Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES May 4, 2010 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thorns, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Tony Palmeri, Kathleen Propp, Kent Monte, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: David Borsuk, Donna Lohry, Robert Vajgrt STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Steven Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works; Deborah Foland, 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 April 20, 2010 were approved as presented. (Thoms/Monte) I. LAND ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1035 THROUGH 1043 W. SOUTH PARK AVENUE AND 1527 KNAPP STREET The City of Oshkosh Department of Public Works is requesting approval to acquire approximately 1.25 acres comprised of four parcels along W. South Park Avenue and Knapp Street as a safety measure from methane gas emanating from a former landfill south of the subject site. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and stated that all the properties proposed to be acquired are rental units. He reviewed the conditional use permit recently approved to allow the methane venting system that was currently being installed on the site and reviewed the history of the site and explained the reasons for the methane issues in this area. The land acquisition was being recommended by AECOM after completing a thorough investigation of the site and ways to better manage the methane problem. He further stated if the land acquisition is approved, the City would raze the existing structures and restore the sites to a natural state and methane detectors would be provided to the remaining abutting properties as an additional safety feature. Partial funding has been budgeted in the 2010 Capital Improvements Program for the land acquisitions. Mr. Hinz questioned if the groundwater in the area has lowered, was the area potentially going to expand over time due to the possible movement of the refuse requiring the acquisition of additional properties. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, responded that the area would not expand as it is bound by the edges of the quarry and that the interior of the quarry walls would prevent the garbage from moving laterally in the area. Mr. Palmeri inquired what the worse case scenario would be if the structures on the site were allowed to remain. Mr. Gohde replied that the build up of methane in the homes could potentially cause an explosion. Mr. Thorns questioned if methane gas was currently getting into basements of the properties proposed to be acquired. Plan Commission Minutes May 4, 2010 Mr. Gohde responded that the methane gas may not be getting into basements however the rental units are mainly constructed on cement slabs without basements and it could possibly be getting into the buildings. Mr. Thorns reiterated the concern that the area could expand to other properties currently not included in the proposed acquisition. Mr. Gohde stated that the other homes in the area are far enough away and were not a concern. He further commented that the active methane system currently being installed will be discharging the gas into the air. Isabel Mersim, 181 East Moore Street, Berlin, owner of the units located at 1039 and 1043 West South Park Avenue, stated that she had some communication with the City regarding this matter and that she allowed them on the property to assess the situation. She further commented that the workers on the site have discussed the issue with her tenants and have told them that it was a dangerous situation and that the home could potentially blow up. She voiced her concerns regarding what is going to happen to her tenants as far as relocation and stated that she did not have a problem selling the property to the city but was concerned her tenants would stop making their rent payments if they knew they would be required to move out. She also commented that she had owned these properties for less than ten years and questioned why this issue had not been brought up in the past. She anticipated using the income from the properties as retirement funds and stated that she had invested a substantial amount in this venture. Terry Abraham, a partner of A R Properties, 1720 River Mill Road, owner of the property at 1527- 1529 Knapp Street, stated that he heard that $300,000 was budgeted for the land acquisitions. He questioned how the issue was going to be handled and if fair market value was going to be used for the purchase price. Mr. Gohde responded that the approval of the land acquisition from the Plan Commission and Common Council was the first step in the process. If approved, the properties will be appraised before beginning negotiations with the owners for acquisition. $300,000 is currently in the budget for 2010 but it will not be sufficient to cover the costs of acquisition of all four properties. There will have to be some evaluation of where the highest danger lies to determine which properties will be acquired first. Mr. Fojtik inquired if the approval of the land acquisition would give the City the right to begin the negotiation process. Mr. Gohde replied that