating the main reason to create a TID is to retain 4Imprint, a major downtown employer who is projecting to grow by another 200 jobs in the next four years. Chairman Borsuk opened up the public hearing portion at this time. Kurt Koeppler, 1726 River Mill Road, and Jim Larsen, 627 S. Main Street, stated they were the developers for the 4Imprint project. Mr. Smith questioned if 4Imprint would be buying the space. Mr. Koeppler stated 4Imprint would be tenants. Mr. Smith questioned what would happen if 4Imprint would move out. Mr. Kinney stated the developer has agreed to provide a guarantee to cover any shortfalls in the debt service. Mr. Smith questioned if this would be a separate tax parcel. Mr. Kinney stated that it would become a separate tax parcel with all utilities broken out separately from the Park Plaza Mall. Mr. Koeppler stated it would become a commercial condo. Discussion continued as to why the City should get involved by creating a TID District, the TID laws that allow the City to provide assistance for physical improvements, the decline of the mall, the opportunity to turn around a blighting situation, and the opportunity to retain a major downtown employer. Mr. Gehling stated that in many cases it is more costly to remodel than to build new, and the City needs to encourage development to remodel. Mrs. Bloechl questioned what would happen to the old Imprint building. Mr. Larsen stated that A.K. Companies would still own it. Mrs. Bloechl also asked how much it would cost to renovate the old Younkers store. Mr. Koeppler stated they estimate a cost of over $3 Million which includes the acquisition of the Younkers store. Mr. Burich stated the TID would provide $600,000 over 4 years. Mrs. Bloechl questioned if this was a 20-year TID. Mr. Kinney stated the TID will expire in 7 years and be paid off in 16 years. Plan Commission Minutes Page 11 December 5, 2000 Discussion followed regarding the estimated base value of 1 million for the Younkers site as is, and how that figure was arrived at. Mrs. Bloechl asked what the chances were for 4 Imprint to outgrow the Younkers site. Mr. Koeppler stated there was room to double their space, and they could even build another story, so they should never outgrow the site. Mrs. Bloechl also asked if the parking needs would be adequate. Mr. Larsen stated there are 530 parking spaces located on the top of the parking ramp that haven’t been used in 4 years, with 1400 parking spaces available in the ramp. Mr. Koeppler stated that this development should encourage a lot of commercial services to open in the mall. Reiner Sommer, Manager of the Park Plaza Hotel, questioned if a TIF would be available for the hotel in the future. Mr. Kinney stated the Hotel is already in a TIF District, but encourage the Manager to give him a call. Chairman Borsuk closed the public hearing portion of the meeting as this time. Motion by Krueger to approve the boundaries of TID #15 and the TID #15 Project Plan, and recommend approval of the TID boundaries and Project Plan by the Common Council. Seconded by Bloechl. Motion carried 5-0-1. Borsuk voting present. OTHER BUSINESS I.SMART GROWTH PRESENTATION Mr. Kinney stated that there will be on meeting on Wisconsin’s Smart Growth Law on an off Tuesday during January, however they would be proceeding with the development of a Committee to update the City’s Comprehensive Plan. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:15 (Krueger/Bloechl) Unanimous. Respectfully submitted, JOHN C. BLUEMKE Principal Planner JCB/vlr