HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 7, 2006 PRESENT: Lee Bettes, David Borsuk, Thomas Fojtik, Shirley Mattox, Cathy Scherer, Jeff Thorkildsen, John Weinsheim and Chairman Dell’Antonia EXCUSED:
Steve Gehling, and Kathleen Propp STAFF: Darryn Burich, Planning Services Director; David Buck, Zoning Administrator/Associate Planner; Susan Kepplinger, Principal Planner; and Vickie
Rand, Recording Secretary Chairman Dell’Antonia called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The meeting minutes of February 21, 2006 were
approved as mailed. (Thorkildsen/Scherer) Unanimous. I: ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR A SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION AT THE S.E. CORNER OF MCCLONE DRIVE & INSURANCE WAY – Department of Public
Works, petitioner, McClone Downtown Development LLC, owner Motion by Thorkildsen for approval of the land acquisition at the south east corner of McClone Drive and Insurance Way for
a sanitary lift station. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 7-0. II: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN ADDITION TO 2415 WESTOWNE AVE (FESTIVAL FOODS)-TCI AEC, petitioner,
Oshkosh Grocers LLC, owner Mr. Thorkildsen questioned if there were any plans for outlot growth in the parking lot. Mr. Burich stated outlot growth could be a possibility and they would
need to address parking lot issues when that happens. He also stated staff is looking at possible revisions to the Ordinance regarding the number of parking spaces required for big box
retailers. Ms. Mattox questioned if the owners have expressed any concern for the reduction of parking spaces. Mr. Burich stated the owners are also the petitioners, and they are not
concerned with the loss of 28 parking spaces. Motion by Bettes for approval of the CUP/PD request for a 7,500 square foot addition with the displaced parking to be found consistent with
Section 30-11 (D) and 30-33 (E)(b) of the Zoning Ordinance subject to the following condition: 1) A base standard modification is granted to provide 28 parking spaces less than required
by by Ordinance. Seconded by Thorkildsen. Motion carried 7-0. Mr. Weinsheim arrived at this time.
Plan Commission Minutes -2-March 7, 2006 III: NEAR EAST NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN – Department of Community Development Susan Kepplinger, Principal Planner, introduced the item with a PowerPoint
presentation. Ms. Kepplinger stated the actions for 2006 would include acquiring properties, rezoning the area to R-2PD, adoption of the Nuisance Ordinance, and the development of a
Redevelopment Plan to include infill standards for the neighborhood. Mr. Borsuk questioned if downsizing the area would result in any non-conforming uses. Mr. Burich stated the rezoning
would be consistent with other down-zonings done in the past. He stated a Planned Development Overlay would be used to give the sites a conforming status. Mr. Burich stated a R-2 Two
Family Residence District is the appropriate use in the majority of the area, although there may be some other uses on the perimeter, and all would need to have a Plan Commission recommendation
and Common Council approval. Mr. Borsuk stated his concern is for property owners to be able to reconstruct their property in case of fire or other damage from a natural disaster. Ms.
Mattox questioned how staff makes the determination of whether a property would be redeveloped or demolished. Ms. Kepplinger stated there are a variety of issues and referred to page
10 of the “Near East Neighborhood Plan” which outlines the criteria that needs to be followed for acquisition and clearance. Ms. Mattox stated today’s agenda includes 6 properties and
questioned if they will be looking at acquiring 20 properties in the Near East Neighborhood. Ms. Kepplinger stated she would address that question later on in the meeting. Mr. Dell’Antonia
questioned if the Near East Neighborhood plan would allow the City to use eminent domain to gain control of a property. Ms. Kepplinger stated the plan does allow the City to use Eminent
Domain, although it would not be very likely and federal legislation would have to be followed. She stated she has found owners in this area very cooperative and in many cases willing
to sell. Mr. Weinsheim questioned if the Near East Neighborhood Plan would change or eliminate actions the property owners would be able to do at the current time. Ms. Kepplinger stated
the plan doesn’t restrict the property owners from any improvements they otherwise would be making. Thatcher Peterson, 527 Madison Street, stated he thought the plan was wonderful. He
asked staff to consider the cost of transportation 25-30 years down the road and the impact that has on residents. He stated the “Near East Neighborhood” could be a very attractive alternative
to locating on the outskirts of town. Mr. Peterson stated there are 16 houses on Madison Street and it is very cost effective for the City to perform services there compared to a newer
subdivision where City crews would travel twice the distance to service the same number of residents. He stated it’s not right for residents in older more dense neighborhoods to have
to subsidize residents in newer neighborhoods with less density. Mr. Peterson also stated that he and the neighbors he has talked with agree that this is a good plan and has his support.
