Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 5, 2003 PRESENT: Steven Gehling, Shirley Mattox, Donald Pressley, Kathleen Propp, Patrick Weston, and Jon Dell’Antonia, Chairman Pro Temp EXCUSED: Lee Bettes, David Borsuk, Jack Heinemann, John Ruppenthal, and Cathy Scherer STAFF: Darryn Burich, Principal Planner, Matt Tucker, Associate Planner, Jackson Kinney, Director of Community Development, and Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary Mr. Burich informed the Plan Commission that since there is no Chairman or Vice Chairman available for the meeting today, a motion would be necessary to elect a Chairman Pro Tem for today’s meeting. Motion by Propp to nominate Jon Dell’Antonia for Chairman Pro Tem, seconded by Pressley. Unanimous. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Pro Tem Dell’Antonia. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of July 15, 2003 and July 22, 2003 were approved as mailed (Propp/Gehling). Unanimous. I: CONSENT AGENDA A: EXTRATERRITORIAL THREE LOT LAND DIVISION/CSM ALONG CLAIRVILLE ROAD IN THE TOWN OF ALGOMA R.A. Smith and Assoc., petitioner for Kay Spanbauer, owner, requests the Plan Commission review and approve an extraterritorial land division for property on the west side of Clairville Road just north of 2713 Clairville Road in the Town of Algoma. The approximate 36 acre parcel of land is zoned for agricultural purposes under Winnebago County Zoning. This item was withdrawn by the petitioner. B: EXTRATERRITORIAL FOUR LOT LAND DIVISION/CSM SOUTHWEST OF MARINE DRIVE IN THE TOWN OF OSHKOSH R.A. Smith and Associates, petitioner for Alfred and Mary Ellen Sedlachek, owners, request the Plan Commission to review and approve of a extraterritorial four lot land division/CSM in the Town Oshkosh. The 4.62 acre subject property is zoned R-5 Planned Residential Development and contains a single family dwelling and a large metal pole shed building. Plan Commission Minutes 2 August 5, 2003 Ms. Mattox questioned how the lots in the land division would be accessed. Mr. Burich stated an easement for a road has been approved by the County and the Township to access the lots. Ms. Mattox questioned the configuration of Lot 1. Mr. Burich stated the configuration had been approved under the County’s Planned Development Ordinance. Ms. Mattox also questioned if a portion of Lot 1, which contained the pole building, would be big enough for a separate buildable lot. Mr. Burich stated it didn’t appear so. C: RESOLUTION APPROVING HOUSING PROJECT This is a follow-up to the conditional use permit (CUP) that the Plan Commission and Common Council approved relative to Evergreen’s proposed 40,600 square foot expansion of their skilled care and nursing facilities (attached is the Staff Report to the Common Council and Council Resolution for your information). It is the intent of the Housing Authority to issue revenue bonds to finance the construction of these housing units. Wisconsin Statutes require that prior to issuing the revenue bonds the Plan Commission approve the project by Resolution, which is being requested at this time (attached). Staff was unaware at the time of Plan Commission consideration of this requirement or the Resolution would have been part of that review and approval. Motion by Pressley for approval of items B & C of the Consent Agenda, Seconded by Mattox. Motion carried 5-0-1. Weston voting present. II: FLOODPLAIN ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AT 815 S. WESTHAVEN DRIVE Omnni Associates, petitioner for Affinity Health Care/Sisters of the Sorrowful Mother, owner, request Plan Commission review and approval of an amendment to the City’s official Floodplain Zoning Map. The amendment would provide for the removal of a 9,457 square foot area from the City’s official Floodplain Zoning Map, requested in conjunction with the construction of a 23,000 square foot expansion to the Sisters’ facilities, approved by conditional use permit (CUP) in March 2003. At that time, a a condition was applied to the CUP, requiring the area where the addition is to be built, currently mapped as 100 year floodfringe, be removed from the official Floodplain Zoning Map. Mr. Gehling questioned if the floodplain map would have to be reamended if the owners were to add floodplain in another location on the property. Mr. Tucker stated the floodplain map shows the existing grade and elevation, and a post construction survey will be submitted showing the new floodplain. It won’t be adopted on the map, but will be a better working tool. Motion by Gehling for approval of an amendment to the City’s Official Floodplain Zoning Map. Seconded by Pressley. Motion carried 5-0-1. Weston voting present. III: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AUTOMOBILE SALES AT 2495 JACKSON STREET Capital Credit Union, petitioner/owner, request the Plan Commission to review and approve a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow automobile sales at their facility located at 2495 Jackson Street. The 1.3 acre property is zoned C-2 General Commercial District which allows automobile sales through CUP. The subject property currently contains a 4,800 