Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Plan Commission Minutes Page 1 April 18, 2006 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 18, 2006 PRESENT: William Bettes, Jon Dell’Antonia, Thomas Fojtik, Shirley Mattox, Kathleen Propp, Jeff Thorkildsen EXCUSED: David Borsuk, Steve Gehling, Cathy Scherer, John Weinsheim STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services Division; Susan Kepplinger, Principal Planner; David Buck, Associate Planner; Darlene Brandt, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order at 4:00 pm by Chairman Dell’Antonia. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Ms. Mattox requested the following correction to the April 4, 2006 minutes: page 7, second paragraph, change “New York Avenue” to “New York City”. A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of April 4, 2006 as corrected. Motion carried by voice vote. I: LANDMARK DESIGNATION /226 HIGH AVENUE Merilyn Smith, owner, and Shirley Mattox, application author, request landmark designation of the property at 226 High Avenue. Chairman Dell’Antonia noted that Ms. Mattox will not partake in the discussion on this item, but may be involved as a citizen. Ms. Mattox authored the landmark designation application. Mr. Fojtik inquired if this includes the interior? Ms. Kepplinger replied no, only the exterior. Mr. Bettes inquired if this is the first property to be landmarked? Ms. Kepplinger replied yes. A property usually is listed on the National Register of Historic Properties. This property is not, but it is desirable to preserve the historic value of the property. Mrs. Propp inquired if tax credits are available? Ms. Kepplinger noted it is her understanding the owner would be eligible to apply for tax credits if the landmark designation is approved. Mr. Dell’Antonia inquired if a deed will be recorded to this effect? Ms. Kepplinger replied yes. Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 April 18, 2006 Ms. Merilyn Smith, 226 High Ave., thanked the Plan Commission for considering this request. Ms. Smith gave a brief synopsis on the history of the property. Mr. Bettes thanked Ms. Smith for taking the time to preserve this historic property. Ms. Eve Harrington, 1430 Lawndale Ave., supported landmarking the property and the great architectural heritage in Oshkosh. Motion by Propp to move approval of the landmark designation of 226 High Ave. Seconded by Bettes. Motion carried 5-0. Ms. Mattox did not participate in the discussion or vote on this matter. II. LAND DIVISION /2035 AND 2041 S. KOELLER STREET (AVIATION PLAZA) Woolpert Inc., petitioner, US Properties Group, owner, requests approval of a 4 lot land division within Aviation Plaza. Mr. Burich noted there are no proposed land use changes or new development. The petitioner only wants to be able to sell off portions of the property versus the entire parcel. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Ms. Mattox asked about maintenance of the parking areas? Mr. Burich noted a cross parking agreement could address this or each owner would be responsible for their own maintenance. Mr. Thorkildsen inquired about landscaping along the Hwy. 41 side? Mr. Burich noted if this were a new development, then yes, staff would be recommending additional landscaping. The applicants are only requesting action on a certified survey map to create 4 parcels, and from a staff standpoint, it was not felt that additional landscaping was required. Ms. Nancy Saylor, representing US Properties Group, owner, stated cross agreements currently exist and staff has asked that those agreements be updated. US Properties does not have concerns with that request. With regard to landscaping, Ms. Saylor indicated they had not planned on additional landscaping for the site at this time. Mr. Bettes noted that if this were a new development, the Plan Commission would not allow this development with all the asphalt. This property is on an arterial into the City. Mr. Bettes stated he is concerned about landscaping on this property. He felt more parking exists than what is needed, and perhaps internal landscaping would be appropriate especially along the proposed lot line that will divide a parking lot. Ms. Saylor agreed there is a sea of asphalt on this property and it is not very attractive. US Properties is receiving inquiries on the property but interested parties do not want to purchase the entire parcel. Ms. Saylor noted that at this time, US Properties did not want to address landscaping issues until tenants had been secured for the site or the property sold. Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 April 18, 2006 Mr. Burich noted the certified survey map meets the City’s subdivision regulations, and any conditions of approval by the Plan Commission must relate to the land division, not the existing or future development of the site. Issues relating to substandard setbacks of existing buildings to proposed lot lines are reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Mr. Thorkildsen inquired if there is a possibility for an outlot development like a coffee kiosk? Ms. Saylor replied many shopping centers across the country are looking at optimizing their properties, including US Properties, and yes, there is that possibility for this site as well. Mr. Burich noted staff had discussions with US Properties regarding adding a Planned Development Overlay to the property and that could happen in the future. Mr. Burich reiterated the only request before the Plan Commission today is a land division to create two additional lots. Mr. Thorkildsen noted he was concerned about this request and the the Plan Commission not having any input into the development, or redevelopment, of the site. Mr. Dell’Antonia cautioned that if the Plan Commission were considering denying this request, nothing will change and the property will probably not be developed, it will only deteriorate. Mr. Bettes inquired of Ms. Saylor if US Properties would support adding the Planned Development Overlay to the property? Ms. Saylor replied she did not know all the ramifications of a Planned Development Overlay, but believed it could be discussed if and when the lots start being redeveloped. At this time, US Properties does not want to undertake additional improvement costs such as internal landscaping. Mr. Bettes felt the Plan Commission could approve the request with a condition that any redevelopment must be done under a planned development for the entire site, not just a few of the proposed lots. When the owner starts redevelopment of the site or new construction is requested, it must be through a planned development. Mr. Dell’Antonia wondered if the Plan Commission can impose such a condition on a land division. Mr. Bettes stated the request does not meet Ordinance standards and it should not be up to another Committee to address these issues. Mr. Burich inquired if what US Properties is proposing is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance? Yes. The lot line issue is addressed by the Board of Appeals. If the Plan Commission feels the site is more appropriate for a Planned Development Overlay, then deny the request. But the request for a land division meets the land division criteria with conditions as being recommended by staff. Mr. Dell’Antonia stated he would prefer to see something happen with this property versus letting it sit vacant and deteriorate. Mr. Bettes inquired if there is a restriction that could be placed on the certified survey map or land offers that all parcels would have to be rezoned with a planned development overlay prior to redevelopment? Plan Commission Minutes Page 4 April 18, 2006 Ms. Saylor replied she did not know. Ms. Saylor noted they realize they will need to comply with the Zoning Ordinance, as well as building code issues, in redeveloping the property. It is their intent to sell the property in smaller parcels and bring new tenants into the area. Mr. Burich noted that if a request did come forward to add a planned development overlay to any portion of this site, there would be nothing to prevent the Plan Commission from recommending that all lots in the plaza be included with a future rezoning. Mr. Thorkildsen inquired if the recommendation for a zone change can be a condition or recommendation? Mr. Dell’Antonia replied a recommendation. Mr. Bettes stated he was going to support the request as submitted. This is an important parcel to the entryway of the City and he wanted the redevelopment of the parcel to go forward. Motion by Bettes to move approval of the land division as submitted with the following conditions: (1) Approval by by the Board of Appeals for creation of substandard setbacks. (2) Approval by Inspection Services to establish a zero foot setback of the buildings on Lots 2 and 3. (3) Approval by the Dept. of Community Development of a cross access agreement between all lots in the certified survey map. (4) Approval by the Dept. of Community Development for a cross parking agreement for Lot 3. Seconded by Fojtik. Motion carried 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS Notification Signs Mr. Burich distributed an administrative notification sign policy that the Plan Commission had requested be implemented. Funds were budgeted and the signs were constructed by the City’s Sign Division. The signs will be used to advise the public of conditional use permit requests, planned development reviews and zone changes with some exceptions. A $75 deposit will be required for each sign. The process will go into effect as of May 1st. Mr. Bettes inquired as to why this language was not being included in the Zoning Ordinance? Mr. Burich noted this will be an administrative process and not all administrative processes relating to development are in the Municipal Code. Citizens will be advised of the process. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:10 pm. Respectfully submitted, DARRYN L. BURICH Director of Planning Services Division DLB/dpb