it would and the process of eminent domain could begin. Ms. Propp commented that the property owners need to be made aware of the process of eminent domain sooner rather than later and explain the steps of the process and how it proceeds through the acquisition. Mr. Gohde stated that the information has already been provided to property owners who have requested it. Mr. Palmeri questioned what the timeline was for the proposed acquisitions. Plan Commission Minutes May 4, 2010 Mr. Gohde responded that appraisals would take 3 -8 weeks after which an agreed upon purchase price has to be reached with the earliest timeline for acquisition being two months and the latest nine months. Mr. Palmeri then questioned if methane detectors were currently in place in the residences and if there was a need for the tenants to be frightened. Mr. Gohde replied that the detectors were in place at one time but he was not aware of how many were still in service. He further stated that there was not a need for tenants in these units to be frightened as the methane gas will be dispensed more easily this time of year. Mr. Hinz inquired if the properties located at 1021 West South Park Avenue and 1521 -1523 Knapp Street were in danger as well since they were adjacent to the properties proposed to be acquired. Mr. Gohde responded that the properties AECOM was recommending acquiring were necessary as the refuse is within 50 feet from the structures. The main house at 1021 West South Park Avenue was further away and reviewed the location of the line of the quarry. He stated that methane detectors will be in place for the remaining properties as an additional safety feature. Gary Theabo, 1639 Knapp Street, stated that his property was adjacent to the south of Quarry Park West and had been there since 1836 and voiced his concern that this issue would not affect his property values. Mr. Fojtik suggested he speak with Steve Gohde regarding this matter. Jeff Rasmussen, a partner in A R Properties, owner of the property at 1527 -1529 Knapp Street, questioned which properties would be a priority as it will be difficult to rent the units if the site is considered dangerous. Mr. Fojtik suggested he speak with Steve Gohde regarding this matter as well. Mr. Rasmussen stated that hiring appraisers should not be necessary as there is already an assessed value on the property. Mr. Nollenberger commented that he previously lived in a city where methane gas issues existed which resulted in an explosion and he appreciated the City taking a proactive stance on the matter. Mr. Thorns stated that these were income producing properties that the owners would not be able to rent under these circumstances and recommended that the properties all be purchased at one time. Mr. Burich responded that the purchases of these properties would have to be handled from a yearly budget standpoint which is a Common Council issue and that there did not appear to be any immediate concerns regarding the properties. He suggested that the property owners address their concerns regarding this matter at the Common Council meeting. Mr. Bowen commented that these units have existed on this site for 10 -15 years and questioned how the city permitted these homes to be built on this land considering the circumstances. Plan Commission Minutes May 4, 2010 Mr. Burich replied that he was not with the City at that time and could only speculate that when the building permits were issued, the information regarding the terrain and the ramifications of filling in an existing quarry were not known at that time. Mr. Thorns stated that the City should move with all haste to acquire these properties as the potential of a dangerous situation was really unknown at this point. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the land acquisition as soon as possible of property located at 1035 through 1043 W. South Park Avenue and 1527 Knapp Street as requested. Seconded by Propp. Motion carried 8 -0. HL ZONE CHANGE FROM C -2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL, C -2PD GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND R -2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICTS FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG KNAPP STREET FROM W. 5 TH AVENUE TO SOUTH OF W. 9 TH AVENUE The City is presenting several zone change options from C -2 General Commercial, C -2PD General Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay and R -2 Two Family Residence Districts to C -1 Neighborhood Business District. Three other rezoning options will be presented as well for the Plan Commission's consideration. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and the current zoning classifications for parcels in the subject area. Mr. Nau explained the reason that the zoning districts were being reviewed was because an owner of a residential property contacted the city as he was having difficulty selling his home due to its C -2 zoning classification. City staff analyzed the area and found that 15 of the 24 properties contained in it are currently residential and classified as legal nonconforming uses. A rezoning proposal to reclassify this area to C -1 was presented to the Plan Commission in February of this year which was recommended for approval to the Common Council. The City received a petition requesting that the zoning remain C -2 prior to its presentation to the Council at which time the request was withdrawn to allow time to address the petitioners' concerns and develop alternative rezoning scenarios to present to the Plan Commission. Mr. Nau presented the four scenarios which were #1- zoning remains unchanged; #2- rezoning of 709 Knapp Street only; #3- partial rezonings from C -2 and C -2PD to C -1; and #4- rezone entire subject site to C -1. He explained that scenario #1 was not desirable as it would leave 15 residential properties as nonconforming uses and if they were to be discontinued and the property redeveloped, the C -2 zoning classification would create many properties that would be unusable as the setbacks in this district are too great to have sufficient buildable area. Scenario #2 was also not desirable as it would address the one property owner's issues but does not address the underlying problems for this area and would result in additional contacts from other residential owners requesting to have their properties rezoned as well. Scenario #3 was not optimal either as it was a partial rezoning creating pockets of C -1 and C -2 zonings leaving three residential properties with C -2 zoning classifications. This scenario would improve the area but would not be an ideal solution. Scenario #4 was the original recommendation to rezone the entire area to C -1 which would make all the existing uses conforming as it permits both residential and commercial uses. It would also prohibit light industrial uses in this area which would be inappropriate for this site and could negatively impact the surrounding properties. It would also prohibit the use of electronic message centers as they are not a permitted use in the C -1 zoning district. Mr. Nau also addressed the rumor that property values would decrease due to the rezoning from C -2 to C -1 classification and referenced a graph comparing the buildable area in both zones and the percent of increase in buildable area if the zoning classification was changed to C -1 as the setbacks on the property are not as great as Plan Commission Minutes May 4, 2010 the C -2 district. He also reviewed a map of the building envelopes which support that there would be more developable land if the area was zoned C -1. Mr. Thorns questioned what type of businesses would be permitted in the C -1 or C -2 scenarios and which ones would have to come through the Plan Commission and Common Council for approval. Mr. Nau directed the Commissioners to the zoning comparison table included in the staff report which listed the permitted uses by right and by conditional use permit in both zoning classifications. Mr. Burich added that permitted uses go through the administrative process however the main difference between the two zoning classifications was that the C -1 district does not permit light industrial uses and C -2 does not allow stand alone residential uses. Mr. Thorns commented that the Comprehensive Plan designates this area as not conducive to industrial uses. Mr. Nau stated that the C -2 classification allows uses such as ones located in the Highway 41 corridor which is not appropriate in this area. Mr. Palmeri questioned if the people who signed the petition requesting to leave the zoning classification as C -2 were opposed to rezoning the property at 709 Knapp Street only and would they object to scenario #2 being brought forward for approval. Mr. Nau responded negatively. Mr. Palmeri also questioned if scenario #2 does not solve the underlying problems of the neighborhood, why was this action initiated by the owner of the property at 709 Knapp Street and not addressed by City staff before. Mr. Nau replied that the City has identified several areas to review for rezoning purposes however the citizen's request came in before the matter could be addressed. Mr. Palmeri inquired if the petitioners were still opposed to scenario #4 Mr. Nau responded that he had not spoken to anyone regarding the matter and that is was staff s opinion that that option was still the best solution for the long term health of the neighborhood. Mr. Palmeri asked for explanation of what the problem was with just changing the zoning classification for 709 Knapp Street and letting each property owner decide what zoning district they desired on an individual basis. Mr. Nau replied that it created spot zoning which is not considered to be a good planning practice. He further stated that this area has been zoned as it currently is since 1964 and it is the City's responsibility to be more proactive and rezone the area more appropriately for its current uses. The current zoning classification of C -2 is more appropriate for the Highway 41 corridor not for an area with residential uses. Ms. Propp requested staff to reiterate that if the zoning classification is changed to C -1, that there would be no negative impact on the commercial uses in the area. Plan Commission Minutes May 4, 2010 Mr. Nau responded that all the existing uses in the subject