square foot structure with drive-thru lanes that was constructed in 2001. Plan Commission Minutes 3 August 5, 2003 Mr. Gehling questioned if further landscaping was really necessary to screen three parking spaces since the Credit Union was just built within the last two years, and the landscaping done would mature and provide additional screening. Mr. Gehling noted his concerns with a site triangle when accessing U.S. Hwy. 45. Mr. Burich stated the landscaping was sparse on the south end of the property. He noted the Plan Commission has consistently reviewed landscaping issues for used car lots and feels it is an appropriate request for this area. Ms. Mattox agreed the landscaping needs to be improved, especially since this is located in the north gateway to the City, however, she questioned if there was enough right-of-way available for the installation of sidewalks in that area. Mr. Burich stated the item had been reviewed by the Department of Public Works, but he will review it with them again to ensure that proper right-of-way is provided. Ms. Mattox also questioned why shrubs vs. trees was recommended for the area. Mr. Burich stated staff felt low landscaping was appropriate for the area due to the proposed use. Mr. Pressley questioned what forms of advertising would be allowed. Mr. Burich stated he hadn’t discussed what methods of advertising would be used with the petitioner, however, assumed stickers would be placed in the car windows like at other car lots. Chairman Pro Tem Dell’Antonia stated he was concerned about setting a precedent for financial institutions to have vehicles available for sale in their parking lots. Mr. Kinney stated this type of request would need to be reviewed on a case by case basis, and although it was a typical activity, he wasn’t concerned about a precedence being set at this time. Ms. Mattox questioned how many cars were allowed for sale in the parking lot at one time. Mr. Kinney stated the current request is for three parking spaces to be utilized for vehicle sales, and they would need to come back to the Plan Commission for further review to use more parking spaces for vehicle sales. Mr. Burich also noted that Ordinance requirements are also a factor since a specific number of parking spaces are needed for customer use. Chairman Pro Tem Dell’Antonia questioned if boats or other type of vehicles besides automobiles would be allowed on the lot for sale. Mr. Burich stated the request was limited to passenger type auto vehicles. Mrs. Propp stated she had reservations regarding this request, and she hoped that signage would be limited yet effective and tasteful. Motion by Pressley for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to use the existing parking lot at 2495 Jackson Street for the display of repossessed vehicles as requested, found to be consistent with standards set forth in Section 30-11 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance and be approved with the following conditions: 1) A maximum of three spaces to be utilized in the southeast corner of the parking lot. 2) Vehicles displayed for sale are to be confined to those which have been repossessed by Capital Credit Union. 3) Landscaping beds and plantings be placed in the area of vehicle display with the new beds and plantings to be consistent with materials already in place on the site. Seconded by Gehling. Motion carried 6-0. Plan Commission Minutes 4 August 5, 2003 IV: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE AT 1730 W. SNELL ROAD Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPS), petitioner for the Oshkosh Correctional Institution, owner, request the Plan Commission to review and approve a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow the installation of a public utility structure at 1730 W. Snell Road. The 300 plus acre state prison property is zoned M-3 General Industrial District that allows placement of public utility structures through CUP. There was no discussion on this item. Motion by Propp to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of a public utility structure at 1730 W. Snell Road, found to be consistent with standards set forth in Section 30-11 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance. Seconded by Gehling. Motion carried 6-0. V: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW WAREHOUSING AT 1540 S. KOELLER STREET Alexander & Bishop, petitioner/owner, request the Plan Commission to review and approve of a conditional use permit permit (CUP) to allow warehousing at 1540 S. Koeller Street. The 18 + acre subject property contains an 85,000 square foot strip commercial center with the principal anchor business being Big Lots. There was no discussion on this item. Motion by Pressley for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow warehousing at 1540 S. Koeller Street, found to be consistent with standards set forth in Section 30-11 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance subject to the following condition: 1) No outside storage of materials without approval. Seconded by Gehling. Motion carried 6-0. VI: FINAL PLAT – FOSTER HEIGHTS; DELETE OFFICIAL MAP: R.A. Smith and