Plan Commission Minutes -3-March 7, 2006 David Maimgren, 403 E. Irving Avenue, stated he owns a single family home in the area that was built in 1915 and questioned who would be making
inspections. Ms. Kepplinger stated at the last Plan Commission meeting and the workshop that followed regarding the Near East Neighborhood, they discussed devising a checklist. She stated
Planning Services staff would be doing the inspections from the sidewalk, and not entering the property. She also explained that violations would not be sent out at this time. Mr. Maimgren
stated that doing an inspection from the sidewalk didn’t seem adequate. Ms. Kepplinger stated the goal for the Near East Neighborhood was to improve the appearance of the outside of
the properties, not for the City to force improvements internal to the structure. Mr. Maimgren questioned if there was a schedule in place for inspections or if notifications would be
sent out. Ms. Kepplinger stated staff was putting together a schedule and a notification would would be sent out approximately one month prior to the inspection with a copy of the checklist.
Mr. Maimgren stated he had received a meeting notice for March 15th. Ms. Kepplinger stated the Near East Neighborhood Plan would be going to the Common Council for approval on March
14th and to the Redevelopment Authority on March 15th. Mr. Maimgren questioned if they were looking at the history of each property or the remodeling that has been done. Ms. Kepplinger
stated staff would only look at the existing orders a property may have, not the past history. Mrs. Scherer questioned if “dumpster day” would coincide with inspections. Ms. Kepplinger
stated “dumpster day” would take place before any inspections were done. She explained “dumpster day” is being designed to provide an opportunity for residents to dispose of items, such
as tires and mattresses, without having to pay a fee for their disposal. Vickie Rueckl, 634 Grand Street, questioned how staff assessed the value of the property or if they used the
City Assessor’s information. Ms. Kepplinger stated that State Statutes require an appraisal with full narrative and an offer is based upon that amount. She also stated the owner has
the ability to get a full narrative appraisal at the City’s expense. Ms. Rueckl also stated she had called the City to request getting financial assistance to replace siding and was
told the City doesn’t do that sort of thing. Ms. Kepplinger suggested she call her directly regarding help with repairs. Chairman Dell’Antonia apologized for her not getting the correct
information. Ms. Rueckl questioned if eminent domain would be used after bargaining with the property owner was unsuccessful. Ms. Kepplinger stated that was the only way allowed to use
eminent domain. She added that with the properties on today’s agenda, the property owners had come to the City requesting the City to buy the property or the property was in foreclosure.
Jeff Krohn, 527 Mount Vernon, also owns property on Jefferson Street, stated that he is in support of the plan which should do wonders for the neighborhood. He stated there are larger
homes in the area that have nice/unique characteristics that have run down.
Plan Commission Minutes -4-March 7, 2006 Mr. Krohn also stated he understands that this meeting has nothing to do with the rezoning, however, he stated he has a small lot on Jefferson
Street /Main Street property and questioned in case of a fire or disaster would he be able to rebuild. Ms. Kepplinger stated that the proposed rezoning won’t have an affect on the duplex
on that property, as the proposed R-2 zoning district allows two family dwellings. Mr. Krohn reiterated it was a good idea and a positive program for the community. Ms. Mattox stated
she had been to a presentation given by Ms. Kepplinger 5 or 6 years ago that talked about neighborhood initiatives and is glad to see it getting a solid start. Motion by Borsuk to recommend
adoption of the Near East Neighborhood Plan. Seconded by Weinsheim. Motion carried 8-0. Ms. Kepplinger proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation, which reviewed the properties involved
in the Near East Neighborhood Plan coming up next on the agenda. A map was displayed showing the properties that are proposed for acquisition. Discussion followed on the strategies to
develop these properties. Ms. Kepplinger also stated they will respond to opportunities within the Near East Neighborhood as they come up. Mrs. Scherer stated she was glad to see this
map and questioned what strategy would be used for the property on Oxford Avenue since it was such a small lot. Ms. Kepplinger stated the lot size is 40’ x 150’ and they would be looking
for a prefab type of house to construct on this lot that would meet the infill design standards. She explained this would be a less expensive process and offer a faster time frame for
turn around of the lot. Mrs. Scherer questioned if an alternative would be to sell it to an adjacent property owner. Ms. Kepplinger stated that would be an alternative to be considered
with many lots and the City would sell the lot for the assessed value. Mr. Borsuk questioned if both of the large north /south properties were owned by the Canadian National Railroad.
