HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 PRESENT: Bryan Bain, David Borsuk, Jon Dell’Antonia, Steve Gehling, Shirley Mattox, Kathleen Propp, Donald Simons, Jeff Thorkildsen, John Weinsheim
and W. Lee Bettes, Chairman EXCUSED: Cathy Scherer STAFF: Darryn Burich; Director of Planning Services, Kristi Bales, Principal Planner, Susan Kepplinger, Principal Planner, Jackson
Kinney, Director of Community Development, and Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairman Bettes. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared
present. The minutes of the November 2, 2004 meeting were approved as mailed. (Propp/Dell’Antonia) Unanimous. I: CONSENT AGENDA A: VACATE EXISTING PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT AND GRANT
NEW PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT ON CITY PROPERTY (ABE ROCHLIN PARK) The Department of Public Works is requesting to relocate a 10-foot wide private utility easement utilized by SBC for
telecommunication lines that run along the western edge of the park generally adjacent to Sawyer Street between Sawyer Creek on the south and Oshkosh Avenue on the north. The actions
requested are to vacate the existing unused easement and to grant a new easement. Vacation of the easement is needed because the original area for the easement could not be used. There
was no discussion on this item. Motion by Simons for approval to vacate the existing private utility easement and grant a new private utility easement on City property on Sawyer Street
in Abe Rochlin Park. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 9-0. Mr. Thorkildsen arrived at this time. II: CONCEPT EXTRATERRITORIAL LAND DIVISION FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF C.T.H. “T” AND BROOKS ROAD IN THE TOWN OF OSHKOSH Jill Weber is requesting to create an approximate 5.45 acre parcel of land from a base parcel of approximately 32.0335 acres
(Lot 2 of the attached CSM). The property is currently undeveloped and is in an agricultural state being actively tilled. The stated purpose of the land division is to create a parcel
large enough for a “farmette” to keep horses in the future, which would be permitted under county zoning. Mr. Dell’Antonia questioned what was expected from the Plan Commission with
a “concept plan”. Mr. Burich stated the concept plan is designed to give the petitioner feedback before they invest a lot of time and money on a Certified Survey Map.
Plan Commission Minutes -2-November 16, 2004 Mr. Borsuk questioned if there was a minimum lot size for rural preservation. Mr. Burich stated that there was not but the City’s Agricultural
Zoning Districts require 10 and 35 acres for minimum lot sizes. Mr. Gehling questioned what the land use intent was for rural preservation. Mr. Burich stated that the rural preservation
land use was intended to preserve these areas in their agricultural or open space states. Mr. Gehling questioned what the difference was from the land division from the farmstead at
the previous meeting. Mr. Burich stated a dwelling already existed on the land and the division separted the farmstead from the balance of the agricultural property. Linda Powers, Century
21, 555 S. Washburn Street, stated she was the selling agent for the property. She stated the Maronn Trust was used to generate income for the owners. She stated she was not aware of
the City’s jurisdiction over the property. She stated she has met with the County and the Town of Oshkosh and both have approved of the land division. She stated this parcel was separated
from the rest of the lot in this manner to be consistent with the area. She stated the neighbors have done the same thing with their properties. Ms. Powers stated the petitioner was
proposing to build on the Brooks Road side of the property and keep the back of the property for rural use, which she understood could stop at anytime. She stated the property is listed
at predevelopment prices and requests the Plan Commission to honor the sales contract. She stated if she cannot sell the property for that price she will let the listing expire until
the Maronn’s would be able to generate the income they needed from the property. Ms. Power’s stated the lot was originally 2 parcels. She also stated there are no plans to divide the
property further. She stated the Town of Oshkosh has recommended marketing the remaining acres as 2 parcels. She asked the Plan Commission to consider the parcel for Ms. Weber separately.