Associates, Inc., petitioner for Del Tritt, owner, requests the Plan Commission to review and approve a Final Plat known as Foster Heights for property generally located west of Knapp Street; north of 5th Avenue; south of 4th Avenue; and east of Guenther Street. The approximate 6.5 acre property is zoned R-2 Two Family Residence District. Mr. Burich introduced the item noting that the Department of Public Works has requested two conditions be added regarding easements that may need to be created by the Department of Public Works and language regarding no improvements allowed within designation of public utility and drainage easements to be added to Final Plat covenants. Mr. Gehling questioned what the consequences of making improvements within the designated easement area would be. Mr. Burich stated the property owner could be ordered to remove improvements made in the easement areas if not approved by the City. Plan Commission Minutes 5 August 5, 2003 Del Tritt, petitioner, submitted building envelopes to Mr. Burich to determine that building areas are in compliance for lots 17 & 18. Motion by Pressley for approval of the Final Plat known as Foster Heights for property generally located west of Knapp Street; north of 5th Avenue; south of 4th Avenue; and east of Guenther Street, and approval of the Official Map deletion of Foster Street and the Bismarck Avenue cul-de-sac subject to the following conditions: 1. Building envelopes for Lots 17 and 18 be submitted to the City for review to determine compliance with minimum building areas prior to the City’s sign off of the plat for recording. 2. The Official Map be deleted by resolution prior to the City’s sign off of the plat prior to recording 3. Any Additional easements be created at the request of the Department of Public Works and approved by the Department prior to the City’s signing of the Final Plat and the Plat being recorded with the Register of Deeds. 4. The The following language is to be added to Final Plat covenants regarding public utility and drainage easements and recorded on the face of the Final Plat: No improvements are allowed within such designation. Improvements include, but are not limited to, building structures, driveways, parking areas, landscaping or fences. Any improvement shall be allowed only by special exception of the Board of Public Works. Seconded by Gehling. Ms. Mattox stated she found Foster and Bismarck Streets to be confusing on the Final Plat and would like a condition made to clarify street names before approval of the Final Plat by the Common Council. Discussion followed on the layout of Bismarck and Foster Streets, and the approval given for the layout on the Preliminary Plat. Mr. Burich noted at a future time street names may be changed, but for now it appears to be the best option. Mrs. Mattox stated she has thought that this property would be ideal for the development of a neighborhood and is glad to see it being developed as such. Motion carried 6-0. Plan Commission Minutes 6 August 5, 2003 VII: PROPOSED TEXT CHANGE TO CHAPTER 30/ZONING AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The Department of Community Development is requesting the Plan Commission to review and approve text amendments to Chapter 30 of the Oshkosh Municipal Code, specifically the City’s Subdivision Regulations that pertain to the provision of public sites and open spaces for park related purposes through land dedication or through fees-in-lieu of dedication. This item was discussed at the July 15 Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Burich introduced the item reviewing the current parkland dedication fees that have not seen an increase since 1977. Mr. Burich continued to explain the proposed fees and formula’s used to derive at those figures. He also explained the need to make the fees applicable to certified survey maps, land divisions, and condo plats in which most multiple family developments occur and which currently do not pay park fees. John Stockham, Stockham Consulting, Madison, stated that the City considers parks a necessary improvement to occur with development, and new development needs to pay their share and not have the cost fall to existing and future tax payers. Mrs. Propp questioned if a condition could be made requiring periodic review for adjustment of parkland fees. Mr. Stockham stated the City could update the fee according the rate of inflation at any time and that the fees should be adjusted periodically similar to other fee structures. Gary Yakes, Attorney, 141 N. Sawyer Street, representing Midwest Real Estate, stated his clients are opposed to the fee increase. He questioned if the fees collected since the 1970’s for parkland have been going into segregated and sequestered accounts specifically for parks. Mr. Kinney replied the fees collected have been kept in specific accounts for park purposes. Attorney Yakes questioned how much money was needed for parks, how it has been spent, and how it would be spent in the future. He recommended the Plan Commission ask accounting for an activity report if they haven’t already done so. Attorney Yakes stated Midwest Real Estate is