Ms. Kepplinger stated that was correct. Chairman Dell’Antonia questioned why the City would get involved if an adjacent property owner was interested in buying the lot. Ms. Kepplinger
stated as in the case of the property on Oxford Avenue, it was basically a market failure. She explained the property is in foreclosure and will be offered at the Sheriffs Sale scheduled
for April 4th. She stated the City will buy the lot, clear the title and offer it for sale. She explained block grant money would be sacrificed in the short term, but in the long term
it will benefit the City’s tax rolls. Ms. Mattox questioned if infill homes would be built on a proper basement. Ms. Kepplinger stated the homes would be built on a basement, and noted
that smaller homes needed a basement for storage and laundry facilities where there might not be room on the first floor.
Plan Commission Minutes -5-March 7, 2006 IV: LAND ACQUISITION 661 JEFFERSON STREET AND A PORTION OF THE LOT AT 656 NORTH MAIN STREET – Department of Community Development, petitioner,
Berger Sausage Company, Inc., owner Ms. Kepplinger introduced the item and noted that the property owner had approached the City and offered to sell the property to the City. She stated
a successful sale price was negotiated. Ms. Mattox stated she had driven around and looked at all of the properties proposed for acquisition and questioned why this one was considered
as it looked fine to her with a solid basement. Ms. Kepplinger stated the property at 661 Jefferson Street has an assessed value of $71,000, and the cost of conversion of this property
would be approximately $50,000 plus the construction of a garage. She explained the rear lot abuts a commercial property with a future unknown use at this time, therefore, the majority
of investors would probably not want this property. She also noted a property across the street that has been for sale for 4 months now without any activity. Mr. Burich stated the staff
is looking at a redevelopment opportunity in this area somewhat like what has been done in the Division Street area, as there are a number of parcels available here. Dave Maimgran, 403
E. Irving Avenue, questioned if the Canadian National Railroad property included the old railroad station. Ms. Kepplinger stated the old railroad station was south of the property located
in the Near East Neighborhood. Jim Ostertag, 606 Evans Street, stated he owned property in the Mount Vernon Street area. He questioned the strategy for acquiring a number of properties
for redevelopment of an apartment complex, and questioned if notification would be received before this redevelopment goes forward. Ms. Kepplinger stated at this time they are assembling
the land and don’t have any specific plans. She stated they are hoping to work with a private developer who is interested in this area who would be able to come up with a viable site
plan. Ms. Kepplinger stated a product is needed that will fit in with the neighborhood and attract owners. She stated notification will be sent out with any actions taking place in the
Near East Neighborhood. Mr. Ostertag questioned if the City was asking for trouble in developing a complex in this area. Ms. Kepplinger stated that this site is not ideal, and an appropriate
infill design is needed to work better with what is already there. Chairman Dell’Antonia stated a redevelopment will be in compliance with the proposed R-2PD Zoning District. Mr. Ostertag
stated an apartment development would provide an opportunity for more trouble in the neighborhood. He discussed nuisance control and police activity as previously mentioned. He stated
he doesn’t want to see more trouble by placing more people there than before. Ms. Kepplinger stated the City needs to take on the challenge of placing appropriate development on each
site to make the neighborhood better. Mr. Ostertag questioned if there were any other options for the subject site in addition to a development similar to Division Street. Ms. Kepplinger
stated no other options were in place at this time.
Plan Commission Minutes -6-March 7, 2006 Vickie Rueckl, 634 Grand Street, stated what she thinks Mr. Ostertag was trying to relay is that he doesn’t feel multi-housing units would be
compatible next to single family homes. She stated usually these type of tenants are younger partiers that would disrupt the neighborhood. Mr. Burich stated the City isn’t looking to
put a dense multiple family development on this property, but something similar to a townhouse style development. He stated they have to look at the best use of the land, as single family
housing would not be a good fit on the backside of older commercial properties. Ms. Kepplinger stated the City is developing a Nuisance Control Ordinance and what is actually needed
is to educate management for tenant control. She stated the issue is not the renters rather how the facility is managed. Melody Bloechl, 2388 Abbey Avenue, questioned if property wouldn’t
become devalued since some of the acquisitions are being made in 2006 and some in future years, with construction not for another four years. Ms. Kepplinger stated redevelopment would
vary with each lot. She stated there is already an interested developer for the property on Merritt Street. She stated there is no universal way to handle all the properties, and they
are looking to turn around the infill lots quickly, and the larger assemblage of lots could be off the tax rolls for a while, but feels the other improvements will help the neighborhood.