She also also stated there is no plan at this time for the south 40 acres. Ms. Mattox questioned if this land was currently being farmed. Ms. Powers stated the land was currently farmed
through a lease between the Maronn Trust and a farmer in the area. She stated Ms. Weber has agreed to maintain the lease with the current farmer, and she would be able to get that in
writing if required. Jill Weber, 5713 St. Ives Road, stated she was planning on building on the Brooks Road side of the property and wanted to use the back of the lot for stables for
boarding horses and business purposes. She stated she didn’t plan on building for another 3-5 years. Ms. Mattox questioned if Ms. Weber was currently in the horse business, and if she
was planning to lease the land to the farmer currently leasing the land until a time when she would build on the property. Ms. Weber stated she was not currently in the horse business
and she would lease the land to the same farmer as is currently farming the property. Mr. Weinsheim commended the staff on the thoroughness of the Staff Report and questioned if the
issue was if the property would be used for business purposes. Mr. Weinsheim stated it sounds as if their plans for the land use will remain the same. He questioned if the horses were
hers or would be stabled for income. He also noted the concern of further land division in the area.
Plan Commission Minutes -3-November 16, 2004 Mr. Burich noted they are concerned about the developing pattern of land divisions in the area and resulting land use pattern. He stated
the Plan Commission should look at whether 5-acre land divisions in the area would ensure continued agricultural use of the area. He stated the City doesn’t feel 5-acre parcels are large
enough to ensure continued agricultural use of the land especially given that homes will be developed on the parcels. Mr. Dell’Antonia questioned how the other land divisions in the
area were allowed to occur. Mr. Burich stated land divisions occurred in this area before the City had the authority to deny them. Mr. Weinsheim questioned if there would need to be
zone change. Mr. Burich stated he believed a zone change was required by the County for a 5-acre minimum lot. Mr. Burich stated the intent of the Subdivision Regulation was for the Plan
Commission to determine if this land division is acceptable according to the land division criteria. Discussion followed regarding the land not being in the farmland preservation program,
this being a conceptual plan, the petitioner’s ability to bring forward an actual plan for review, and the Comprehensive Plan designating this area for rural preservation. Mr. Borsuk
stated he did not feel this was good planning. He stated it wasn’t consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it didn’t appear to be good for the City of Oshkosh, and he didn’t feel he
could support this type of request. Mr. Simons stated he feels the same way as Mr. Borsuk, however he questioned if the Town of Oshkosh and Winnebago County had informed them of the
City’s position even though they gave their approval for the land division. Mr. Burich stated that the adjacent Town and County are aware that the City is exercising their jurisdictional
authority. Mr. Bain questioned if a home would be allowed on the property while still allowing the property to be farmed. Mr. Burich stated that under the County’s Zoning he thought
it could. Discussion continued on the creation of an additional lot and the number of similar requests that are expected to come before the Plan Commission in the future. Motion by Bain
for approval to create an approximate 5.45 acre parcel of land from a base parcel of approximately 32.0335 acres. Seconded by Simons. Motion denied 1-8. Dell’Antonia voting in the affirmative.
III: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON PARCEL “G” IN THE MARION ROAD/PEARL AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT AREA Concord 30, LLC, petitioner, City of
Oshkosh, owner, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan Review to construct a new multifamily building on Parcel “G” in the Marion Road/Pearl Avenue Redevelopment Area.
The project consists of three structures that will contain a total of 102 apartment units and a community room facility. Each three story multifamily building will include approximately
20,000 square feet of area per floor. Approximately one third of the units will have one bedroom and two thirds thirds will have two bedrooms.
Plan Commission Minutes -4-November 16, 2004 Mr. Gehling questioned if the developer was responsible for paving the proposed streets in this development. Jackson Kinney, Director of
Community Development, 215 Church Avenue, stated, in a redevelopment area the City takes care of the infrastructure to encourage development. He stated Dawes Street will be extended
on the west side of the property and the east side has a street that will extend to the south as development occurs. Mr. Borsuk questioned what process was made to get to this point
in the development of Parcel “G”. Mr. Kinney stated the Redevelopment Authority (RDA) sent out “Requests For Proposals” (RFP) late in 2003 to be submitted by early February of 2004.