site would be conforming uses in the C -1 district. He further stated that electronic message centers would not be permitted with this change and he was not sure if it would be allowed with a variance request either. It may be possible to obtain the building permit to erect the EMC prior to the zone change taking affect. Mr. Fojtik inquired if everything that is currently operating in the area could still exist as is. Mr. Nau responded affirmatively. Jeff Schmiedel, 230 Ohio Street, owner of 709 Knapp Street, stated that his main concern was to get his home rezoned to enable him to sell it. Mr. Thorns asked how long he has been waiting to complete this zone change. Mr. Schmiedel replied that he has had a buyer since last August and ran into issues when the C -2 zoning was discovered. The party would still like to purchase the property however he is not able to obtain financing with the existing zoning classification. Mr. Thorns questioned if the zone change must take place for the purchase to proceed. Mr. Schmiedel responded affirmatively. Steve Sosnoski, owner of Sisters Restaurant, 1009 West 9 th Avenue, stated that he attended the first neighborhood meeting at the Seniors Center to discuss the proposed zone change and inquired about just rezoning the one property who was requesting it. He was told that it would not be considered, however, since he has submitted the petition objecting to the zone change, now it's being considered. He further stated that he wanted additional clarification on what the differences were between the C -1 and C -2 zoning classification as far as what was allowed since he has discovered that an electronic message center would not be permitted, he had concerns on what else would not be permitted with this proposed change that was not presently being disclosed. He was told that the Plan Commission said that everyone wants it changed to the C -1 zoning classification and he was present to say that it was not true. He had numerous signatures from property owners within the subject site in support of leaving the zoning as is before and he has even more now. He also commented that the notice for today's Plan Commission meeting to consider the zone change was also sent to adjacent property owners who were not within the area and he felt should not have been notified as they would not be affected by this change. He personally approached the property owners in the neighborhood and a majority of them do not want their zoning classification changed from its current C -2 district. Mr. Fojtik questioned how Mr. Sosnoski explained the situation to the neighboring property owners and if he made them aware of the fact that they would not be allowed to rebuild their home if it should be destroyed. Mr. Sosnoski replied that any house built in the 1950's would be considered nonconforming. Mr. Nau added that some of the older homes in Oshkosh have nonconforming setbacks; however that is not the same as the property having a nonconforming use as the setback issue would not prevent the homeowner from rebuilding the structure. Mr. Sosnoski stated that telling people they could not rebuild their homes if destroyed would scare them. Plan Commission Minutes May 4, 2010 Mr. Nau responded that it should. Mr. Sosnoski commented that he had 15 signatures out of the 24 businesses in the subject area. Ms. Propp stated that there are only nine business located in this area. Mr. Sosnoski commented that 915 Knapp Street is displayed as a residential property on the map but it is commercial. Mr. Nau stated that 915 Knapp Street is a house and not a commercial use. Mr. Burich added that the property may be zoned commercial, but the use on it is residential. This is the same issue that Mr. Schmiedel has with his property. Mr. Sosnoski commented that realtors can arrange for loans for houses in commercial areas. Mr. Schmiedel stated that he has sold properties for residential use that are zoned C -1, but lenders will not finance property for residential use in a C -2 zoned area. Mr. Sosnoski then stated that he wanted a more detailed list of the comparisons of what is allowed in C -1 and C -2 zones other than the table already provided in the staff report. Mr. Nau responded that he could provide a copy of the matrix containing all the code information with full explanation for Mr. Sosnoski to review. Mr. Sosnoski commented that he wants to keep his property as is and will continue to collect signatures on his petition. Mr. Thorns stated that last time the Commission talked about a lot of issues regarding this proposed zone change and the businesses that would be allowed in this area under C -1 and C -2 classifications. There are 15 nonconforming residential uses in the subject site which could be addressed at another time however if we rezone just the property on 709 Knapp Street now, it would prevent other residential property owners from selling or rebuilding their homes until the zoning classification could be changed on their parcel. The partial change leaves pockets of problems for rezoning and the Commission has determined that light industrial use is not appropriate in this area. We need to find a way