Ms. Bloechl questioned if the City would purchase property without having a developer interested in the site. Ms. Kepplinger stated that could happen as the City wants to capitalize
on opportunities as they present themselves with the limited amount of money they have for this program. She stated the subject properties are being acquired at the least expensive way.
Ms. Kepplinger stated the City may have a short term loss but will see a long term gain. Ms. Bloechl questioned if discussions shouldn’t have already taken place with developers, since
the neighborhood initiatives is not a new concept, to judge the interest level in the area. Ms. Kepplinger stated discussions have taken place with developers and there is interest in
this area. She stated with the rules of governing acquisitions more restrictive and with the limited amount of money the City has to work with, they are moving forward with talking to
developers and she feels confident there will be developers for these sites. Mrs. Scherer stated the acquisitions appear to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and questioned how
the negotiation process is started. She also questioned if the City would pay fair market value for a property. Ms. Kepplinger stated the City might pay fair market value. She stated
many issues have been thought through before bringing the plan to the Plan Commission and Common Council for adoption. Mrs. Scherer questioned what will happen to the properties in-between
the Jefferson Street properties that are proposed for acquisition. Ms. Kepplinger stated the City doesn’t have the money to acquire those properties at this time and further action will
have to wait.
Plan Commission Minutes -7-March 7, 2006 Mr. Weinsheim stated he is in support of this plan. He stated there is no historical way to determine what is a typical turn around time. He
stated once the program gets started and improvements are seen he believes it will spark more interest and the turn around will happen more quickly. Mr. Weinsheim stated it isn’t easy
to say whether the initial investment in the community will yield a return, as it is also not easy to predict how long the process will take. Ms. Kepplinger stated the City has never
had a neighborhood program of this magnitude before and if they would compare it to the Division Street redevelopment area, that redevelopment was accelerated because of the amount of
money the City had at that time and different governing rules relating to eminent domain and acquisition legislation, however the Division Street neighborhood is worth a lot more since
the redevelopment. Motion by Scherer for approval of the acquisition of 661 Jefferson Street and a portion of the lot at 656 N. Main Street. Seconded by Thorkildsen. Motion carried 8-0.
V: LAND ACQUISITION 679, 683 JEFFERSON STREET – Department of Community Development, petitioner, Barry Haese, owner Ms. Kepplinger introduced the item and noted that she had seen a notice
in January that these properties were in foreclosure. She stated theses properties aren’t a good candidate for rehabilitation and not suitable for an investor, therefore, it seemed like
a good opportunity to acquire the properties at this time. Ms. Kepplinger also stated the properties are vacant, therefore there is no need for relocation of owners or tenants. Mr. Burich
stated when an opportunity such as this comes along the City will move to acquire the property as it offers one of the least expensive avenues for acquisition. Motion by Thorkildsen
for approval to acquire the properties located at 679 and 683 Jefferson Street. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8-0. VI: LAND ACQUISITION 303 OXFORD AVENUE – Department of Community
Development, Development, petitioners, John and Patricia Wabnitz, owners Ms. Kepplinger introduced this item and noted the property is a viable candidate for a single family dwelling
redevelopment. Ms. Mattox questioned if the property was in foreclosure. Ms. Kepplinger stated it was, and the Sheriffs Sale is scheduled for April 4th. Motion by Thorkildsen for approval
to acquire 303 Oxford Avenue. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8-0. VII: LAND ACQUISITION 223 MERRITT AVENUE – Department of Community Development, petitioner, Mokler Properties, LLC,
owner Ms. Kepplinger introduced this item and stated the owner was anxious to sell this property that includes 3 living units.