He stated this proposal was accepted and the RDA directed staff to work with the developer. Staff encouraged the developer to talk with UWOshkosh and a site plan modification was made
to include a community room to interface community and university programs as well as provide an added amenity amenity for tenant use. Mr. Borsuk questioned how many responses were submitted
by February and what the differences were. Mr. Kinney stated two responses were submitted and the other submittal was actually an option agreement for all the remaining parcels in the
redevelopment area with no specifics given for any particular parcel. Mrs. Propp asked Mr. Kinney if he could review the designation for each parcel in the area. Mr. Kinney stated Parcel
“F” was for residential use adjacent to the Radford Village Apartments, Parcel “G” was for residential use adjacent to Parcel “F” and across the street from Saint Peter’s Church, Parcel
“H” was for a residential/commercial mixed use adjacent to Jackson Street. He stated there is the potential for commercial development on that site as heavy transmission lines are located
in the area and a residential use would not be allowed. He noted Parcel “J” was designated for a mixed use residential/commercial site and Parcel “I” would be for residential development.
Mr. Simons questioned why variances were needed for the size and setbacks. Mr. Kinney stated the base standard modifications were needed to allow the building to be brought closer to
the street to create a street wall effect and to allow higher living unit densities, which is in keeping with more traditional central city and new urbanism development. Ms. Mattox questioned
if there would be driveway access to the building from Pearl Avenue. Mr. Kinney stated there was only access on the side streets because Pearl was an arterial street. Ms. Mattox questioned
if there was pedestrian access to the building from Pearl Avenue. Chairman Bettes replied the developer could perhaps answer those types of questions. Mr. Weinsheim questioned if this
was consistent with the plan for the area. Mr. Kinney stated it was consistent with the Redevelopment Plan objectives, the adopted Marion Road/Pearl Avenue Redevelopment Plan objectives,
the Tax Increment Financing District plans for the area and also consistent with the development guidelines of the Redevelopment Authority.
Plan Commission Minutes -5-November 16, 2004 Peter Jungbacker, representative for Alexander and Bishop, stated they have been a partner with Concord 30, LLC on projects in this area.
He stated he wanted to talk about the project across the street that this project would be similar to, however this project would offer more amenities. He stated they have a 98% occupancy
rate across the street and rental rates are lower than they expected because of the low interest rates that have made housing ownership more affordable at this time. He stated they dropped
the rental rates 15-18%. Mr. Jungbacker stated 30% of the tenants are what they refer to as mainstream residents, who have full time jobs and are between the ages of 25-35. He stated
the balance of the tenants are university students and some university staff. Mr. Jungbacker stated they have learned from the first project how to attract a broader tenant mix. He discussed
the interior amenities, which included lighting features and high end products. He stated all the units would have balconies, and underground parking was available. He stated they had
to raise the building because of the water table and resolved environmental issues by working with City staff. He stated they are proposing to start construction for the First Phase
in the spring or summer of 2005. He felt that time frame would give them the best reception in the market place. He stated they were hoping to attract at least 50% of mainstream tenants.
Mr. Simons questioned if there would be pedestrian access from Pearl Avenue. Mr. Jungbacker replied there would be a sidewalk from Pearl Avenue to the Community Room and in the “V” section
of the buildings. He stated the design of these buildings allowed them to increase the average square feet of each unit, which was a very attractive size for this type of apartment.
Ms. Mattox questioned if they had considered developing these units as condo’s for stability of the neighborhood. Mr. Jungbacker stated they had designed each unit with separate utility
meters in case that would become a possibility at the time the rest of the area was developed. Ms Mattox commended their effort to include underground parking and questioned the expense.
Mr. Jungbacker stated it was quite expensive and would cost an additional 6,500. to 7,000. per stall. Mr. Borsuk questioned the timeline for construction of Phase II. Mr. Jungbacker
stated they were looking at the time frame of 6-9 months after construction of the first building, subject to unknown circumstances. Mr. Borsuk questioned why they were waiting until
construction of Phase II to construct the community room. Mr. Jungbacker stated it was a cash flow issue. He stated they estimated the cost of the facility at $350,000 and stated it
was a cost benefit decision. He stated they didn’t really need the community room facility but after meeting with the University and Community Development Staff they agreed to add it
for use of University and Community functions as well as an amenity for the tenants. Mr. Bain noted in the ““Supplement to the General Application”, it stated they would start the second
phase of 51 units, the community room, and balance of the parking within 300 days of complete occupancy of the first phase. Mr. Jungbacker stated the market and timing would dictate
when the second phase will be built, however they are hoping it is only an additional 3 months before they would start on the second phase, although it could be longer.