proposing to develop a minimum of 500 units in the next few years, and with this increase they would be paying for one entire park themselves or the equivalent of 10 acres. He questioned if this was fair? Attorney Yakes questioned if the City wants to aggressively develop Oshkosh in the future. He stated the proposed rate is twice the rate of Appleton, Wisconsin. Attorney Yakes also stated the residents are the ones who will pay in the long run, not the developers. Attorney Yakes stated his clients wouldn’t oppose a reasonable park fee increase. He stated this proposal could be compared to the recent storm water utility fee, which is nothing more than another tax. He stated the City should have updated the fees on a regular basis instead of burdening the taxpayers with such a hefty increase. Attorney Yakes questioned what the City was putting into the account for public parks, and how was this money being spent. He questioned if this was a fair proposal and if the issue had been adequately addressed. Kelly Burnett, 1202 Bismarck Ave., stated he sees a need for park fees to raise, however, he would like to have some explanation of where and how the money will be spent and would prefer that fees would be used for parks in the area collected Plan Commission Minutes 7 August 5, 2003 Jennifer Sunstrom, Realtors of NE Wisconsin, Aero Tech Drive, Appleton, Wis., stated she had received a rough draft and wasn’t aware of all the changes proposed, and was speaking on behalf of the Real Estate Community and their concerns. She asked if more time could be given for interested parties to review the final draft before it would be taken to the Common Council for their approval. Mr. Burich stated he had sent Ms. Sunstrom the most up-to-date copy of the proposed text changes to Chapter 30/Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Gehling questioned his authority as a member of the Plan Commission to act on the financial side of a text change. Mr. Kinney explained that the Plan Commission was not necessarily looking at the cost of parks, but if parks were needed in new growth areas. Mr. Weston questioned if the fees collected were used strictly for parks. Mr. Kinney stated the fees collected were used for park related purposes. Mrs. Propp stated she was not sure about the funding for new parks vs. public parks. She stated she felt the fees should go towards the acquisition of land for new parks. Mr. Kinney stated that steps could be taken to ensure that the money collected now would go to the new parks in new development areas. Mr. Stockham, stated is was also typical for communities to accept land instead of money for parks. Ms. Mattox asked for clarification if the fees would be used for park equipment or land. Mr. Kinney stated that fees collected could be spent on park development purposes. Mr. Stockham stated a separate fund is needed primarily for land acquisition. He stated normally city’s would have a land dedication fee and a separate impact fee for improvements. Ms. Mattox questioned if an apartment complex was putting any money in the park fund. Mr. Burich stated that apartments typically don’t pay any parkland fees because they are usually developed in lots created through CSM or by condo plat. She asked Mr. Stockham if he could make comparisons of the the amount of fees other cities charge. Mr. Stockham stated the City of Madison pays $600.00 in park fees plus impact fees for improvements in the $400-500 range. He stated there are also charges for trail impact fees in Dane County. Mr. Pressley questioned who decides if the City will require a dedication of land or the money. Mr. Stockham stated typically the Plan Commission would make that recommendation based on the Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Mr. Kinney stated the Parks Advisory Board would also make that determination. Mr. Kinney stated the Plan Commission and the Parks Advisory Board will need to review plats more carefully to determine where a park may need to be developed. Discussion continued on the fairness of developments with larger lots not paying as much as developments with smaller lots, and that most multiple family dwellings haven’t paid a specific fee for park development. Plan Commission Minutes 8 August 5, 2003 Mrs. Propp stated this fee seemed to be a bargain to get a park included in the neighborhood. She stated it was a one time fee, which she felt was reasonable. She stated she would like to be assured the fees would be kept in a separate fund and would be in support of the proposed text changes under those conditions. Chairman Pro Tem Dell’Antonia questioned if a condition should be made to have a separate and sequestered account for parkland dedication fees collected. Ms. Mattox stated she would support an additional condition. Motion by Propp to approve the text amendments to Chapter 30/Zoning and Subdivision Regulations of the Oshkosh Municipal Code, specifically the City’s Subdivision Regulations that pertain to the provision of public sites and open spaces for park related purposes through dedication or through fees-in-lieu of dedication subject to the following condition: 1. Funds