to solve this issue for all property owners in the area and there are some differences between the zoning categories but many property owners may not understand the issues. He further stated that we do not want to start spot zoning properties and the C -1 classification would allow both the residential and commercial uses and makes more sense from a land use standpoint. Mr. Nollenberger stated that he tended to agree with Mr. Thorns, but questioned what would the implication be of just changing the residential properties to C -1 and leaving the remaining uses C -2. Mr. Nau responded that it was not a clean or ideal situation creating pockets of difference types of zoning within the same area. Mr. Bowen commented that the problem with that scenario is that the corner of West 7 th Avenue and Knapp Street could be utilized for light industrial use and he felt there was some misunderstanding here. He further stated that he thinks this area fits the C -1 zoning classification better than any other area as all current uses would be permitted and he supports the rezoning to all C -1. Plan Commission Minutes May 4, 2010 Ms. Propp stated that it is important for the residential uses to be conforming and the C -1 classification would be best for them. She did not like the potential difficulties with Scenario #3 and leaving the pockets of C -2 zoning that could allow light industrial uses in the neighborhood and stated that the C -1 district would be a far better situation for all properties. She further commented that she would support the rezoning Scenario #4 to all C -1, but could live with Scenario #3 as a second resort. Mr. Palmeri questioned if there was a time that all the property owners were invited to a meeting to discuss this proposal. Mr. Nau responded that a neighborhood meeting was held in January of this year to explain the zone change proposal and Mr. Sosnoski and an owner from the pet store were the only parties with concerns or objections to the proposal. Mr. Palmeri then questioned if staff felt that the C -1 classification for the entire area was the best scenario. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively and stated that he has not heard any arguments or objections from anyone other than Mr. Sosnoski and the prohibiting of light industrial uses and electronic message centers were the only two tangible differences between the C -1 and C -2 classifications. He further stated that the zoning comparison table in the staff report further explains the uses allowed in both districts. Mr. Palmeri inquired what staff s objection was to Scenario #3. Mr. Burich replied that it was not a holistic view for the neighborhood and that the C -2 zoning classification allows more intensive commercial uses that were not appropriate for this area. He further stated that the C -1 classification is a natural fit for this type of neighborhood with both residential and commercial uses and explained his concerns with the more intensive uses that could be allowed if the area was left with C -2 pockets of zoning. Mr. Palmeri commented that he would support the C -1 zoning classification as it was probably better for all property owners involved and suggested that better communication with the property owners may be necessary for them to understand the ramifications of the different zoning classifications. Mr. Nollenberger stated that it sounded as though Scenario #4 was the best concept but questioned if additional requirements would be imposed on the commercial property owners being down zoned from C -2 to C -1. Mr. Buck replied that it was not really down zoning but more of a lateral move. The C -2 classification is a strict commercial district only whereas the C -1 classification allows residential uses and also reduces the setbacks on the site for commercial development. The major difference is it would not allow light industrial use. Mr. Nollenberger commented that he would support Scenario #4 but that the Common Council should be informed that Scenario #3 should be approved as an alternative if they did not agree with approving Scenario #4. Mr. Thorns suggested that staff reach out to property owners and explain the proposed zone change to educate the citizens in this area about the consequences of this action prior to it going before the Plan Commission Minutes May 4, 2010 Common Council. He felt the people signing the petition objecting to it should have a better understanding of its ramifications on their property. Mr. Burich stated that was the intent of the neighborhood meeting held and the proposed zone change was explained in detail at that time however there is no way of knowing what the person is telling property owners who is circulating the petition. Ms. Propp inquired how the Common Council would know that Scenario #3 was to be the backup plan if Scenario #4 was not approved. Mr. Burich responded that the Common Council had the ability to approve any one of the four scenarios regardless of the Plan Commission's recommendation. Motion by Monte to approve the zone change from C -2, C -2PD, and R -2 to C -I as requested. Seconded by Thoms. Motion carried 8 -0. III. NON - BINDING RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT REGARDING THE VISION OSHKOSH REPORT Staff is requesting approval of a non - binding resolution of support for the Vision Report prepared last year by A. Nelessen Associates. The intent of the resolution is to indicate the City's support in general for the findings and recommendations identified in the report. Mr. Burich presented the item and explained that the Common Council and Plan Commission had a joint workshop on this item last year to discuss the process however with the staff changes that occurred, it was felt that the matter should be delayed until a new Community Development Director was on board. He further stated that the Vision Oshkosh Report was distributed at the last meeting and reviewed the project funding partners and the various methods citizen input was gathered to obtain knowledge on how they wanted their community to look. Findings and recommendations were prepared by Nelessen & Associates from the information compiled with the first priority being to adopt a non - binding resolution of support. He reviewed the major categories that the report was oriented to and discussed each category and the recommendations that were compiled for it. He stated that for the most part, it reinforces the Comprehensive Plan and some of the items that are recommended in the Vision Report that are not contained in the Comprehensive Plan would at least initiate discussion. He further explained that the Vision Report was an indicator of community preferences and could be used as a planning tool and that the non - binding resolution was to show general support for the findings and recommendations contained in the Report. The Comprehensive Plan would still govern what we do however the Vision Report would serve as a tool for development of other plans. Mr. Bowen commented that this was an important document for us and questioned if the non - binding resolution also went to the Common Council for approval. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively. Mr. Thorns questioned why other board and committees in the City are also not asked to approve the resolution as well. Mr. Burich replied that we are following the directive in the plan which recommends that the first step being approval from the Plan Commission and Common Council with the second priority being to distribute to all city boards. Plan Commission Minutes May 4, 2010 Mr. Thorns commented that it should help create the leadership people are looking for in their Common Council representatives and help guide us in future ordinance revisions. He felt it was a step in the right direction. Mr. Nollenberger stated that he was impressed with the process and that the Vision process results conform to 95% of the citizen opinion surveys conducted by the University in 2009 and 2010. Mr. Hinz inquired if there were any areas that the Vision Report directly conflicted with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Burich responded there were no substantial conflicts and it should not complicate our efforts. Eileen Connelly - Keesler, Executive Director of the Oshkosh Area Community Foundation, 230 Ohio Street, stated that their organization put a lot of time, funding, and energy into this effort and really appreciate the support of the Plan Commission. The Vision Report has initiated the tree project that is currently under way in the city and the riverwalk will be constructed this summer which was another feature that 97% of respondents to the survey wanted to see. She stated that she was very excited to see these projects happening in the community. Mr. Thorns questioned when this process started, how it was actually done. Ms. Connelly - Keesler replied that she and her associates all sent emails out to all their contacts and the Oshkosh Northwestern assisted in the effort by continually placing it in the newspaper. They also did surveys at the Seniors Center, UW -O and Lutheran Homes and networked as much as possible with good results. There were also public workshops held on the issue. Mr. Thorns also questioned if she considered 2300 responses out of a population of 65,000 to be relevant. Ms. Connelly - Keesler responded that 600 responses would have been considered a good result. Mr. Palmeri stated that he has developed admiration for Nelessen Associates and feels they are a knowledgeable firm but questioned the survey process as the number of surveys received was not as relevant as whether the survey participants were chosen at random. He further stated that the information compiled in the report was valuable information and the non - binding resolution puts the pressure on staff, Plan Commission and the Common Council to take the lead on these issues. It also provides additional resources for comprehensive planning and reasonable compromise in the language. Motion by Bowen to approve the non - binding resolution of support regarding the Vision Oshkosh Report as requested. Seconded by Monte. Motion carried 8 -0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:40 pm. (Monte/Bowen) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services Plan Commission Minutes 10 May 4, 2010