Plan Commission Minutes -6-November 16, 2004 Discussion followed regarding the interior amenities such as plumbing for washers and dryers, a separate laundry room available for larger
needs, and a fitness center. Mr. Bain questioned if the Plan Commission could encourage the developer to construct the community room with the first phase. Mrs. Propp asked about the
general market for apartments at this time and whether they were in competition with the 100 block for clientele. Mr. Jungbacker stated he didn’t feel they were in competition with the
100 block for clientele. He noted differences between the two complexes and stated even though the market is soft and unemployment in this area is a factor, they hope things will change
for the better and they will be able to attract people who are looking for this type of lifestyle and not for home ownership. Mr. Dell’Antonia stated the issue was whether this would
be good use of the land. Mr. Borsuk stated he wanted to return to the recommendation for a specific time line for building the second phase, which included the community room. He stated
he feels this project will be successful and not a detriment to the area, however, he still is concerned with the process. He stated Mr. Kinney stated two proposals were submitted, one
which met the RDA RFP guidelines, and the other submittal was for the entire redevelopment area, which has been called for in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated he was afraid the area
would end up being piece mealed together. He stated he wanted to make sure the area was developed according to good planning and not about the tax increment. Mr. Simon’s questioned what
Mr. Borsuk was looking for. Mr. Borsuk stated he was looking for a unified market based development plan for the entire redevelopment area. Mr. Kinney stated that this has been a well
thought out plan. He stated there is a definitive plan in place. Mr. Kinney stated the Redevelopment Authority has been given the responsibility and has worked hard to develop guidelines
for the area. area. He stated it is not realistic or practical for a single developer to come in with a plan for each block. Mr. Kinney stated there is a plan in place for block to block
development that offers consistency and harmony. He stated design principals are in place for land use scenarios that should work very well together. Mr. Kinney stated they are not letting
the TIF drive the project, however, the quality of the developments in the area are drawing more quality projects such as this 7 million dollar proposal. He stated they expect this progress
will continue, as it is important to keep the ball rolling. Mr. Dell’Antonia stated now that the RDA is in place they have the design plans of what the City wants to achieve in this
area, and to make sure each development fits together with what already has been achieved. Chairman Bettes stated there are a lot of unknown’s at this point in regard to Lamico and Mercury
Marine in this area that make it hard to commit to a master plan. He stated today the Plan Commission needs to take action on whether this proposal will fit into the redevelopment area.
Mr. Kinney stated Parcel “C” was constructed by Concord who has used quality materials and brought in an impressive sustainable design which was the level of quality the City was looking
to achieve in this area. He stated the City is appreciative that Concord has come forward again with a quality project for the area.