collected for parkland dedication be placed in a separate/sequestered account to be be used only for land acquisition purposes. Mr. Weston questioned if the funds would be sequestered only for land acquisition would it hurt the park improvement funds. Discussion followed regarding the need for more park acreage now and the ability of the Common Council to budget for park improvements and a mechanism needed to get parkland in new growth areas. Seconded by Mattox. Motion carried 5-1. VIII: DESIGNATION OF BOUNDARIES, APPROVAL OF PROJECT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH SHORE REDEVELOPMENT AREA The Redevelopment Authority of the City of Oshkosh requests the Plan Commission to review and approve the boundaries of and the project plan for the South Shore Redevelopment Area. The proposed district is located on the south side of the Fox River with the area extending from the Morgan manufacturing plant on the west to the Pioneer Resort and Marina on the east, with the southern boundary running along Eighth and Ninth Avenue (see attached district boundary map). The district encompasses 46.76 acres and contains approximately 106 tax parcels of which 23 are located in an office condominium. There are 69 separate property owners in the district. The Redevelopment Authority is proposing to create the district in order to commence redevelopment activities on a basis within the district. Mr. Kinney stated approval of the boundaries and project plan will enable the City to take formal actions that will unfold over a period of approximately 10 – 15 years to rehabilitate or preserve the South Shore Redevelopment Area. Mr. Kinney noted that an open house was held on July 9 and was well attended by 60 – 70 property owners in the area. He also stated the Redevelopment Authority took action on July 16 to approve the boundaries and project plan. Plan Commission Minutes 9 August 5, 2003 Mr. Gehling stated he is in support of this plan, however he doesn’t see any park developments or green space proposed for the area, and he is opposed to not having any access to the river. Mr. Kinney stated the concept plans show green space and the development of parks in the area and stressed that a riverwalk is a key element in the concept plan. He also made note of the trail system that is proposed to be tied into the Riverside Park development. He stated the actual projects in the area are not finalized at this time. Mrs. Propp asked what the advantages or disadvantages were of including the residential block in the 8th and 9th Avenue area in the project plan. Mr. Kinney stated the residential block, which in comprised of single family residences, was included because it is surrounded by non-single family uses which may be hard to retain. He stated by including that area the City can take a pro-active approach to maintain these properties through rehabilitation rehabilitation and possibly at some time in the future the block may be considered for acquisition and redevelopment. He stated 40-50% of the homes in the area are owner occupied. He stated the City intends to hold a meeting with these property owners in the next couple months to see what approach can be taken to ensure that blight and blighting influences are eliminated, even though that area may not be looked at for another 15 – 20 years. Ms. Mattox stated she agrees with Mr. Gehling’s comments regarding access to the river, although she is also concerned about parking spaces in the area and questioned if underground parking has been considered where the terrain would allow, or if a cost study of underground vs. surface parking has been done. Mr. Kinney stated that underground and attached parking will be encouraged in the area, just as steps are being taken in the Marion Rd./Pearl Ave. Redevelopment area and used the Division Street Redevelopment area as an example of what can be done to include underground or garage style parking. Chairman Pro Tem Dell’Antonia questioned what authority approving of the boundaries and the project plan would give the City. Mr. Kinney explained without approval they wouldn’t be able to acquire property or do land assemblage. He stated they wouldn’t be able to design plans for block grant funds, or work with property owners to rehabilitate or preserve their properties. Mr. Kinney stated the City will be able to ensure redevelopment is done in conformity with other City plans and will be complimentary with uses adjacent to the Main Street, Oregon Street, and 9th Avenue area. He stated the City would like to portray a vision that would encourage investment in the area that would be reinforced by the City’s long range plan for the South Shore area. Ms. Mattox questioned where the starting point would be for this redevelopment project. Mr. Burich displayed the map showing subareas of possible redevelopment in the district. Motion by Propp for approval of the boundaries of and the project plan for the South Shore Redevelopment Area. Seconded by Mattox. Motion carried 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:57 p.m. (Pressley/Propp) Unanimous. Respectfully submitted, DARRYN L. BURICH Principal Planner DLB/vlr