Plan Commission Minutes -8-March 7, 2006 Chairman Dell’Antonia questioned how this came to staff’s attention. Ms. Kepplinger stated it was brought to her attention in a casual conversation
with the property owner. She stated the property has a value of under $50,000, the dwelling has no basement and the owner is willing to sell, however, she noted there are tenants living
there at this time. Chairman Dell’Antonia questioned if the City will be in charge of the relocation. Ms. Kepplinger stated the Planning Division will be in charge of relocation and
the tenants have been notified. Ms. Mattox reviewed the process involved, to buy the property from the landlord and find a developer and questioned if the property will be sold to the
developer. Ms. Kepplinger stated she was currently working with a developer, but the City probably won’t be selling the property to the developer in this case. Ms. Kepplinger explained
that the tenant’s consist of 5 developmentally handicap women who live together. She stated the County has been looking for a site for the last 2-1/2 years for a CBRF and are interested
in this site. She stated the women’s families are also interested in this site, and the women would like to remain together. Mr. Kepplinger stated the County will be contributing money
to this project, therefore the site won’t be sold to the developer, but will be a for profit project and will be worth more than the current assessed value once redeveloped. Mrs. Scherer
questioned how the relocation process worked. Ms. Kepplinger explained the requirements for the relocation process according to State and Federal Law. She stated technical and financial
assistance is provided. Ms. Mattox questioned if the relocation was the City’s responsibility, and Mrs. Scherer questioned the financial responsibilities of the City. Ms. Kepplinger
stated it is the City’s responsibility. She explained moving expenses and rent differential are paid for 48 months. She also noted the rent could also be used as a down-payment on a
single family home, and a lot of relocation efforts have resulted in home ownership. Chairman Dell’Antonia stated he is less excited about this acquisition because of the tenants involved.
Ms. Kepplinger stated that this situation will probably come up from time to time, but they try to limit the number of acquisitions where a relocation is involved. Ms. Mattox questioned
if the owner can partner with the City to offer housing. Ms. Kepplinger stated the owner intends to offer the tenants other housing he owns, although relocation is the City’s responsibility.
Ms. Mattox questioned what was involved in the relocation. Ms. Kepplinger explained the tenants can either take a fixed payment based on the number of rooms and furniture or the actual
cost of the lower of 2 bids to move the property. She stated the flat payment is prescribed by the Uniform Relocation Act formulated by Federal Government according to the State involved
and is arrived at by the number of rooms in the dwelling and the amount of furniture the tenants tenants have. Motion by Fojtik for approval to acquire the property at 223 Merritt Avenue.
Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 7-1.
Plan Commission Minutes -9-March 7, 2006 VIII: LAND ACQUISITION FOR SEGMENT OF FOX RIVER CORRIDOR RIVERWALK – Department of Community Development, petitioners, Canadian National Railroad,
owner Chairman Dell’Antonia questioned if the article by the Oshkosh Northwestern was accurate which stated that acquisition of the subject site helped to resolve issues between the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and the Pioneer Inn property. Mr. Kinney, Director of Community Development, City of Oshkosh, stated the public access enhancements of
the proposed riverwalk plan played an important role in resolving the issue between the WDNR and the Pioneer Inn property. He stated the Common Council has approved a resolution authorizing
the City to enter into this settlement agreement and once the 30 day notification period expires, later in March, the City will enter into a land lease and settlement agreement with
the State and with Decades and Decades will then decide when and how to proceed with the development. Mr. Weinsheim questioned if the subject property was a separate piece of land at
this time. Mr. Burich stated a piece of railroad right-of-way would be carved out of the parcel. Mr. Kinney explained the subject property and stated the City has had discussions with
the Canadian National Railroad who are willing to sell the railroad right-of-way. Mr. Kinney stated the right-ofway would then be combined with the property to the east owned by Decades
and a permanent easement will be proposed for the trail system and will eventually become public use. Mrs. Scherer stated she supports this acquisition as it implements one of the 13
high priority implementation items of the Comprehensive Plan to create a riverwalk. Motion by Thorkildsen for approval of the land acquisition for 2.57 acres of railroad right-of-way
south of E. 14th Avenue owned by the Canadian National Railroad to provide an area for a trailhead for the Fox River Corridor Riverwalk. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 8-0. OLD BUSINESS
Chairman Dell’Antonia stated that last year discussion took place regarding the implementation of signage for rezonings. He noted he hasn’t seen any signs displayed, and he understood
this would happen quickly. Mr. Burich stated 10 signs are in his office but the standards for placement or posting have not been developed. He stated that this would be done as soon
as the Planning Services Division has time to work on the standards. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:37 p.m. (Thorkildsen/Borsuk). Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted, DARRYN L. BURICH Director of Planning Services DLB/vlr