Plan Commission Minutes -7-November 16, 2004 Mr. Borsuk stated he understood that a proposal was turned down that was looking at the entire redevelopment area. Mr. Kinney stated what
was submitted was an “Option Request”. He stated there wasn’t a site plan for any particular area. He stated the Company wanted to take a look at the redevelopment area and do what they
wanted to with the parcels they could gain control of. Mr. Kinney stated Concord has come forward with another quality proposal, which appears to be a positive move forward. Motion by
Bain for approval of a Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan Review to construct a new multifamily building on Parcel “G” in the Marion Road/Pearl Avenue Redevelopment Area as found
to be consistent with Section 30-11 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance with the following conditions: 1) Temporary driveway access from Dawes Street or Street B is granted subject to approval
by the Planning Services Division and that the driveways are to be relocated when proposed Street A is constructed. Temporary driveway accesses are to be abandoned per the Department
of Public Works. 2) The "future" parking areas identified on the proposed site plan are to be developed for parking at the time of construction of each building, bringing the total number
of parking spaces provided to 204 for the project. 3) Final landscape/site plan subject to staff approval. 4) The base standard modification for the 6' building setback is subject to
any restrictions associated with the established utility easement. 5) Base Standard Modification is approved to allow living unit densities of 1,289+ per unit. 6) A site grading and
drainage plan be approved to prohibit sheet drainage to the public Street and stormwater quality requirements. Seconded by Simons. Motion carried 8-1. Nay: Borsuk ITEM IV: CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH UPPER FLOOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT 716 OREGON STREET Megan Hoopman, petitioner, 716 Oregon Street LLC, owner, is planning a project at 716 Oregon
Street which requires issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use structure. The project will include rehabilitation of the second floor dwelling unit and upgrading the first
floor commercial space and the façade. While the second floor was originally designed and used as a single residential unit, that area has been vacant for more than 12 months, therefore
a Conditional Use Permit is required to resume the residential use of that portion of the structure. Ms. Mattox questioned if the City would be retaining a façade easement on both Oregon
Street and 8th Avenue. Mr. Burich replied the City would hold a façade easement on both streets.
Plan Commission Minutes -8-November 16, 2004 Mr. Bain questioned if any work was planned at this time for the façade and if not at this time would the petitioner have to bring those
plans back for the Plan Commission to review. Susan Kepplinger, City of Oshkosh Principal Planner, stated there wasn’t any work planned at this time for the façade, and any proposed
changes would be reviewed by the Department of Community Development. Motion by Propp for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for rehabilitation of the second floor dwelling unit and
upgrading of the first floor commercial space and the façade at 716 Oregon Street as found to be consistent with Section 30-11 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance. Seconded by Weinsheim. Motion
carried 9-0. V: RECOMMENDED DRAFT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE The City is undertaking an update to their 1993 Comprehensive Plan in order to bring the plan
in compliance with the State’s Comprehensive Planning Legislation that was signed into law in 1999. Commonly referred to as the “Smart Growth Law”, this legislation established basic
requirements for nine elements of a comprehensive plan. These nine elements include Issues & Opportunities, Transportation, Land Use, Housing, Economic Development, Utilities and Community
Facilities, Intergovernmental, Agricultural, Natural & Cultural Resources, and Implementation. Kristi Bales, Principal Planner for the City of Oshkosh, introduced herself and stated
this is the 6th element of the Comprehensive Plan to be updated. She reviewed the meetings that have taken place, the committee members involved in the process, the requirements by law,
the goals and actions to be considered and the schedule of public hearings that will take place. Mr. Gehling noted the aggressiveness of the Element in mapping and questioned if the
City has budgeted for land acquisition for the streets that are proposed to be officially mapped. Mr. Burich stated that the mapping process is separate from budgeting. He stated the
planning needs to be done before the properties can be budgeted. Mr. Gehling questioned the official mapping of Clairville Road in regards to the Boundary Agreement with the Town of
Algoma. Ms. Bales stated the Element calls for an arterial to be mapped west of Clairville Road. Mr. Burich informed the Plan Commission that Clairville Road had been mapped north to
State Highway 21 prior to the Boundary Agreement with the Town of Algoma. Mr. Gehling questioned how long the Boundary Agreement with the Town of Algoma was in effect. Ms. Bales stated
the Boundary Agreement with the Town of Algoma is in effect for 60 years. Mr. Borsuk referred to the 10-Year Comprehensive Land Use Plan and stated he would like to see the map reflect
a change north of Indian Point Road from Institutional to Commercial use for approximately 500 feet. Mr. Burich replied that this is the general framework and not a final representation
of what actually may occur in the area. He stated when a request comes in staff will take a look to see if it is consistent consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Plan Commission Minutes -9-November 16, 2004 Mr. Borsuk stated he feels it would be more practical for at least part of it to be designated for commercial use whether the request that
may come in would agree or disagree with the Comprehensive Plan. Motion by Dell’Antonia to recommend this Draft of the Land Use Element be approved by the Plan Commission as the document
that is forwarded for general public hearings and comments. Seconded by Gehling. Motion carried 9-0. VI: RECOMMENDED DRAFT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
UPDATE The City is undertaking an update to their 1993 Comprehensive Plan in order to bring the plan in compliance with the State’s Comprehensive Planning Legislation that was signed
into law in 1999. Commonly referred to as the “Smart Growth Law”, this legislation established basic requirements for nine elements of a comprehensive plan. These nine elements include
Issues & Opportunities, Transportation, Land Use, Housing, Economic Development, Utilities and Community Facilities, Intergovernmental, Agricultural, Natural & Cultural Resources, and
Implementation. Kristi Bales, Principal Planner for the City of Oshkosh, stated this is the 7th element of the Comprehensive Plan to be updated. She reviewed the meetings that have taken
place, the committee members involved in the process, the requirements by law, the goals and actions to be considered and the schedule of public hearings that will take place. Mr. Gehling
noted the City is surrounded by a number of townships and questioned when and how the City can become involved in discussions with land use issues. Ms. Bales stated a notification process
was in place. Mr. Weinsheim stated the goal should be to have a better relationship and ongoing dialog with the Townships. Ms. Bales stated the City has been invited to attend Town meetings
as they go through the planning process. She stated the City has started to have preliminary discussions with a couple of Towns regarding boundary agreements. Mr. Dell’Antonia questioned
if the action to adopt cooperative boundary agreements, etc. could be changed to a goal as it is a very important issue. Ms. Bales stated she would make it a goal and put the appropriate
actions to follow. Mr. Borsuk referred to the “Tools for Resolving Conflicts” and stated he would like the word “binding” removed from the Arbitration paragraph. Ms. Bales stated it
was included as an option. Mr. Borsuk stated he would like the word removed as the City should not be put at risk. Chairman Bettes stated there would be conflicts with adjacent towns
as boundary agreements are reached and years down the road there may be a need for “binding arbitration”. Mr. Weinsheim stated it was a tool for the City Attorney and Common Council.
Mrs. Propp questioned if the “Draft City/Town Growth Area Map” would be used as a basis for continued communication. Ms. Bales stated this draft would be used as a starting point only.
Mr. Burich stated it was a resource to use in discussions, originally developed at a staff level, but never adopted. Mrs. Propp also stated it would be nice to have a process to incorporate
physically getting together with the school district on an annual basis, and perhaps the same for the townships. Discussion followed regarding the format to initiate opportunities to
share information.
Plan Commission Minutes -10-November 16, 2004 Motion by Dell’Antonia to amend the Intergovernmental Element of the Comprehensive Plan to include Goal “C” “Within the planning period,
adopt cooperative boundary agreements….” seconded by Propp. Unanimous. Motion by Weinsheim to recommend this Draft of the Intergovernmental Element be approved as the document that is
forwarded for general public hearings and comments. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 9-0. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Bettes handed out a questionnaire regarding what areas were of particular
interest to each member regarding the City
budgeting money for streets. He asked the Plan Commission to fill this out before leaving the meeting and he would chair a workshop on December 7th to discuss implementation. Ms. Bales
stated they would like to see someone involved for each item. Mr. Borsuk asked if the Plan Commission could receive an update within the next two months or so on how the TIF Districts
were developing. Mr. Burich stated a brief summary could be put together. Mr. Weinsheim questioned the process for decision making on Item II, as he didn’t feel the applicant received
guidelines that make sense to them or what steps to take if they want to return with a legitimate plan. Mr. Burich stated he felt they gave the applicant feedback on how the land division
needs to be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Discussion followed on the process for the applicant and how the City can be involved. Mr. Borsuk stated that perhaps that
could be another workshop topic. Chairman Bettes stated workshops could be scheduled on Plan Commission meeting nights when there is a short agenda. There being no further business,
the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:14 p.m. (Borsuk/Simons). Unanimous. Respectfully submitted, DARRYN L. BURICH Planning Services Director DLB/vlr